Religion & Law

Rob recently called our attention to an important new paper by Jeremy Waldron in which he observes that what is "infuriating" to many liberals is the determination of their opponents "to actually argue on matters that many secular liberals think should be beyond argument, matters that we think should be determined by shared sentiment or conviction."  Professor Waldron notes that "many who are convinced of the gay rights position," for example, are "upset" by the fact that their opponents "refuse to take the liberal position for granted."  What do some people do when they are "infuriated" and "upset" that others dissent from their views and insist on continuing to argue about things that they think should be beyond argument"?  All too often, as Matthew Franck documents in a powerful op ed piece in the Washington Post, they try to shut down their opponents by labeling and stigmatizing them as "bigots" and "haters."  As Franck remarks, playing the "hate card" is the ultimate conversation stopper in contemporary moral debates.  Read the piece here:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121702528.html.