1. Comment #85677 by Russell Blackford on November 6, 2007 at 8:11 pm

I'll get in first - I wasn't, hmmm, entirely happy with how this turned out: some of the editing of this version, published in the magazine Australian Rationalist, wasn't my preference. But my only real gripe is that the word "moksa" (as I'd written it) was changed to "motsa". This makes no sense. Presumably, the magazine's spell-check program went mad or something.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

2. Comment #85678 by BAEOZ on November 6, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Good article Russell. The more voices and viewpoints we get out there, hopefully the more legitimate our shared positions will seem.

[more comments by me below] :P

Other Comments by BAEOZ

3. Comment #85679 by BAEOZ on November 6, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Bugger, Russell got in before me. Age before beauty I suppose*.

* That was a joke! I'm not ageist or under any illusions of being a beauty. :P

Thanks for fixing the edit button Josh! Good job.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

4. Comment #85684 by Russell Blackford on November 6, 2007 at 8:27 pm

The edit function doesn't seem to working today, so everyone will need to be very careful not to make too many typos. Eeek!

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

5. Comment #85685 by admin on November 6, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Sorry about that, the edit and delete buttons work again. I screwed up today and had to replace some of the URL rewrites. Missed a couple of them.

Josh

Other Comments by admin

6. Comment #85693 by monkey2 on November 6, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Well done Russell. It's good to see the politics of atheism aired.

Other Comments by monkey2

7. Comment #85742 by irate_atheist on November 7, 2007 at 1:26 am

Hear hear!

Other Comments by irate_atheist

8. Comment #85752 by Logicel on November 7, 2007 at 2:36 am

Good article; Russell provides a pragmatic handle for the separation of state and religion, using that handle to open the door to why the new atheists are useful to such an important endeavor.

Other Comments by Logicel

9. Comment #85765 by Russell Blackford on November 7, 2007 at 3:16 am

Thanks, folks. I'm also open to criticism of the thesis.

BAEOZ, I think you mean age and beauty before ... hmmmmm, youth and enthusiasm perhaps? Mind you, your hair isn't that far behind mine in the greying stakes. Give it a few years.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

10. Comment #85769 by VanYoungman on November 7, 2007 at 4:05 am

What's to criticize? You have now legitimized all of us bastards. Thank you Russell!

Other Comments by VanYoungman

11. Comment #85771 by epeeist on November 7, 2007 at 4:09 am

Comment #85765 by Russell Blackford

BAEOZ, I think you mean age and beauty before ... hmmmmm, youth and enthusiasm perhaps?

What you want is the motto from the European vets fencers (and yes, I know it is derivative).

"Age and treachery will always defeat youth and skill"

Other Comments by epeeist

12. Comment #85773 by BAEOZ on November 7, 2007 at 4:13 am

Russell Blackford:

BAEOZ, I think you mean age and beauty before ... hmmmmm, youth and enthusiasm perhaps? Mind you, your hair isn't that far behind mine in the greying stakes. Give it a few years.

Yeah yeah, rub it in. I thought you philosopher types were above that sort of stuff. I'm not a philosopher, so it's OK for me. :)

Epeeist:

"Age and treachery will always defeat youth and skill"

I'm so glad your on our side. Imagine a nasty physicist fencer who was a godbot!

Other Comments by BAEOZ

13. Comment #85809 by Flagellant on November 7, 2007 at 8:39 am

An interesting and well-argued article, Russell. I wonder slightly, though, about how far we should go in appeasing the religiosi.

I was interested in your implicit 'bargain' that the state might '…bend rules when it can, though not where it has a compelling interest based on something like public safety' (p.47). I note your further caveats but I think we need to be very careful about allowing rule-bending and here are a few thoughts that might help flesh out the exceptions.

When one looks at the religious-secular boundary, I think you first have to make a clear distinction between religious beliefs which are merely silly, private, and therefore 'acceptable' and those which are nasty or which intrude into secular society. I'm all in favour of letting the religiosi practise (silly) things which do not impinge on secular life: not eating pork or shellfish, not drinking alcohol, not using power on a Saturday, or having nothing to do with any technology as recent as the 20th Century, for example. But 'in your face' things are different. The French seem to have it right by banning overtly religious symbols in the classroom and I sometimes think that they ought to go further. Indeed, I frequently describe religion as being an activity only for consenting adults in private.

