1. I actually don’t think that the Church runs Utah politics. On the other hand, I do think that Mormonism runs Utah politics. An issue for another post…

2. I think that Russell is confusing several sorts of seperationism. First, there is legal seperationism, which stands for some fairly strong disestablishment principle, e.g. no school prayer, take down creche at city hall, etc. Second, there is political seperationism, which stands for some notion that religious institutions ought not to be involved in politics. Note, this is different than legal seperationism. I don’t think that liquor laws pose an establishment issue, even if they result from political involvement by churches. Third, there is rhetorical sperationism, which stands for the idea that one ought not to invoke religious arguments in public discussions. In my post, I meant to refer to the first — that is legal — kind of seperationism.

3. I think it is safe to say that many Wasatch front Mormons resent such things as constitutional prohibitions on school prayer, etc. However, I think that legal seperationism largely works in favor of Mormons. I don’t want my children being required by the state to recite crypto-Protestant liturgy in school. And maybe I am just being a a liberal reactionary, but the “Christian Nation” folks who rallied around Judge Moore scare me at times. I don’t want them to be able to construct a civic religion that I am required to participate in which is a thinly veiled version of Evangelical Protestantism.

4. That said, I don’t think that I am in favor of seperationism in its other two manifestations. Thus, I am not opposed to institutional involvement in politics by churches. Nor do I oppose the use of religious arguments in the public realm. (Although on this point I am what Michael Perry calls a “chastened inclusionist,” that is while I think there is nothing ipso facto illegitimate about invoking religious arguments I think one must be cautious.)

5. I actually agree with Russell that the Mormon retreat from theocratic thinking represents a loss of sorts. We no longer have very peculiarlly Mormon ways of thinking about politics. On the otherhand, I think that philosophical liberalism is more than simply an intellectual disease that we must combat. It strikes me as a valid way of coping with many of the current political condundrums that we face. In addition, I think that there are deep resonances within Mormon theology with basic liberal assumptions, a claim that I know Russell disagrees with…

1. I think I can guess what you’re getting at, distinguishing “Mormonism” from the “church,” though perhaps I’m wrong. I’d need to hear more.

2. Interesting breakdown of the various “separationisms.” I’m not the three you mention are as distinct as you present them, but its a useful analytic nonetheless.

3. “Being required by the state to recite [a] crypto-Protestant liturgy in school”? I didn’t know I’d opened the door that far. But let’s follow this line of reasoning anyway. How about “being required by the state to HEAR a crypto-Protestant liturgy in school”? Or how about merely “being ALLOWED by the state to RECITE a crypto-Protestant liturgy in school”? Would you be opposed to both? Neither? How far should we go in trying to nail down all these externalities? Drawing fine lines between hearing/reciting, between being exposed/allowed/required, between who or how this or that is being done, seems to me to be profoundly beside the point. (This is, perhaps, the great disconnect between lawyers and philosophers.) What I want to know Nate, and what I think is actually relevant, is this: what’s wrong with a crypto-Protestant liturgy? Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? In general, or just for Mormons? Why, or why not? These are substantive questions, involving the nature and order of the community, and I don’t see why we should (necessarily, in all cases) use separationism as a way to avoid asking them.

4. Glad to hear it. But I think Michael Perry, while an excellent thinker, still fundamentally fails to grasp the real nettle of the issue. David M. Smolin, an evangelical scholar, has published a couple of critiques of Perry which are, I think, right on the money.

5. I also believe that “philosophical liberalism is more than simply an intellectual disease that we must combat.” It is a profound, valuable, world-historical intellectual accomplishment. I don’t think questioning its consequences necessarily means doubting its worth.

Furthermore, I don’t see such line drawing as a question begging exercise. If you cannot draw lines and set articulable limits on particular principles, then I would submitt that political theorizing runs the risk of becoming vacuous. A theory that breezes past line drawing as the activity of lesser minds runs the risk of being “profoundly beside the point,” to the extent that it provides no operationalizable guidance for collective conduct, which is what I thought political philosophy was supposed to be about (at least in part).

As for the inclusionist debate, I will have to look at Smolin’s work, with which I confess I am not familiar. I would love to be persuaded to not be chastend, as I would make Mormon discourse more fun. My view on this is shaped by the fact that I don’t find the exclusionism of folks like Audi, Rawls, or Ackerman compelling. In my view, Audi is incoherent and Rawls and Ackerman are question begging. On the other hand, I agree with Rawls that pluralism is a brute fact of contemporary political life, a fact with which religious believers must reckon. Perhaps this is what pushes political religious discourse towards natural law and Catholicism…

Here’s the prayer:

Dear Lord Jesus,
I know that I am a sinner and need Your forgiveness. I believe that You died for my sins. I want to turn from my sins. I now invite you to come into my heart and life. I want to trust You as Savior and follow You as Lord. I give you my life—make me the person You want me to be and help me daily to live my life for You.
Thank you Jesus,
Amen

I doubt school prayer would include anything even as juicy as that, but I can dream, can’t I?

Let’s take a worst case scenario, in which the prayer actually contains some objectionable doctrine, I don’t know, an affirmation of the Trinity or of the Bible as the one true word of God. I can live with that. I prefer that my children grow up in a world where they see religion taken seriously and publicly, than one in which their very belief is a shameful secret we keep at home. Let’s remember that God’s anger is only kindled at those who deny his hand in all things, that the Apostasy by no means put an end to all truth, and that the great growth of the Church in this country occurred against a background of a muscular Protestantism. We can hold our own against the Prods, boys, even find some common ground with them, it’s the laughter of the Great and Spacious building we needs must fear.