*Response

 After giving the paper below on 'Religious Experience: From Public Discourse to Responsibility and Courage' I was given some interesting remarks and questions. My paper argued for a change in cultural habits through responsibility and courage such that in the event of a developed neutral discourse, the previous habits of power and past prejudices do not re-constitute themselves. In other words, I was advocating change at the day to day social level. The paper began by acknowledging religious experience as a source of meaning and went on to touch on the discussion between Habermas and Taylor about the role of religious reasons in the public sphere. I then shifted to responsibility and courage for meaningful social change to substantiate political change.

The responses were pretty interesting...from a mundane question of reference to questions about Habermas - in fact, the rest of the questions were about Habermas and religion in the public sphere, nonetheless I obliged.

One of the questions was raised by stating that Habermas' presumption was that he began with the secular perspective. And the questioner, some Old Testament Prof., wanted to know where I saw politics was heading or where it would be in the next 50 years. I said, yes, Habermas does start with the presumption of the secular and that it is where the discourse is grounded. In the next 50 years, I don't know where politics is heading but that the current trend is not one that includes the virtues of equality and justice. He seemed to be alluding to the assumption that a Christian state of things was inevitable and that the secular discourse may not be meaningful. Habermas and his discussions are becoming moot. I will return to this as there was another questioner that asked the same question.

Another member of the audience asked about the socialization process of the secular. Shouldn't they have to accommodate for the religious? What about the religious who aren't socialized with the secular? I replied that Habermas did not think that the secular required a socialization process to a specific community and it was thereby neutral to any specific faction. The majority of discourse in the public sphere is secular. You do not see people giving religious reasons for taxes, the national debt, or healthcare. The reasons given are secular, although at times highly technical. You do not see reasons provided to the public in religious terms, although the underlying reason my be religiously motivated. But unless, the questioner thought that there was a gap between the religious and those who were not socialized as religious in terms of their discourse and that there was a socialization process for the secular then it would seem that he was alluding to the underlying beliefs and values. But if he listened to my talk, my discussion was for a transcendence of ontic and social categories in favor of virtues such as equality and justice. That we should not dwell on these presumptive categories of how other people would be. In short, I'm talking about you motherfucker. Don't get caught up on that shit but look towards what values are agreed upon and go from there. Injustice and corruption are real and you want to bicker about socialization and how to talk.

Towards the end, another professor, echoing the first questioner about the secular presumption and the direction of politics. He made reference to the Republican party in the U.S., politics in Latin America and politics in Africa talking about the current trend in Christian discourse in the political sphere and was wondering whether my talk was...parochial (?!) to western Europe. And while I do not know enough about politics in Latin America or Africa, the concerns are still there. I think it is necessary to delineate what is meant by the "public sphere" and the discourse within it. He referred largely to the political campaigns and how they appeal to a general public. And although this is one of the modes of discourse in the political sphere it is not the one of primary significance. The legal and policy decision making processes are much more critical on a state and international level. In terms of the former, in appealing to elections and campaigns, the discourse is secular until the issues turn to matters of abortion, rape, gay rights, immigrant, and other human rights. Here the underlying religious reasons are most prevalent. In other ways, religion does not enter the discourse regarding the budget, or the role between state and bank.

With respect to Latin America and Africa, these areas are not homogeneous in terms of their religious composition. There are various denominations of Christianity, Islam, and other religious groups, as well as the secular. If the trend is towards a Christian state of "natural law" where "God's law" is the foundation for the state, then that begs the question of what "God's law" is to begin with, what the discrepancies in the interpretations are and how they translate meaningfully into practical concerns and contemporary issues. Somebody, after the panel, came up and talked to me about right and wrong experiences or wrongly interpreted. This raises concerns about orthodoxy and whether one can deem them right or wrong, they still provide meaning for the individual. If a state of Christian discourse and "natural law" were to proceed, then we have to ask the question in converse: how do Islamic reasons translate into Christian discourse or how do secular reasons translate? This opens up a whole new array of other issues. And if we acknowledge a Christian nation-state then we must also acknowledge a Muslim nation-state of Sharia law as well as a Buddhist nation-state. Is this the direction that we are going? I do not think so, although the underlying current of the populace around the world appeal to a religious fervor or some religiosity. Is there a unified Christian "natural law"? I don't think that there is. How does such a state discuss poverty, equality, and justice? And by what standard of justice are we speaking about? The culture of power is apparent and the habits are there. In the U.S. we have had so called "Christian" leaders in the White House and none of them have truly addressed the poor, the under-priveleged, disadvantaged, and marginalized. They perpetuate the status-quo for the upper-middle class. So then we have to begin questioning whether politicians and legislators are in fact going to act according to any "natural law" theory. 

At any rate, I left the conference feeling that they did not really listen to the point of the paper but rather wanted to pick on the Habermas section about the secular and the religious in the public sphere. Rather than advancing any real social change at the cultural level so that any change for all in the political and legal sphere will be substantial as opposed to nominal and superficial where past cultures re-constitute themselves.