[lit-ideas] "false inclusiveness of law over belief" or, vice versa, "... of belief over law"?
- From: "Richard Henninge" <RichardHenninge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:56:30 +0100
John Wager wrote:
On a more political point, the main problem with all kinds of
"fundamentalisms" is that they seem to require everyone to subscribe to a
system of beliefs that everyone in fact do[es] not subscribe to. If 100% of a
population believed in Islam, it might be quite democratic to make law entirely
based on the Qu'ran. But if even a few citizens do not subscribe to that
system of beliefs, until they do, the foundation for law should be some system
that does not require their buying into that religion. Take your pick here:
contract theory, or human nature, or some other justification for government,
but the result is the same: There should always be a provision in law so that
non-believers in a system of belief are not required by law to act as if they
do.
Buddhism isn't very conducive to fundamentalism, but the three traditions of
Islam, Christianity and Judaism all seem to be much more prone to succumbing to
***the false inclusiveness of law over belief***. This is really a very
astounding position, when you think about it, because the whole idea of
"revealed" truth present in these three traditions says that God has revealed
in a special way to only some people certain fundamental truths or duties. If
fundamentalists really took revelation seriously, they would not want those to
whom God has not (yet) revealed these truths to be held accountable ***for***
them, yet time and again these fundamentalists violate their own concept of
"revelation" rather than practice the tolerance that such a conception of
revelation would require.
Didn't you mean, John, just the opposite of what you said, i.e. that the
conduciveness of Islam, Christianity and Judaism to fundamentalism is due to
their traditions' seeming to be "much more prone to succumbing to..."--not--
"the false inclusiveness of law over belief," but to "the false inclusiveness
of _belief over law_"?
Secondly, a quibble on a lower--merely grammatical--plane, in your saying that
"[i]f fundamentalists really took revelation seriously, they would not want
those to whom God has not (yet) revealed these truths to be held accountable
_for_ them [my emphasis]," didn't you mean "_to_ them," since "for them" makes
it sound as if they were responsible for them rather than just "responsive," à
peu près, _to_ them?
Richard Henninge
University of Mainz
Other related posts:
