Open-mindedness, Religion, and the Public Square

Gary Rosen, the managing editor of Commentary, writes an interesting article in the New York Times Preview Wednesday, "Narrowing the Religion Gap?" about faith in the public square. He begins the article noting that two of the Democratic presidential front-runners for the presidency, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are both serious church members whose faith is important to them; whereas two of the Republican presidential front-runners, John McCain and Rudi Giuliani, while having church connections "neither man, you have to think, would be caught dead in a Bible-study group..." Rosen writes, "In the piety primary, the Democrats win hands down."

He notes that he doesn't believe that the "religion gap" is likely to change as a result of this, but "What a matchup between churchgoing Democrats and secular-minded Republicans may supply, though, is welcome moderation in our debates over issues like abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research. God knows, both sides of the ideological divide have fundamentalists in need of taming" (bold mine).

He mentions in passing the well-known fundamentalists on the right like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and their stand on the issues. But he doesn't stop here as many might. He continues

Here is where the dogmatists of the secular left come in. Looking to fend off Bible-toting conservatives, the philosopher Richard Rorty argued more than a decade ago that in a modern democracy, faith should be a strictly private matter and has no place in public discussion. Traditional religion, he wrote, is a 'conversation stopper," a source of values before which nonbelievers can be only mum. The same rigid divide informs a recent manifesto "in defense of science and secularism" signed by such academic luminaries as Daniel C. Dennett, Steven Pinker, Peter Singer and Edward O. Wilson. They urge the country's political leaders "not to permit legislation or executive action to be influenced by religious beliefs.

This addresses one of my concerns: the under-acknowledging and under-reporting of liberal fundamentalism. We all know the negative side of conservative fundamentalism, but the liberal side is just as pernicious. Somehow we associate open minds with universities, but the truth of the matter is that closed minds come in all shapes and forms from all levels of class and education, and universities are abundantly represented by liberal fundamentalists.

As Rosen notes, imagine if Rorty (which Rosen notes has backtracked on his position recently) got his way and this had been the case in the past: what would have happened with abolition, women's suffrage, the civil rights movement? We can only hope that in the upcoming election points of view from all directions including religious and secular Democrats and Republicans and Independents are welcome.