However, when one finds the silliness intruding significantly into secular life: Mohammedans in Sainsbury's being given dispensations from handling bottles of alcohol, eruvim in Golders Green, Sunday laws designed to make Sunday 'special', and restrictive and enveloping clothing for women in public situations, one has to consider being less tolerant.

Then, there are the nasty bits: when polygyny is implicitly acceptable but not polyandry, outright interference with termination clinics, genital mutilation, '(dis)honour' killings, and public condemnation of homosexuality, I can't help feeling that we ought to tighten the limits of acceptability here and this might include dealing with kosher and halal butchery, too. The UK has begun it by imprisoning Mohammedan protesters displaying 'Behead those who insult Islam' posters on the grounds that such posters and slogans are incitements to violence. Note that we don't need special legislation, but the police need to be pushed - all of these nasty practices are already covered. Religions get a free ride too often, solely because their practices are regarded as 'sacred', not because they're acceptable. (Unfortunately, the UK has recently gone slightly in the wrong direction by giving religion a bit more legal protection.) This is the problem with bending over backwards: we do it too much already.

I'm very interested in the way in which things work in Australia; it seems you have avoided both establishmentarianism and a de facto religious state. The US has a bit to learn from you, in this respect (lol).

Nice piece. I always recommend Dennett when people talk about atheism being 'shrill'.




Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

14. Comment #85816 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 9:12 am

Indeed, countries such as the UK, with its formally-established church, might be considered sufficiently tolerant, or accommodating, to meet the most urgent political imperatives that can be deduced from my four points.

The Church of England don't do Saints so you are safe from beatification.

Thus, those of us who favour a stricter, and sharper, separation of church and state may have to find other arguments.

The presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords is an unacceptable anachronism and I would have thought that their removal is a basic tenet of UK secularism. I had hoped that your four points would be a sufficient argument and I'm not yet sure that they aren't. It's a shame that they will have to be used out of context to avoid your conciliatory musing.

Other Comments by monkey2

15. Comment #85886 by SilentMike on November 7, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Very good article. I really enjoyed reading it.

Other Comments by SilentMike

16. Comment #85899 by clodhopper on November 7, 2007 at 12:46 pm

While the Catholic Church claims not to seek the enforcement of any specifically religious doctrines, or religious teaching about morals, by means of the state's coercive powers, this seems dubious.

I don't think you need to shy away from much stronger language here Russell. For example, with regard to abortion, the official policy of the Catholic church is that Catholic politicians who vote for abortion are to refrain from taking communion until they change their political stance. This also applies to Catholics who vote for pro-choice politicians. The policy was re-iterated by Ratzinger in 'Sacramentum Caritatis' on 13/03/07.

They will similarly be trying to actively influence or interfere with policy formation in the reproductive technology and bio-ethical arenas.

I honestly don't know how many Catholics would sign up to the seperation of church and state without fingers firmly crossed behind backs.

Clear, concise, very well written and readable article. Are you submitting it to any UK publications?

You can have your mocha now ;-)

with chocolate sprinkles

Other Comments by clodhopper

17. Comment #85932 by kaiserkriss on November 7, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Well done Russell, I have passed on the link to your well argued and written article to several of my theist and atheist friends.

Trying to find common ground where both sides can see eye to eye is a great strategy in showing that the new atheist is not the radical, immoral caricature the more blatant fleas paint us to be.. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

18. Comment #85951 by Russell Blackford on November 7, 2007 at 3:04 pm

clodhopper, I'm keen to get material like this published in the UK and the US but feel totally naive about the markets there. Zeus knows, I feel naive enough about the markets in Australia. We won't clutter up the thread with the difficulties experienced by all writers in getting published in fields and localities where they have no reputation built up, but any tips about UK markets by way of pm, in the forum, on my blog, etc., would be very welcome.

Next year, I'm hoping to be a lot more publicly aggressive about these issues - and the bioethical ones that are my more usual stock in trade. I'm prepared to go out there and fight the fight, and look to get material published in traditional markets internationally. It's going to be difficult, though. The last couple of years, I was more focused on building up some respectable publications in academic journals - and had some success. This year has largely been devoted to trying to build up some presence on the internet - with a bit less success.

