Why not use religious arguments in public debate?

Michael Jensen (of Moore Theological College) has written an interesting article at abc religion online, suggesting that religious arguments may be legitimate in public debate. This is a slightly edited version of my comments there (forgive my terrible vanity, readership). 

I think the validity of argumentation in the public arena depends on connecting to the unconsciously held ideas of the public. In times when the public believed that (or assumed everyone else believed and therefore acted as if) the best available knowledge was in the bible, religious arguments could be made for almost anything - even torture and execution. These days, the best available knowledge is widely considered to be science, except that science rightly holds aloof from the mess of politics, and gives us little help (see Alister McGrath's article at the same site). The next best available knowledge is up for grabs - and most of us choose a portfolio of our favourite sources and set our political sails accordingly. 

Ideally, enough commonality of background would remain that it would still be possible to have a conversation, but given the horrible kludge we call a nation-state, there's no guarantees. If you look at the US political divide, the economic positions are held with such conviction that the 1% trying to have a serious conversation are inaudible.

Anyway, political theology: every political position stakes out an implied system of origin, meaning, morality, destiny etc for humanity. The only valid argumentation for your opponent uses their reality, so I think those living in the larger religious reality should be able to make a valid argument most of the time. If not, there needs to be non-argumentative exchange of background until argument becomes possible.


One example of a religious position at odds with today's background is the New Testament's rather censorius statements on women.  The non-religious position wishes to pick and choose and develop a robust, proven ethics from experience and insight.  But there is a danger in the circularity of assembling the ethics you like as you go along. Zizek thinks the western liberal system that posits rights first implicitly configures all social relations as vehicles for harassment. The other's freedom limits mine and there is no way for me to take that except to suffer it. The bible seems to think that to submit is not degrading, but can be dignity itself. Until we can make something of that idea, there is an uncrossable gulf between religious and the non-religious mind of the moment.  If that's the situation, it may be time to ask with Paul in 1 Cor 5:12 "What have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?"  


(This is why I am very disappointed by the foot-shooting campaigns against secular gay marriage.  Why enter and lose fights like this?  It's ridiculous. Of course, Andrew Sullivan from my blog-roll is one of the founding fathers of the Gay Marriage movement and a believing, practicing Catholic with a husband.  You can have a different argument with him, athough I don't recommend it.)


On balance, I was very pleased to see someone from Moore / Sydney Anglicanism at ABC Religion Online. Not a transformative article, but an engaged, interesting, nice-toned one.