Read on Twitter
The French version of secularism, laïcité, is just incomparably worse than the Anglo-American version https://twitter.com/GerardAraud/status/1208786250016137216
It's no surprise that the few Muslim governments which have experimented with secularism have gone for laïcité.
It's much more appealing for tyrants to expunge and control religion in the public sphere for the sake of "rationally" promoting "freedom" and "equality" than it is to
It's much more appealing for tyrants to expunge and control religion in the public sphere for the sake of "rationally" promoting "freedom" and "equality" than it is to
allow people to bring whatever religious ideas, practices, and associations they want to the public sphere, no matter how irrational, unfree, and inegalitarian we find their choices and the results of their choices to be.
The former destroys civil society and thus any check on and alternatives to state power and loyalty, whilst licencing a huge amount of state control over the populace.
Whereas the latter prohibits the state from interfering with the population at all except insofar as it is
Whereas the latter prohibits the state from interfering with the population at all except insofar as it is
to protect the security of their free expression and voluntary associations.
Another example would be the difference between Anglo Canada (one of the best places on earth to be Muslim) vs French Canada (one of the worst places in the west to be Muslim).
Another example would be the difference between Anglo Canada (one of the best places on earth to be Muslim) vs French Canada (one of the worst places in the west to be Muslim).
We can perhaps extend this line of thinking to a scepticism towards any state intervention restricting people's behaviour where it doesn't involve *material* coercion.
If I purport that an individual's beliefs or actions aren't actually free but somehow non-materially coerced
If I purport that an individual's beliefs or actions aren't actually free but somehow non-materially coerced
(by culture, or irrationality, or "false consciousness" in some other respect) and use that to justify coercing that individual and/or others I believe are responsible for this purported unfreedom, such to promote what I deem to be a more free, equal, or rational society
then I'm inevitably arrogating a significant amount of power to myself (ie restricting freedom) over others (ie undermining equality) for the sake of what I deem to be correct (ie putting a lot of faith in what I fallibly believe to be rational).
This seems to be the laïcité impulse, and if it's plainly bad when it comes to religion, what makes us so sure it's justified in any other case before us?
This distinction between the laïcité impulse and the Anglo-American impulse is ultimately the difference between the two different strands of liberalism identified by Jacob Levy ( @jtlevy).
Laïcité is "rationalist", Anglo-American secularism is "pluralist".
Laïcité is "rationalist", Anglo-American secularism is "pluralist".
On @jtlevy's thesis that liberalism contains both a pluralist and a rationalist strand, I really can't recommend this lecture of his highly enough.
Not only is the thesis well explained and convincingly presented, he's truly a first-rate orator:
Not only is the thesis well explained and convincingly presented, he's truly a first-rate orator:
I'm inclined to agree with his conclusion.
The concerns of both strands of liberalism matter, we should tend to side with pluralism where they conflict, remain alert to the insights of rationalism, and realise there's no master-theory by which we can get all the answers right.
The concerns of both strands of liberalism matter, we should tend to side with pluralism where they conflict, remain alert to the insights of rationalism, and realise there's no master-theory by which we can get all the answers right.
I also think there may be non-liberal reasons to prefer pluralism over rationalism too.
For instance, the latter is more atomising, and therefore may be more anomistic, alienating, give more rise to an iron cage of rationality, etc.
For instance, the latter is more atomising, and therefore may be more anomistic, alienating, give more rise to an iron cage of rationality, etc.
On a somewhat similar note: https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1232068445417680899?s=19
Another lecture of Levy's: https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1236070526516449280?s=19
To sum part of this thread:
1) Rationalist liberalism subverts freedom and equality by arrogating power to some in a way that is intrinsically bad
2) Rationalist liberalism is consequentially bad as we're not good at designing society top down (even if the designers can be
1) Rationalist liberalism subverts freedom and equality by arrogating power to some in a way that is intrinsically bad
2) Rationalist liberalism is consequentially bad as we're not good at designing society top down (even if the designers can be
trusted to be altruistic, which they can't)
3) Neither of these fatally undermine rationalist liberalism, they are just downsides to it. A balance is needed between pluralism and rationalism, even if we should lean towards the former.
3) Neither of these fatally undermine rationalist liberalism, they are just downsides to it. A balance is needed between pluralism and rationalism, even if we should lean towards the former.