Flagellant and others, I also recommend Udo Schuklenk's blog:

http://ethxblog.blogspot.com/

Udo sometimes gets into these issues. He is of the school who thinks of the word "atheist" as having quite a strong meaning, and so calls himself an "agnostic", but he's as hostile to religion as any New Atheist, and it shows in his discussions of ethical issues. One of his pet peeves is conscientious objection rights for the religious.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

19. Comment #85964 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 3:48 pm

There are many widely-agreed goals that the state can pursue independent of its attitude, one way or the other, to religious claims. These secular goals include peace and security, economic productivity and efficiency, social co-ordination, the alleviation of suffering and poverty, and so on.

Education deserves to be mentioned as more important than just "and so on". It has relevance to peace and security, economic productivity and efficiency, social co-ordination and the eleviation of suffering and poverty. Do you not have religious schools in Australia? I would have thought that their removal is yet another basic tenet of UK secularism.

Other Comments by monkey2

20. Comment #85973 by Russell Blackford on November 7, 2007 at 4:24 pm

monkey2, you make a very good point about the importance of education.

But let me say something in fairness to the religionists. Back in Locke's time, the role of the state and the secular law was relatively limited. It was arguable that that role should be little more than one of protecting our lives, liberty, and property - whether from criminals or from external enemies. Since about, say, the 1870s the role of the state has grown markedly, partly in response to a need to ameliorate the harsh outcomes of unbridled capitalism.

There has been an issue about the relationship between corporation and state, as well as the issue about the relationship between church and state. I tend to call this the post-industrial role of the state (our Libertarian friends would oppose this role pretty much in its entirety, but I'm not with them).

In part (perhaps a relatively small part, but I'm interested in being fair, even if some of the religious folk are unlikely to return the favour), the current problems arise from the state doing things, for perfectly good secular reasons, that cut across the religionists' moral views. I disagree with those moral views - I consider them misguided, ungrounded, miserable, etc. - but I'm prepared to cut the religionists a bit more slack than some. Exactly how much, I'm honestly not sure.

I think Locke saw it clearly - the state has to do what the state has to do. It shouldn't be motivated by persecuting people with a particular religious belief, but if its actions, based on good secular reasons, have an adverse effect on someone who has a particular belief, so be it. I think it's now a bit more complicated.

But this is just another example of why there are grey areas, why the precise character and effect of a doctrine such as separation of church and state is always going to be contested, and why no amount of wrangling about separationism will ever be a substitute for direct critique of religious doctrine. We really do need both and it's important - and good - that RD and so on have challenged the taboo against the latter.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

21. Comment #85999 by Dr Benway on November 7, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Know what else rocks? These Christmas cards:

Stop the lies
Evolve your beliefs
Heathen's greetings

Other Comments by Dr Benway

22. Comment #86004 by BAEOZ on November 7, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Dr. Benway:

Know what else rocks?

Dr. Benway's large, perfect, member?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

23. Comment #86005 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Russell
Locke's assertion, however laudable, that ..... 'if the states actions, based on good secular reasons, have an adverse effect on someone who has particular belief, so be it' .....does not seem, in the case of education, to apply. The effect of a secular education should be favourable on the child and through them, possibly favourable, on the welfare of the parent and ultimately, therefore, on the welfare of society.
Such a state action, based on good secular reasons, does not cut across the religionist's moral view. Education is not a moral view or issue in the sense that abortion might be seen to be, with a canon that requires obedience at the ballot box. Education is not a religious doctrine to be argued with and agree to differ. It is a social welfare issue of the highest importance.
It seems to me that secular education fits squarely into your point No.2 'The independence of secular goals'. Religious education belongs in Sunday schools and alpha courses and it fits squarely into your point No.3 'Individualism in personal salvation' within which you envisage the freedom, of say evangelical Christians, to spread their doctrine of spiritual salvation.
If there are to be grey areas let them be hijabs and turbans, silver crosses and chocolate christs. Now is not the time to allow religious education a free pass.

Other Comments by monkey2

24. Comment #86007 by Bonzai on November 7, 2007 at 8:07 pm

clodhopper,

For example, with regard to abortion, the official policy of the Catholic church is that Catholic politicians who vote for abortion are to refrain from taking communion until they change their political stance. This also applies to Catholics who vote for pro-choice politicians. The policy was re-iterated by Ratzinger in 'Sacramentum Caritatis' on 13/03/07.

