Welcome friends!
I know I’ve been writing quite a bit about religion recently but maybe I can do just one more before I give it a little rest and turn to some other issues? Because I wanted to talk this time about a little article I read a few years ago by conservative columnist Michael Gerson that I thought really demonstrated the conceptual difficulties many social conservatives seem to run into when they try to make sense of the liberal and secular humanist worldview. This particular article was mostly about some sort of argument some people were having at some time about the influence or lack of influence of something called “dominionism” within conservative circles, which is something I’ve never actually heard about and don’t have any particular interest in delving into. So let’s skip the ninety percent of the article that dealt with that topic and just go on to the bit that caught my eye, which was the very last paragraph in which Mr. Gerson concluded his discussion with what I believe is a rather common conservative perspective on liberalism and secularism. In Mr. Gerson’s language, “…[S]ecularists often assume their view is the definition of neutrality and thus deserves a privileged public place. The argument that religion is fundamentally illiberal thus provides an excuse to treat it illiberally. Pluralism is defined as the silencing of religious people.” One hears this sort of thing all the time from conservatives but honestly I think it’s all based on a bit of conceptual or possibly even linguistic confusion. So let’s try to clear up a few things, OK?
Recall I’ve argued before that the core of the liberal ethos for me is the notion that we should allow one another do what we like unless our actions impinge in a serious way on other people in which case we need to get together via the democratic political system, debate about the ethics of whatever the situation happens to be, and come up with some kind of resolution.
Now to avoid any possible confusion about the issue let me just say I think it’s perfectly fine to have a debate about the liberal ethos and about whether there should or should not be a private realm in which government does not intrude, but let’s just be a little careful about how we talk about this issue. If we define government neutrality in this case to mean the government is simply not involved and thus neutral with respect to whatever private decisions someone may wish to make in this private realm, then what we’re debating is whether the government should or should not be neutral in the context of this private realm. In that case, I don’t think it would make a lot of sense to suggest those who support the liberal ethos are just assuming or pretending their position is more supportive of government neutrality than the opposing view. Under this definition of neutrality, those who support the liberal ethos would be more supportive of government neutrality with respect to the private realm and the religious position that government should be involved would be less supportive of government neutrality. Indeed, that’s what the whole debate would be about: the pros and cons of government neutrality in the private realm and the definition and boundaries of that private realm.
But there are other ways one might define neutrality and that’s where I’m afraid things start to get a little muddy. If one defines government neutrality not in terms of government interference or lack of interference with the person actually doing some activity in the private realm but in terms of the consistency of the government’s activity or lack of activity with one or another ethical position such as that expressed by the liberal ethos or by various religious theories of the more intrusive kind then of course there could never really be any such thing as government neutrality because either government activity would be consistent with a given ethical system or it wouldn’t. Either the government would get involved in the private realm or it would not. In that case then yes, it would certainly be misleading to suggest the liberal ethos was about government neutrality. Indeed, there would be no such thing as government neutrality.
Now I personally think it makes a lot more sense to think about government neutrality in the former sense and to think about the ethical debate over the liberal ethos as being in part about whether government should or should not be neutral with respect to activity taking place in the private realm. It just seems a little odd and confusing to me to say the government is not really being neutral when it lets someone do whatever he or she wants because the idea that government should do that is consistent with some ethical systems and not others or with the wishes of those who support some ethical systems and not with the wishes of those who support others. To me that way of thinking is just so confusing because it really just pushes everything back a level. After determining there is no such thing as government neutrality under this definition of neutrality we would then still have to talk about whether government should allow people to do whatever they like in the private realm, although we’d obviously have to come up with some other terminology to describe what the government would be doing in that case. I mean come on, we’re never going to get anywhere at that rate.
Another problem with trying to transmute a debate about the liberal ethos into a debate about religion is that the relationship between the two issues is just very loosey goosey and thus liable to generate confusion. For example, someone who supports the liberal ethos would logically support the right of someone who wishes to apply religious precepts to his or her own behavior in the private realm because under the liberal ethos that would be the latter person’s personal choice. So it just seems a little weird to me to suggest that someone who supports the liberal ethos in this context is setting himself or herself in opposition to religion in some global sense. I mean, yes and no. I know I’ve argued plenty of times that many religions tend to have some (well, OK, usually a lot of) difficulty with the liberal ethos and a distinctive feature of many religions is that they don’t really make any distinction between the private realm and public realm. Instead, they typically provide some rules and precepts one is supposed to follow in one’s private and public life and those rules sometimes explicitly or implicitly involve one’s ostensible responsibility to get other people to follow those same rules never mind about the ethical or religious views of those other people. But religion doesn’t have to be that way. I think there are plenty of religious people, at least in this country, who manage to hold religious views and yet reconcile those views with the liberal ethos using the general proposition that religion does not give one carte blanche to meddle in other people’s private affairs and that everyone is ultimately responsible for their own ethical and religious choices. In other words, I think it’s a little confusing to suggest the reason secular liberals don’t want government intruding into the private realm is that religions typically support that type of thing and they are opposed to religion. To my mind it’s more that liberals don’t want government intruding into the private realm because of their social ethics and views on the proper relationship of the government and the individual and one of the things they find troubling about many religions is that those religions advocate systems of social ethics that are inconsistent with those views. In other words, I think trying to make it be all about religion is putting one’s cart before one’s horse.
