Sign in with Facebook
Austin Dacey’s Followers (10)
Austin Dacey
Born
The United States
Website
Genre
Austin Dacey isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
Austin Dacey & Colin Koproske Reply
Dissent (Summer 2011), posted with permission
We are grateful for the historical and constitutional perspective that William Galston brings to his stimulating response. He does not dispute our charge that the present regime of religious accommodation rests on philosophically unsound arguments. Instead, he says this is irrelevant because “a philosophical question is not the same as a constitutional Read more of this blog post »
We are grateful for the historical and constitutional perspective that William Galston brings to his stimulating response. He does not dispute our charge that the present regime of religious accommodation rests on philosophically unsound arguments. Instead, he says this is irrelevant because “a philosophical question is not the same as a constitutional Read more of this blog post »
|
The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life
—
published
2008
—
5 editions
|
|
|
The Future of Blasphemy: Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights
—
published
2012
—
7 editions
|
|
|
The Case for Humanism: An Introduction
—
published
2003
—
2 editions
|
|
|
Future of Blasphemy: Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights
—
published
2012
—
2 editions
|
|
* Note: these are all the books on Goodreads for this author. To add more, click here.
“Guts are important. Your guts are what digest things. But it is your brains that tell you which things to swallow and which not to swallow.”
―
―
“ Where did secular liberalism go wrong?
It has been undone by its own ideas. The first idea is that matters of conscience — religion, ethics, and values — are private matters. The privatizing of conscience started with two important principles: religion should be separated from the state and people should not be forced to believe one way or the other. But it went further to say that belief has no place in the public sphere. Conscience belongs in homes and houses of worship, not in the marketplace. By making conscience private, secular liberals had hoped to prevent believers from introducing sectarian beliefs into politics. But of course they couldn’t, since freedom of belief means believers are free to speak their minds in public.
Instead, secularism imposed a gag order on itself. Because “private” is equated with “personal” and “subjective,” questions of conscience were placed out of bounds of serious critical evaluation.
…
… The mistake lies in thinking that because conscience is free from coercion, it must be free from criticism, reason, truth, or independent, objective standards of right and wrong. The indispensable principle of freedom of belief has mutated into an unthinking assumption that matters of belief are immune to critical public inquiry and shared evaluative norms.”
―
It has been undone by its own ideas. The first idea is that matters of conscience — religion, ethics, and values — are private matters. The privatizing of conscience started with two important principles: religion should be separated from the state and people should not be forced to believe one way or the other. But it went further to say that belief has no place in the public sphere. Conscience belongs in homes and houses of worship, not in the marketplace. By making conscience private, secular liberals had hoped to prevent believers from introducing sectarian beliefs into politics. But of course they couldn’t, since freedom of belief means believers are free to speak their minds in public.
Instead, secularism imposed a gag order on itself. Because “private” is equated with “personal” and “subjective,” questions of conscience were placed out of bounds of serious critical evaluation.
…
… The mistake lies in thinking that because conscience is free from coercion, it must be free from criticism, reason, truth, or independent, objective standards of right and wrong. The indispensable principle of freedom of belief has mutated into an unthinking assumption that matters of belief are immune to critical public inquiry and shared evaluative norms.”
―
Is this you? Let us know. If not, help out and invite Austin to Goodreads.