..
I honestly don't know how many Catholics would sign up to the seperation of church and state without fingers firmly crossed behind backs.

I don't know where you are, but I would be very surprised if the Pope is taken seriously in the developed world outside a handful of exceptions like Ireland, Poland and Italy. The Church can make whatever proclamation it wants but that doesn't mean anyone would listen. Even traditionally Catholic countries like Spain and Mexico are playing hard ball with the Church over same sex marriage and abortion now. So I really can't see a resurgence of Catholic theocracies in spite of the crazy talks of some old men in the Vatican.

I am in Canada. When one or two of our Bishops made threats of excommunication against politicians who supported same sex marriage they were roundly blasted in the media. Even many Catholics who opposed SSM were appalled by the blatant meddling in politics by the Church. The threat was quietly withdrawn when the Bishops had eggs all over their faces.

Recently the leader of our provincial Conservative Party destroyed his career by promising to give government fundings to faith schools. He started off the election in good shape, but his campaign took a nose dive after he made the announcement. In the end the party lost the election by a big margin, he lost his own Parliament seat and soon will be out of a job as the party is likely going to force him out. All pundits agree fundings for faith schools was the issue that did him in.

So there you go, religion doesn't pay in Canadian politics.

In Canada religion is respected in the way the Queen is: she gets respect as long as she just smiles and waves but keeps her mouth firmly shut. I wouldn't call that a "free ride". I suppose that is the way most developed countries are with the exception of the U.S. and a handful others.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Catholics's commitment to the separation of Church and State. In most Western countries Catholics practice contraception, shop on Sundays and criticize the Pope whenever they feel like. They are not like the borgs. In the developing world it may be a somewhat different story but they also have other serious problems besides religious obscurantism.

Other Comments by Bonzai

25. Comment #86078 by detox on November 8, 2007 at 4:43 am

Russell, I enjoyed your essay.

My first reaction was you were being overly conciliatory and the language wasn't robust enough for my taste. But then I suppose that was part of your argument about atheism being too strident and as such understandable.

Secondly, your four points had the flavour of a nascent atheist manifesto. It seems to me that however devoutly we may wish for the separation of church and state, rational argument, such as you define, is not going to achieve the desired eventuality - on its own. At some stage a politician is going to have to endorse the argument and put it on to the political agenda.

Which brings me to the question: what are we going to do about it?

As monkey2 points out the existence of bishops in the House of Lords, here in the UK, is a direct example of the union of church and state. For the reasons you suggest it is to be opposed but other than writing articles and publishing books bemoaning the fact, I reiterate my question: what are we going to do about it?

Sorry if I'm being shrill and I appreciate that if I pose the question I shouldn't rely on you to come up with an answer without positing my own first but - if the 'New Atheism rocks', it is doing it in its parent's garage and we need it to be doing a stadium tour.

Other Comments by detox

26. Comment #86080 by Dr Benway on November 8, 2007 at 4:50 am

Which brings me to the question: what are we going to do about it?

Run this ad.
Or this ad.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

27. Comment #86083 by Philip1978 on November 8, 2007 at 5:06 am

Dr Benway
I am so proud of you, that ad goes a long way to proving Atheism rocks- Muse are a great band!!

Russell, thank you for that, I can honestly say its a pleasure reading your work, keep it going and I will keep reading!

I took the time to look at all my previous comments and I have noticed I mention tea a lot, so in keeping with tradition, I think I need more Tea, tally ho!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

28. Comment #86088 by detox on November 8, 2007 at 5:23 am

Thanks Dr B. Didn't know the Secular Party of Australia existed. Glad it does. Now all it needs is a few members of the House of Representatives (hopefully in the elections in a couple of weeks time) but it answers my question, at least in Aus.

Other Comments by detox

29. Comment #86089 by epeeist on November 8, 2007 at 5:27 am

Comment #85951 by Russell Blackford

I'm keen to get material like this published in the UK and the US but feel totally naive about the markets there.

You might try the Guardian's "Comment is Free" columns. They seem to publish quite a lot on religion. Try writing to Polly Toynbee as a starter :-D

Other Comments by epeeist

30. Comment #86110 by detox on November 8, 2007 at 6:56 am

The article by Lori Lipman Brown on this site also goes some way towards answering my question from a US perspective but it seems somewhat low key.

