Commentary

"[O]n a serious note i thought all along that this is where you're heading... to me it's utterly obvious that our whole culture and politics in sweden are built upon super christian values. perhaps even more than other scandinavien countries... with our state protecting us from bad things bad like alcohol and other stuff. Or is that really a christian thing? Is it more of a socialist/communist thing? And in all it's atheism wasn't communism/socialism built on super christian values that jesus himself would've been proud of?What is religion? What is politics? Should it matter these days anyway? The only possible answer: P O L I G I O N. (now is it a strike of genius or just an easy way out???) "

Well, there are a few things here that I may off course clarify. But I will at the same time try to take the easy way out of the messy connections in here... :)

First and foremost, we have the question of what is build on what. As I've said earlier the birth of science is the outcome of (let's just briefly and abstractly call it) Christian theology's critical reflection on the world (as atheist philosopher Richard Rorty holds true). To further this example political ideas that has arised in the last few centuries in Europe, does off course not emerge out of nothing. They emerge out of culture and context (and like religion, needs to be reinterpreted in order to fit into new culture and contexts when we want to apply them). Here a distinction can be made between whether i.e. communism is strictly or loose built on Christianity. To claim that Christian ideals that saturates culture to a relatively high extend has nothing to do with communism would be to disregard its historical/cultural context. However, strictly speaking communism is focused to a larger extent on materialism than Christianity generally does.

The Christianity we have in Sweden today is in its turn inspired by communism, in a turn to legitimize a bigger focus on materialism. Here we have a perfect example of syncretism; christianity inspires communism inspires christianity. However, to say that they are the same would hide more than it explains. However, both have part in each other, and it is thus legitimate to take both traditions values or truth claims at the same face value.

The project of separating private from public is a discourse that has recieved massive criticism from various directions. However, the main and best formulated criticism comes, in my view, from feminism. Private-Public was a divide that served to relegate another distinction - woman-man - into different spheres, where man would be involved in the decision making and ruling of state (one forgets that even prominent liberalists as Rosseau held this view of women not fit for the public domain). Then off course, what went on in private was a different matter. This was not unproblematic, however, as the result often was that there was no governance over private affairs, such as men's violence towards women going unpunished (a fine tradition we've managed to keep alive since Roman days where pater familias had the right to do whatever he wished to anyone beneath his roof - he could kill his wife for all he cared without punishment).

So tying together this crash course in feminism with what I've said above: it is important to remember that relegating religion to the private - as politics is the subject proper of the public realm - is every bit as problematic, as it just continues down this troubled path. Besides rendering claims made from within religious traditions illegitimate (visavi state/public discourse), it also leaves religion in the private "secret" sphere where less light is shed on it, and it can be left to develop its more sinister sides by itself. Rather than the alternative of religious claims being fully scrutinized in the public eye, as they are legitimate parts of public discourse.

So, easy way out? Rather I believe that all matters of faith (and I think I've clearly demonstrated in previous articles how politics is all about matters of faith) should be set on par, as a starting point, and then see how they do compared to each other, in a collective open democratic discourse.