Display:
True enough, but I would argue that it's not that religious groups have no business insinuating themselves in governance, but that religious groups ought to have no institutional role in governance greater than any other element of civil society.  Everyone has to be able to insinuate themselves in the mechanics of governance in a democratic society or else just a governing elite is left to do it.
by santiago on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 05:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
religious organisations can play a role in political discourse IF they abandon their claims to being on higher ground, because they supposedly are defending uncontestable absolutes. Religious organisations can't do debate because they're never wrong: their whole purpose is to propagate the absolutes they stand behind, and no compromise is possible for absolutes.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 03:53:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But in practise, it is hard to distinguish between a group of individuals exercising their democratic right to participate in governance, and who happen to be religious, versus a religious group arrogating undue influence on secular matters.

Which presents another good reason why political advocacy groups should not be allowed to claim religious exemptions in their hiring practises, etc. It ferrets out the worst fundagelicals without having to snoop around at their internal meetings.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 06:12:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Aren't human rights just another claim to incontestable absolutes? (That's what Michel Foucault argued anyway -- that the rights-based discourse of law and the state merely replaced the tradition based discourse of the church in modernity, and not necessarily providing any greater human freedom in thee process.)
by santiago on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 02:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Charter of Fundamental rights codifies the rights of EU citizens.  They are not absolutes, they are not incontestable, and sometimes one right has to be balanced against another - reference my previous example of the rights of a child to access to its parents "accept when not in the child's own best interest".  The European Court of Justice has the task of adjudicating on the correct balance in specific instances as does the International Court of Justice and other Courts set up be international treaty between sovereign states.

The very fact that human rights are so controversial - e.g. in Gaza - should make it obvious that they are not universally accepted absolutes.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 02:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
True, but you won't hear that disclaimer from anyone arguing for any specific right to respected, which is why it is equivalent to a religious groups' political claims for social justice in some area. A claim to specific rights for women, for example, is a claim to some presumed truth about decency and dignity, not might or mere circumstance. And that's no different than arguing that respect for women comes from God's intentions for humankind.
by santiago on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 03:20:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series