Other Comments by detox

31. Comment #86196 by Russell Blackford on November 8, 2007 at 4:26 pm

detox, what we do about it depends on our talents and skills. I'm a writer and a philosopher, and I'm also honed by years of work in courtrooms to be at least a moderately skilled public debater (but nowhere near in the Hitchens class). I do stuff with words. In philosophical mode, as in this article, I'm kind of honour-bound to examine the arguments dispassionately. The spoken version was a bit more colourful, with a lot more barbs and jokes.

Anyway, we all need to do what we can.

An important point that didn't find its way into the written version, but which I think must be stressed, is the one that Eddie Tabash made in the talk we all saw recently. In the US in particular, religious intellectuals have been trying to seize the intellectual high ground of constitutional theory and philosophy of religion (the point I made in my talk was only about the latter). For the last two or three decades, they've put huge effort into cultivating bright young religious scholars, and it's paid off.

One thing that some of us can do is simply participate in those areas and try to encourage young secular scholars to do so. If we lose the intellectual high ground, as we've been doing to some extent, we lose an enormous long-term strategic advantage. Yet, to take the philosophy of religion example, secular philosophers have been deserting this in the past thirty years or so for what they might have considered more rewarding fields. Partly out of complacency, we've been losing our stake in a field that should be a powerhouse of secular critique.

As a result, it's now a bit jarring to chance upon a statement, such as I saw a while ago in the 1990 edition of Kai Nielsen's Ethics Without God ... where Nielsen suggests that his own earlier works, and such contributions as J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism, were "essentially mopping-up operations in the wake of the philosophical and scientific developments since the Enlightenment." Nielsen couldn't have been more wrong. A quarter of a century after the publication of J.L. Mackie's book, things look very different in the academy; a distinctive Christian philosophy, represented by our friends Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and a host of others, is now well-entrenched, perhaps even numerically dominant.

So one thing that those of us who are more academic in our talents and skills can do is get right with Tabash on this point. The religionists' strategy of building up the intellectual powerhouse of Christian philosophy did not have a dramatic immediate effect, but it has paid off big-time in the longer run. We can try to counter it by challenging the Christian intellectuals right now, but we can also think strategically. If nothing else, we need to get out the message to bright young secularists that such fields as constitutional theory (particularly in the US) and philosophy of religion are enormously important.

Meanwhile, yes, there are more immediate activist things to do like forming political parties,creating YouTube videos, writing op.ed. pieces for the popular media, and on and on. Really, anything that challenges the truth-claims of religion and its encroachment on public policy is worth doing.

One beauty of the New Atheist books is that they provide a rallying point. Now we're all rallying and sharing knowledge, we can understand more clearly what has been happening over the past decades, how patiently the US religious right has been planning its assault on secularism, and how urgent it is for us all to do what we can to respond.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

32. Comment #86208 by zarcus on November 8, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Russell Blackford,

Since it appears you are advocating acting in unison, I wonder what you think of Sam Harris' opinions on this issue as presented at the AAI?

Other Comments by zarcus

33. Comment #86222 by darlets on November 8, 2007 at 6:42 pm

I just discovered the Australia Secular Party yesterday.

You should be able to vote for them in the senate in all the states (They have two in each state).

http://www.secular.org.au/election.php

They don' have Senators running in the A.C.T or N.T

Please note they didn't get on the ballad paper as a party so you're best to check the above link for their group or names directly.

Family first got a senator in with
210,567 votes last time. I see no reason if all the Aussies Atheists go their butt into gear we couldn't get a secular party senator or two (or twelve).

By the looks of things they don't have a lot to spend on advertising so it's all going to have to be word of mouth. So if you know anyone that may be interested in them please forward their website to them.

Other Comments by darlets

34. Comment #86285 by Russell Blackford on November 8, 2007 at 11:46 pm

zarcus, I respect Harris and will always give some weight to his opinion, and in any event I don't expect anyone to be intellectually dishonest. All cats around here (including me), not sheep.

That said, I don't really agree with Harris: I think that "atheism" and its cognates are perfectly good words.

What I do think, however, is that we should be working as closely as we can with whoever is prepared to make common cause with us on important issues. That may mean working with a whole coalition of freethinkers, and even (genuinely!) moderate religionists, on such issues as church/state separation.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford