in the public sphere, the argument goes, one's religious views must be put forward with diffidence and circumspection. You can still have them and express them - that's what separates us from theocracies and tyrannies - but they should be worn lightly. Not only must there be no effort to make them into the laws of the land, but they should not be urged on others in ways that make them uncomfortable. What religious beliefs are owed - and this is a word that appears again and again in the recent debate - is "respect"; nothing less, nothing more.

The thing about respect is that it doesn't cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don't bother me.

This is, increasingly, what happens to strongly held faiths in the liberal state. Such beliefs are equally and indifferently authorized as ideas people are perfectly free to believe, but they are equally and indifferently disallowed as ideas that might serve as a basis for action or public policy.

Strongly held faiths are exhibits in liberalism's museum; we appreciate them, and we congratulate ourselves for affording them a space, but should one of them ask of us more than we are prepared to give - ask for deference rather than mere respect - it will be met with the barrage of platitudinous arguments that for the last week have filled the pages of newspapers.

Stanley Fish strikes at a nerve. What he is missing is that a responsible believer wishes his ideas to win in the open marketplace of ideas rather then through force. If everyone agrees with you that 1+1=5 because you've got the most guns then what have you really won? By respecting people's individual right to make decisions about what they believe you create an environment where the best ideas win, rather then those supported by the most influential people. If you want someone else to join in your strongly held belief you actually have to convince them that you are right, rather then passing legislation requiring them to go along with it, or simply blowing them up if they don't comply. The use of force to project an idea is an admission that you're wrong.

The fundamental idea of the islamists isn't rooted on a side of the western culture war that he describes. It seeks to transcend it. The islamists beleive the tension in western culture illustrated by Fish's article is a problematic side effect of Christianity which Islamism resolves. I don't agree with them. I think they are just idealoges, like Fish, and I'd offer that we aren't going to win by becoming them.

in the public sphere, the argument goes, one's religious views must be put forward with diffidence and circumspection. You can still have them and express them - that's what separates us from theocracies and tyrannies - but they should be worn lightly. Not only must there be no effort to make them into the laws of the land, but they should not be urged on others in ways that make them uncomfortable. What religious beliefs are owed - and this is a word that appears again and again in the recent debate - is "respect"; nothing less, nothing more.

The thing about respect is that it doesn't cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don't bother me.

This is, increasingly, what happens to strongly held faiths in the liberal state. Such beliefs are equally and indifferently authorized as ideas people are perfectly free to believe, but they are equally and indifferently disallowed as ideas that might serve as a basis for action or public policy.

Strongly held faiths are exhibits in liberalism's museum; we appreciate them, and we congratulate ourselves for affording them a space, but should one of them ask of us more than we are prepared to give - ask for deference rather than mere respect - it will be met with the barrage of platitudinous arguments that for the last week have filled the pages of newspapers.

this scary argument is from nyt and i found it in the International Herald Tribune
Stanley Fish, a law professor, seems to be arguing for theocracy and failing to understand that liberalism emerged out of the religious conflicts which followed the Reformation. In England we had a civil war and Christmas was banned by the Puritans, fundamentalist Protestants. From the English Civil War we get the philospher John Locke and the birth of liberal philosophy, the birth of human rights thinking and a theory of government as something which rises up from the people and builds upon individual liberty. Individuals bind together to form a commonwealth, thence authority rather than the Divine Right of Kings, a top down theory.
Attempts were made and failed to allow religious diversity in England.
As a result of the reactionary backlash which was the attempt to introduce uniformity to religious belief and practice post 1688 many Christians of diverse sects fled to America in search of religious freedom.
As inheritors of a philosophical school which had seen religious wars and persecution, the American founding fathers choose free speech. Free speech is not simply an idea it is perhaps a meta meme in that it is the provision of a space in which memes can interact.
What Stanley Fish dismisses as a museum is a rich and vital ocean with diverse tides, currents and eddies. Strongly held religious beliefs are fine unless and until they impinge on the rights of others. In the idea space all ideas are not s... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]