Pericles - a fine response.

See http://www.resetdoc.org/EN/Habermas-Istanbul.php for an article by Habermas on the post secular society.

As well the Secularization Thesis is well documented : check Google

I am tired and I want to go to bed. So have a read of the above link.

It concludes:

" Two reasons speak in favor of such liberal practice ( the neutral state not precluding the permissibility of religious utterances within the political public sphere as long as... staying out of political and law institutions...) . First, the persons who are neither willing nor able to divide their moral convictions and their vocabulary into profane and religious strands must be permitted to take part in political will formation even if they use religious language. Second, the democratic state must not pre-emptively reduce the polyphonic complexity of the diverse public voices, because it cannot know whether it is not otherwise cutting society off from scarce resources for the generation of meanings and the shaping of identities. In particular with regard to vulnerable social relations, religious traditions possess the power to convincingly articulate moral sensitivities and solidaristic intuitions.

What puts pressure on secularism then is the expectation that the secular citizens in civil society and the political public sphere must be able to encounter their religious fellow citizens at eye’s level as equals. Were secular citizens to encounter their fellow citizens with the reservation that the latter, because of their religious mindset, are not to be taken seriously as modern contemporaries, they would revert to the level of a mere modus vivendi - and would thus quit the very basis of mutual recognition which is constitutive for shared citizenship. Secular citizens are expected not to exclude a fortiori that they may discover even in religious utterances semantic contents and covert personal intuitions that can be translated and introduced into a secular discourse.

So, if all is to go well both sides, each from its own viewpoint, must accept an interpretation of the relation between faith and knowledge that enables them to live together in a self-reflective manner."

cheers and good night..

Sells

Your 'argument' implies that non-Christians are less than fully human. It appears you are trying to construct a 'rational' argument for religious assocation and/or faith commitment. Unfortunately your argument is only going to make sense to those who already share your point of view and offend others.
Given the corny plug for the Church in the last few sentences it is impossible to conclude other than that this was some sort of proselytizing exercise,gone badly wrong. There is no real logic to your argument and the conclusion is patently untrue. At best you have produced a sort of 'reductio ad absurdum'(some humans are not human) forcing us to draw the conclusion that your assumptions were wrong.
Unfortunately your 'conclusion' here(non Christians are less human than Christians) is so despicable that it cannot even be justified as 'metaphorical language'.
You do, however, make the valid point that there is an axis of tension between our identification as individuals and as social creatures. There is ample potential here for internal emotional and psychological conflicts and so too for internal 'spiritual' confusion. These inner tensions, however, do not detract from our full participation in 'being human' but rather form the core of our inner identity and set the general trajectory of our external identities. To suggest that 'identities' may be ordered on degrees of participation in the 'fullness' of humanity is very dangerous thinking indeed.
I would venture to suggest that choosing to participate in a church community on the basis of rational consideration would be participation for the 'wrong reason'. I would rather say that participation in the faith community is an appropriate and faithful response to God's call. The Church, in itself, offers very little by way of justifying participation. It is no better or worse than other human institutions with which one might associate oneself. Having responded to God's call and joined one or ther Church I believe it is each and every members responsibility to ensure that the Church corporately responds faithfully to its calling. This is where I believe we are failing so badly at the moment

Waterboy

I doff's me cap to ya.

Wonderful, cogent post.

I must say that I am quite uncomfortable with some of the language and implications of Sells’ article.

For me, Jesus Christ is the archetype of human perfection. Jesus is within me as this archetypal figure and also with humanity at large as Immanuel. But this is not to say that only those who call themselves Christians can follow the road of wisdom, compassion, creativity and justice. I believe that, although many reject the name, God insists in all human hearts and minds.

The fact that a person deliberately wears the label “atheist”, or “Muslim” or “Buddhist” or “Sikh” does not necessarily diminish them in comparison with those who label themselves “Christian”. The key factor is how deeply and consistently they allow themselves to be guided by the impulse to become spiritually whole – i.e. to strive for what Paul Tillich calls “dynamic unity of body and mind, of vitality and rationality, of the conscious and unconscious, of the emotional and the intellectual”. This goal is what Jesus described as living abundantly.

Perhaps this is what Sells means by being “fully human”. But it surely goes without saying that the degree of attainment in this quest cannot be objectively measured and therefore must not be judged by any other person.

Waterboy.
I certainly do not say or infer that nonbelievers are subhuman. Non believers are just like us, on the road to faith and no one can tell how far any of us have gone on that road, as crabsy has just affirmed. My intention was to take the whole thrust of the New Testament seriously and that is that Christ is the “way the truth and the light” and those who become his disciples are promised eternal life, that is, life that finds its being in the eternity of God. It is the habit of liberals to hedge their bets whenever the hard questions are put. If Jesus is God then it is not good enough to relativise and applaud anyone who is on a spiritual quest. I know it sounds fair minded and “liberal” but unless Christians understand that their Lord demands an exclusive following then they have not got the point. How can we confess Jesus as Lord and then go on to nod to other spiritual leaders? This is not religious bigotry, it is faith and it does not demean others who take other paths. I think we must remain agnostic about the other religious systems, even if they look to us as transparently in the wrong. We must meet them as fellow human beings but we must also insist for ourselves that Christ is the exclusive image of God. That can in no way ferment violence or discrimination against others since even if they present themselves to us as our enemies we are still commanded to love them.
The whole thrust of the NT is the difference between those who become disciples and those who do not. The metaphors abound, lost/found, dead/alive, darkness/light, sin/righteousness, flesh/spirit. The primary metaphor of baptism is to be buried with Christ and raised with him. We all say with the centurion “I believe, help thou my unbelief.” Unbelievers will always be our brothers and sisters for whom the promise of faith is always open.

"it is faith and it does not demean others who take other paths."

maybe so. but why do you think so many here took your words to be demeaning? you accept no responsibility for this?