[FRA:] critical theory of religion?

[Ralph Dumain]

Rudolf J. Siebert, "Critical Religion in Antagonistic Civil Society: 
Towards Discourse and Cooperation among Civilizations (II), paper prepared 
for Association for the Sociology of Religion, Montreal, Canada, August 2006
http://www.criticaltheoryofreligion.org/Critical%20Religion%20II.pdf

This article shows up what obscurantist bullshit this whole enterprise 
is.  I note that it is heavily indebted to Habermas, which doesn't say much 
for him.  But more importantly, liberal religionists are trapped within 
their own irreconcilable contradictions, trying to have their cake and eat 
it too.

>If the citizens learn to know, how to handle in the
>consciousness of their own fallibility and non-violently, i.e. without 
>tearing apart the
>social bond of their political community, this factum of cultural 
>pluralism, then they
>shall recognize, what the secular decision-foundations, which have been 
>firmly written
>into the constitution of their state, mean in a post - secular society. 
>This is so, because in
>the dispute between the claims of religious faith and scientific knowledge 
>the culturally,
>i.e., aesthetically, religiously and philosophically, neutral liberal 
>constitutional state does
>in no way prejudice necessarily political decisions in favor of the 
>religious or the secular
>side. The pluralized communicative and anamnestic rationality of the 
>public sphere of the
>citizens follows the dynamic of the secularization as it compels and 
>forces in the
>result the even and equal distance between strong religious and secular 
>traditions and cultural
>contents. However, the communicative and anamnestic as well as proleptic 
>rationality of
>the public sphere of the citizens remains ready to learn, and thus osmotic 
>ally open
>toward the religious and the secular side without losing its independence 
>and autonomy.
>In this context, the scientific enlightenment of the commonsense, which is 
>often full of
>prejudices, illusions and delusions, has to be accomplished. In this 
>context, the
>cooperative translation of religious material and potentials from the 
>depth of the mythos
>and religion into the secular discourse of the expert cultures and beyond 
>that into the
>communicative action of the everyday life world and even into the economic 
>and political
>subsystems of civil society, has to be performed.34 In this context, the 
>long inherited
>dispute between religious faith and secular knowledge has to be carried out,

As I said, liberal religionists have to do some fancy dancing to have it 
both ways.

There are recommendations for dialogue and reasoned discourse.  But note:

>We must admit, that in the present world - historical situation no real 
>reconciliation between
>the religious and the secular, revelation and autonomous reason is 
>possible. Precisely
>therefore, we suggest, that the discourse between the religious and the 
>secular should at
>least not be closed up fundamentalistically, or scientistically and 
>positivistically. To the
>contrary, we suggest an open dialectic between faith and knowledge, 
>revelation and
>enlightenment, in order from there to derive guidance also for the 
>relationship between
>church and state, religious and secular education. Such openness does not 
>hope for the
>return of mysticism to religious orthodoxy, or from secular enlightenment 
>to mysticism.
>The secular may concretely supersede the religious: the secular may not 
>only critique the
>religious, but it may also preserve, elevate and fulfill it in alternative 
>Future III – the
>reconciled society. 41

The recommendation is self-contradictory.


>However, already in the present transition period from modernity to 
>post-modernity
>such open dialectic between the religious and the secular, revelation and 
>autonomous
>reason, faith and knowledge can, nevertheless, make possible the 
>cooperation between
>religious and secular people, believers and enlighteners toward a project 
>world ethos, 42 It
>could be centered in the Golden Rule, which the Chinese Religion, Hinduism 
>Jainism,
>Buddhism, Judaism. Christianity and Islam and other world religions have 
>in common.43

This is bullshit. Liberal religionists can find whatever pretexts they wish 
within their religions, but the fact is that rational dialogue can only 
occur on a rational, atheological basis, or not at all.

>The Golden Rule in all its different forms can conquer the jus talionis.52 
>The practice of
>the Golden rule would be the end of the lex talionis. The analysis should 
>not stop with the
>realistic assertion that the Golden Rule can not be practiced and thus the 
>lex talionis can
>not be broken, Men like Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Archbishop 
>Romero
>practiced the Golden Rule even in its extreme form by following the fourth 
>and fifth
>commandment of the Sermon on the Mount. It is rather so that the 
>psychoanalytical and
>critical sociological and critical theological analysis must begin 
>precisely with the
>question: why is it not possible for some people to practice the Golden 
>Rule and why
>must they remain under the spell of the mythological jus talionis? When 
>others can
>liberate themselves from this ban and do to others, as they want to be 
>treated.

This is a fantasy typical of the self-deluded liberal religionist.  First, 
they want to reduce everything to metaphysics and individual 
psychology.  Then they call for a sociological analysis of individual 
psychology?  Which is it going to be, and which takes priority?