<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Secularism, belief, and truth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2011/10/27/secularism-belief-and-truth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2011/10/27/secularism-belief-and-truth/</link>
	<description>Secularism, religion, and the public sphere</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:07:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Thaddeus Kozinski</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2011/10/27/secularism-belief-and-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-69141</link>
		<dc:creator>Thaddeus Kozinski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2011 19:08:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/?p=26973#comment-69141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, we need an alliance-like structure that doesn&#039;t try to make people virtuous or impose a conception of the true and good, because of sociological pluralism. But, why does no one talk about the need for a polis-like structure for each community united by an exclusive conception of the good and true in which virtue-making is the common good? Yes, these communities have the private right to exist, but they are, by fiat, not permitted self-governance in a public way with legal teeth? Why not? This seems to me not neutral secularism but an imposition by the state of the privatization of the good, and it is anti-religious and anti-moral. Why is it not permitted with a nation-state for a small community who would like to give its church legal privileges in the community to do so?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, we need an alliance-like structure that doesn&#8217;t try to make people virtuous or impose a conception of the true and good, because of sociological pluralism. But, why does no one talk about the need for a polis-like structure for each community united by an exclusive conception of the good and true in which virtue-making is the common good? Yes, these communities have the private right to exist, but they are, by fiat, not permitted self-governance in a public way with legal teeth? Why not? This seems to me not neutral secularism but an imposition by the state of the privatization of the good, and it is anti-religious and anti-moral. Why is it not permitted with a nation-state for a small community who would like to give its church legal privileges in the community to do so?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
