From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2003 - 19:25:42 GMT
Sam and all separatists:
I didn't edit much. The bit about non-negotiable checks was really just a
joke and so your response to that has been deleted.
Sam said:
...'ultimate values' - determine the overall structure. These ultimate
values
are what I claim to be "philosophically equivalent to a theology", for the
simple reason that I think the word 'god' (not God) can be substituted for
the phrase 'ultimate value' without loss of sense.
DMB says:
The highest values? The ultimate values? Equivalent to a theology? I just
don't see it that way. The idea behind separation of church and state is
that ultimate values, or the gods if you will, are not to be imposed by
political authority, but by the conscience of each person, by the various
theological systems that people might choose. The idea is to stay out of the
business of determining these values for others. This principle is not a
theology itself, but provides a framework in which all theological systems
can be accomodated. Sure, its easy to see that some people might accept this
principle as if it were an article of faith, but that doesn't transform
freedom or political principles into a religion, it only tells us about the
personality of that particular believer. So it might, in some certain cases,
be the psychological equivalent to a theology. But the phrase
"philosophically equivalent to a theology" strikes me as non-sense. I don't
mean that as an insult, I mean it literally makes no sense. To me it seems
as absurd as saying "mathematically equivalent to a poem". To quote Jon
Stewart, "Whaaaa?"
Sam said:
The Church/State separation is a static latch of a particular value
structure oriented around a certain highest value - one, I would argue,
descending from John Locke's subordination of religious beliefs to rational
evaluation (a good contender for the birth of modern thought, even more than
Descartes).
DMB says:
John Locke pretty much invented liberalism. Jefferson was practically
impersonating him when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Good
choice, Sam. But I think its more accurate to say that religious beliefs
were fenced off rather than subordinated. Sure, religion took a big hit
because of the Enlightenment and they certainly lost a great deal of
political power. A perfectly good baby was thrown out with the bathwater for
reasons I won't go into here, but I think the motivation was valid. People
had been killing each other over "ultimate values" at an alarming rate for
hundreds of years. It seems that the choices were few; endless wars, the
dominance of one theology at the expense of all the others, or religious
tolerance and pluralism. Are you saying tolerance and pluralism was a bad
choice? Are you saying that continued death and destruction is a better
choice? Are you saying that some kind of new Christiandom, some kind of
theological empire is a better choice? Please tell me you're not.
Sam said:
Now that particular value structure makes certain claims about religion and
rationality that are unavoidably judgements of value (something which SOM
thinkers would doubtless deny, but which is surely axiomatic from a MoQ
point of view). Hence my line of thought that the Church/State division is
itself theocratic in the way I described.
DMB says:
Again, I reject the notion that any judgement of value is theocratic. SOM
says that rationality is "value-free" and outside of morality, but the MOQ
says that science was only unconcerned with church morals. The MOQ says that
the intellectual level is a distinctly different set of values, one that is
supposed to BOTH include and transcend social values. This distinction is
what leads me to reject the idea that rationality or political principles is
equivalent to theology. As I see it these are as distinctly different from
each other as organisms are different from cities.
Sam said:
Perhaps the problem is what we count as 'religion' - because as you've said
many times, for you religion irrevocably tied in to the social level, and
can't be intellectual. I disagree with that.
DMB says:
I think religion is irrevocably tied in to the social level? No, not really.
Sorry if it comes across that way. I think religion is PRIMARILY social, but
not exclusively. It can be raised to the intellectual level as in philosophy
of religion or comparative religious studies. We can use the intellect to
examine our assumptions about religion or just about anything else. What I
object to, and this is really what were talking about, is when sectarian
unexamined social level religion tries to usurp or subordinate higher level
values. The separation of church and state prevents this by depriving
theologians of the political authority they'd need in order to do that.
Sam said:
So let me ask: how would you describe the value structure of which the
Church/State division is a static latch, and do you think there is a
governing value for it? (The intellectual level as such? In which case, what
is the guiding value of it?)
DMB says:
Governing values behind the separation clause? As I understand it, the MOQ
says that it is right and proper for the higher level the control the
excesses of the lower level. Just as social values tame and channel our
biological desires, so too does intellect tame the excesses of social level
values. Or so it should. It is only when biology trumps social values or
when social values trump intellectual values that we get into trouble. In
the MOQ morality is defined in this way, in a set a relationships between
levels. And this is no red herring. This kind of immorality is serious
business here in the US. There are Universities in Kentucky where it is
forbidden to use the word "evolution". This is a case of social level
religious values trying to trump science, which the faithful creationists
view as just another belief system, as "just a theory". (Apparently
oblivious to the scientific meaning of the word "theory" and the mountian of
evidence that supports it.) The 9th circuit court recently ruled that the
phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because
it violates the separation of church and state. The President and most
conservatives condemned this ruling. They'll very likely bring it to the
supreme court, the highest and final court, where your buddy Scalia will
probably lead the charge to overturn the ruling. Here in the US, this battle
is quite real. I view these would-be theocrats as reactionary and degenerate
and fear a great thing will be lost if they win this struggle.
I think I really do understand what you're saying. You say it better than
most, but I've heard it many times before. I guess we'll just have to agree
to disagee. This issue is huge here. Religion is at the heart of the most
important differences between liberals and conservatives, between secular
humanists and the faithful, between Democrats and Republicans. The struggle
between the two is what Pat Buchanan has called "the culture wars". We can
see the same sort of thing being played out on a global scale too. The
West's relationship with Islam and other traditional cultures is a different
version of these "culture wars" on a grand scale. I think Pirsig is saying
that this same struggle, between social and intellectual values, is behind
the horrors of the 20th century. Its no small thing.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 02 2003 - 19:25:46 GMT