Habermas, the Westboro Baptist Church and the USA
Saturday, September 26, 2009 by adonohue26
A recent court victory for the notoriously bigoted and homophobic Westboro Baptist Church led me to consider Habermas’ notion of the public sphere, and how it relates to the United States.
The public sphere of the United States would probably be found lacking if evaluated according to the principles that Habermas lays out. By protecting the Westboro Baptist’s freedom of speech the American courts have allowed their public sphere to host messages that are decidedly undemocratic, non-rational and non-dialogic (the Westboro Baptists seem to have no interest in changing their views or listening to other parties).
Church member Shirley Phelps-Roper’s bragging that “our doctrine is all over the world because of what they [Albert Snyder and his lawyers] did” seems to support Habermas’ belief that modern times have seen the decline of the public sphere, suggesting that worldwide media technology has created a state where ideas, regardless of their merit, are unthinkingly given exposure.
On the other hand, upholding Habermas’ ideals and excluding people like the Westboro Baptists would be to reject religious systems of belief that are not judged as sufficiently rational. This seems wrong; while many religions may be non-rational in nature, they still play an important role in the lives of countless people, most of whom do not share the extremist beliefs of the Westboro Baptists. Should not an ideal sphere of public debate be able to incorporate the belief systems of all a state’s citizens? Does a Habermasian public sphere, in seeking to allow debate free from oppressive societal belief systems, risk enforcing a dogma of “rationality” and secularism itself?
Due to its inherent complexities and problems, then, it is perhaps a good idea to consider Habermas’ conception of the public sphere as a reference to which existing institutions can be compared, rather than an aspirational model.
The public sphere of the United States would probably be found lacking if evaluated according to the principles that Habermas lays out. By protecting the Westboro Baptist’s freedom of speech the American courts have allowed their public sphere to host messages that are decidedly undemocratic, non-rational and non-dialogic (the Westboro Baptists seem to have no interest in changing their views or listening to other parties).
Church member Shirley Phelps-Roper’s bragging that “our doctrine is all over the world because of what they [Albert Snyder and his lawyers] did” seems to support Habermas’ belief that modern times have seen the decline of the public sphere, suggesting that worldwide media technology has created a state where ideas, regardless of their merit, are unthinkingly given exposure.
On the other hand, upholding Habermas’ ideals and excluding people like the Westboro Baptists would be to reject religious systems of belief that are not judged as sufficiently rational. This seems wrong; while many religions may be non-rational in nature, they still play an important role in the lives of countless people, most of whom do not share the extremist beliefs of the Westboro Baptists. Should not an ideal sphere of public debate be able to incorporate the belief systems of all a state’s citizens? Does a Habermasian public sphere, in seeking to allow debate free from oppressive societal belief systems, risk enforcing a dogma of “rationality” and secularism itself?
Due to its inherent complexities and problems, then, it is perhaps a good idea to consider Habermas’ conception of the public sphere as a reference to which existing institutions can be compared, rather than an aspirational model.
This is a really good and provocative post. My personal view (not dissimilar to Habermas's own)... Unlike the growing tide of militant atheists emerging in response to the growing tide of religious fundamentalism, I don't think that religious worldviews per se are anathema to a rich and healthy public sphere. A 'rational' approach to debate does not rule out all religion in favour of atheism or even hardline secularism (in the sense of keeping all religious views out of the public sphere - secularism that keeps the state independent of religious institutions but allowing them to contribute to public debate is the kind of secularism I'm in favour of). The problem, as you rightly point out, is not religion but dogma: an unwillingness to enter into debate in good faith which would mean accepting that we might learn something from others, an unwillingness ever to entertain the possibility of compromise, etc. etc - these are the hallmarks of fundamentalism (and fundamentalism is not always of a religious nature!) To say that it's dogmatic to be against all forms of dogma is, to me, a sign of a virtue rather than a contradiction: a bit like being intolerant of intolerance - a very straightforward value, I'd say.