Religious moderatism empowers religious fundamentalism by affirming the false premises that religious fundamentalists rely on.

In order to argue against a religious fundamentalist in an atheistic society, all you have to do is point out that the religion, itself is false -- and then they have the burden of proof to demonstrate the contrary. AKA, the anti-fundamentalism side gets the high ground.

In order to argue against a religious fundamentalist in a religiously moderate society, you have to sorta walk the fine line of affirming that the religion in question is true while arguing that the fundamentalist doctrine is untrue. In that case, you're on even footing, arguing interpretations of the same text, which really sucks since religious interpretations are subjective by nature.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

CopperCicada · M

In a pluralistic modern democratic society, religion is irrelevant. Government and the society it represents make no stake in religion, no defense or attack of it. Religion becomes like any other private activity. Growing heirloom apples, collecting antique cars, having three-ways in motel rooms, reading Stephen King novels, collecting salt and pepper shakers. That’s it. No more, no less.

I think Atatürk had the right idea in this regard. He abolished the Ottoman caliphate, removed Islam as the state religion, eliminated sharia for secular law, and banished religious interference in government. It sounds like a foreign thing, but it’s relevant to the American experiment. He created a modern society that was secular, democratic, and republican, with sovereignty in the hands of the people.

I would say all these principles are inherent in the American founding documents and the documents of other modern democracies. One aspect of Atatürk’s Six Arrows (Alti Ok) that seems relevant is Laicism. A step beyond secularism, but actively banishing religion from the public sphere. The public place is a secular place, and is the place for secular language, facts, reason. Period. Religious interjection should be cut off.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m actually a religious person. But this is the only way people can have any religious life in a modern pluralistic society.

Public insertions of religious expression in what should be a secular society are problematic in many ways. In one sense, people would argue that bringing their faith into government or the work place is natural as their faith defines their values. Well, great. Just state your values. Some God or texts backing you up is irrelevant. Also religious excursions into the public space are forms of virtue signaling. So we just end up having a meta conversation in the subtext of our secular work as a society. One that is in a private language. It also implicitly sets a tone of religious conflict or conflict between religion and the secular life.

I think this is the destructive part of American public life. We have something so far from something like Atatürk’s Six Arrows that we openly tolerate and work around overt and manifest insertions of religious expression into a society that should be pluralistic and secular. And so we have de fact religious activity as social and political function.