X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 10:01:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Politics and Theology
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

        It has often been asserted on this list that a POLITICS
forum is no place for a theological discussion.  I tend to find
that the stronger case is made by those who hold that theology
can not so simply be removed from politics; particularly any
political discussion concerned with what the law ought to be or
what the state (or the people running the state) ought to do.

        One objection raised against this position is that it
simply is not possible to make the distinction.  This argument
holds that all statements contain theological presuppositions
and that, consequently, those who oppose theological claims in
a political discussion are in fact only opposed to a certain
set of theological claims.  There is a lot behind this claim,
particularly when made by individuals who accept a classical
natural law theory as advocated by Acquinas.  According to this
theory, human law is to be derived from natural law and divine
law; that human law which deviates from divine law "is no law
at all."  This proposition was accepted not only by Augustine
and Aquinas but Martin Luthar King as well.  He used in in his
famous defense of civil disobedience in his "Letter from a
Birmingham Jail."  I wonder whether, if MLK was a subscriber to
this list, if he would be silenced on the grounds that we all
political claims grounded on theology are to be rejected out of
hand.

        The claim that theology must be removed from politics
seems to require a presupposition that natural law theory is to
be rejected.  Such a presupposition may be argued to contradict
the very principle being asserted; that legal discussion should
be the independent of substantive theological claims.

        From here one can argue that the individual who asserts
that theological questions are to remain separate from polit-
ical concerns is in fact demanding that a certain set of theo-
logical presuppositions be rejected out of hand--without dis-
cussion (and implicitly accepting others as the only legitimate
theological presuppositions for political discussion).  In a
sense, this silences a certain portion of the population, ruling
ad hoc that they are to be excluded from the discussion.  It can
be interpreted as a claim that "all those who believe in natural
law theory or anything similar need not apply."

         A second difficulty with attempting to separate theo-
logy from politics proclaims "religous tolerance" as an ideal.
However, a problem which has come up repeatedly in discussion
but which has always been conveniently side-stepped is:  Does
"religious tolerance" extend to tolerance of intolerant relig-
ions?  The same sort of problem plagues those who preach toler-
ance of any type; for there remains the question of whether we
should tolerate the intolerant.  The virtue of tolerance appears
to be self-contradictory, and as such its defenders often
stumble or themselves when confronted with individuals who are
in fact intolerant.  This is the same problem I described earlier
with respect to subjectivist liberals who hold that "all value
claims are merely a matter of opinion anyway, so you should be
tolerant of the views of others . . . OR ELSE."  Liberals (IMHO)
have never come to grips with this inconsistency.  Yet, these
sorts of claims appear quite often on this list.  It is little
wonder that they are not convincing.

        I wish to ask those who tend to support these types of
claims (and to use them as a foundation for their further claims)
to provide a consistent account of exactly what it is they are
claiming/demanding.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU