Religion & Ethics: Content from Across the ABC




Date/Time 27 Dec 2014 12:24:20am
I havn't read Marth Nusbaum's book but I remember being terribly dissappointed and surprised when asked (and I paraphrase a lot here) how society could accomodate all the needs/demands of small and newly emerging religion. It might have been on QANDA. She answered that (and I paraphrase again, although a bit more accurately I think, because it was so memorable) in such a society you couldn't just start a religion because you wanted some sort of special accommodation.

Why not? And, more importantly, how, and who, would distinguish what's a legitimate religion? Her presumption that this would be easy was downright sinister, and, perhaps worst of all, she didn't seem to realise this. She was very off hand about it. From what I know about her, I respect her jurisprudence, but her understanding of spiriituality and religion has all the hallmarks of Abramaic arrogance (albeit, with her, in the nicest way). To think these things self-evident is *such* and Abramaic mindset, and exactly what, if anything, secularists are scared of.

If I had to determine criteria for 'legitimate' relgions, I'd include clarity of message (which would preclude all three major Abramaic faiths), because I think that in the 'public square' we need to clear about or purpose and means if we're to respect others. I'd also include the critieria that a 'legitimate' religion can't have significant amounts of theology about other people (which would preclude Christianity and Islam), for reasons that are self-evident. I think they're good starting points for deciding which relgions should be priviledged.