So let’s move on to the second potentially relevant context under the liberal ethos: the realm in which one’s actions have a significant effect on other people and we therefore need to get into a debate about the ethics of the situation and decide how we think we should resolve it through government action if necessary. (That’s the way of civilization, anyway. I suppose we could also just let the people in question duke it out however they might and may the best man or woman win, which I suppose one could say is the way of anarchy, but you know I’m not a big fan of anarchy, right? Actually I’m not that bad a shot but my martial arts skills just aren’t where they need to be just yet.) Now in this context I don’t think the liberal argument is that there’s anything intrinsically wrong with trying to apply one’s religious views to the issue at hand. I think it’s typically more about the merits of the religious thought being thus applied, which I think is rather a different issue. That is to say, liberals and secular humanists typically have their own liberal and secular ways of thinking about these issues, which they obviously feel are superior to the religious way, and they are engaging in the sort of debate one would expect and encourage in that situation. Appeals to authority and supernatural goings on are just not very compelling bases for ethical systems for many people. Nor do I think many liberals would conceive of government as being neutral in this case. If we’re using government to resolve an interpersonal conflict of this type then someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. They both can’t get what they want. That’s the whole problem. So the resolution can hardly be neutral with respect to the interests of the parties to the conflict. I suppose it could still be neutral in other ways, such as applying the same resolution regardless of the identities of the people involved, but that’s yet another issue. And since we don’t have neutrality with respect to the parties that are actually involved how easy it must be to get a little confused and start talking about a comparable lack of neutrality with respect to third parties advocating various resolutions to the conflict. And how easy in that case to attempt to apply the same argument to activity taking place in the private realm where third parties may of course still have different ideas but there is no compelling direct interpersonal conflict that would call forth government activity in the first place. Wait a minute, is that what’s going on? Shifting perspectives combined with shifting contexts that render the shifting perspectives sometimes significant and sometimes not? So tricky to keep these things straight.
Well, my head is starting to hurt just a little bit so let me wind things up with an amusing little dream I had the other night that touches on some of these issues. In this dream I was sitting in a cafe in central Tehran one sunny afternoon sipping some delightful mint tea and listening to a fascinating monologue by someone calling himself Abu al-Gersoni and in walks this cowboy.
al-Gersoni: Verily, the government should chop the head off anyone who fails to observe correct behavior in his or her private life!
(Applause and ululating from the crowd.)
Cowboy: Dag nab it all, don’t y’all ever think about yer personal freedom? The gubment should allow people to make their own choices with respect to behavior that’s got no significant impact on other people. Why don’t you give that a try some time?
al-Gersoni: The corruption of the West has indeed affected your reason my strangely dressed friend. By suggesting the government should act in a way that is consistent with your beliefs and not mine you are arguing against my personal freedom to have the government do as I wish. I say to the government, kill! You say, do not kill! But the government can only do one, can it not? Thus, how can the government support the personal freedom of us both? Your theory that government could ever be consistent with personal freedom is a sham!
(More applause and ululating, plus someone fires a gun into the ceiling.)
Cowboy: Yep, I reckon you’re right pardner. If you think about it thataway the gubment really is just a tool people can use to force other people to do what they want, such as allowing other people to do what they want! There ain’t no such thing as personal freedom or gubment neutrality when it comes to personal behavior! It’s them lying liberals agin’. I’m a goin’ home, buying me a bigger gun, and joining that thar Tea Party! No more gubment!
al-Gersoni: That’s not really where I was going with it but sure, I suppose that works too. The main point is that the only choice is anarchy or an oppressive authoritarian state. Conservatives of the world, unite! Wait, that didn’t come out right. Let the camel of conservatism eat in all our gardens!
(Applause, ululating, whooping, and more shooting. A lot more shooting.)
That was the end of the dream. I awoke in a cold sweat with this great hankering for a falafel burger. I know, it was weird.
References
Michael Gerson. August 22, 2011. An unholy war on the Tea Party. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-22/opinions/35271813_1_michele-bachmann-dominionist-bachmann-or-perry.
