Why we should be wary of accommodationism
Here's an article which thinks secualrism has lost its secular "soul".

Quoting a paragraph:

Quote:The language has a certain jurisprudential aridity, but the message is clear enough. When we enter the public square, we are obliged to talk to each other in terms we can share and understand, not in ways that are tied to our specific "comprehensive doctrines". If we're debating the ethics of abortion, for example, we'd get nowhere if some insisted their views rested on their Catholic faith whereas others took theirs to flow inexorably from their atheism. What we all need to do is provide reasons that have some purchase for other people in their capacity as fellow citizens, whatever their world-views. That doesn't mean denying or even covering up the fact that we have religious or other motivations for believing what we do. It is simply to acknowledge that we can't expect these to carry any weight with others.

So the ethics of abortion need to be inclusive of both religious views and non-religious views and a common ground should be obtained for a reasoned discourse. But what if there is no common ground? Should we fight wars like we used to when religious views were the only allowed views? Or should we recognize the developments in moral philosophy in the past few centuries and accept the obvious fact that a major part of it has no ground in religion and not pretend that they can have some "common ground" with religious worldviews?

I know this sounds like a false dichotomy but reasoning which doesn't involve characterestic traits of religion - blind adherence to authority, over-reliance on tradition is what has lead to decrease to decrease in violence. Such progress would not have been possible if we wanted to avoid hurting religious sentiments.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)