Charles Taylor has suggested that secularism was an “exit strategy” from religious conflict. There were two exit strategies. In the summary by RA Markus, “The first, ‘the common ground strategy,’ assumes a certain range of beliefs shared by all Christians (or all theists) and minimises or eliminates confessional differences that lie outside the boundaries of this shared ground. Ths econd tries to define ‘an independent political ethic,’ a strategy he associated with Hugo Grotius. This abstracts ‘from our religious beliefs altogether’ and establishes norms, including norms of how human beings should behave towards one another in society, on which to found a public morality independent on grounds based on religious belief. It is to provide an area ‘immune from all these warring beliefs’ . . . , excluding these by confining them to a private sphere.”
Markus notes that these two forms of secularism shade into one another, depending on the degree of religious consensus in a political community. When the society is largely Christian, denominational differences are eliminated from the public sphere, but the “residual common ground between them will include some Christian (or religious) elements.” Yet, if the community includes Christian and non-Christian groups, then “all that can be shared is a reduced, nonreligious, common ground; and that will be in effect equivalent to the ‘independent political ethic.’ Given sufficient diversity, at the limit, the highest common factor shared by virtually all within the society, whatever their religious affiliations, will coincide with what can be established without reference to religion.”
As a sociological dynamic, this rings true. But it’s odd that Markus should come to this conclusion after he has pointed out that modern secularism “would insist on its [the public realm’s] complete openness to and inclusiveness of diversity.” Given sufficient religious diversity, the public realm comes to a point where there is no diversity at all - the common shared ground of the society excludes diverse religious expression.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from Politics
Continue reading related articles
Political Gospel
The gospel isn't an apolitical message that happens to have political implications. It’s not a message of private salvation with downstream public consequences. Exactly the opposite. The gospel is public and political truth with personal consequences. All the vocabulary of the gospel is political. The Greek word for “gospel” –…
When Idolaters Move In
What should Christians do if we discover there are idolaters living down the street? Lots of tangles in the question. For better or worse, the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. We can debate whether or not the Framers intended the Constitution to protect Hindus and Muslims. In actual legal…
Free Speech
Free speech is a fundamental value of liberal politics, an expression of John Stuart Mill's promise that we can do and say anything , so long as we do no harm. It's a false promise. Absolute free speech was always a ruse. Speech has never been entirely free. It can't…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.