There have always existed two realms of discourse--the public, where actions are presented for popular consumption, and the private, where individuals are allowed to more or less do as they please. Underlying this dichotomy is the simple reality that there are certain dialogues which must necessarily take place in public--for example, the making of laws that govern the citizens of a state--and personal concerns, which have no necessity being brought into the public realm.
While many discourses have clear public or private markers ascribed to them, the placement of religion is far more contentious. As in any debate, there are today two contradictory sides. One argues that there are those, both religious and non-religious, who hold that religious beliefs should be relegated entirely to the private arena. These individuals are bound together by a simple motto: "it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you practice it in your own home or community and without harm to others." On the other hand, there are those, mostly religious believers, who meet this front with skepticism and are greatly troubled by it. "Why," they ask, "shouldn't I use my faith to shape my public decision making, my notions on public policy, and my means of conveying ideas?"
This is a troubling debate indeed, made only more troubling by the fact that the perceptions of different groups on how the debate should be mediated rest on different, and in many ways contradictory, planes. The first, that religion should be a private affair, tends to see the public square as a forum for rational, scientific argument in which the not provable is not acceptable. The second position views the public square as a place where personal and/or communal conviction of faith can and should be presented. Advocates in favor of this position advance the idea that faith does not need to be rationally defended.
I claim that this second position is untenable. If each individual's convictions are allowed to exist on their own in the public square, then this unique forum will lose its defining feature as a place where individuals gather to generate truths that are not wholly subjective for they have passed the rigorous test of rational skepticism.
If one wishes to espouse religious viewpoints in the public square, they should do so in a forum that allows listeners to engage in a dialogue where mere professions of belief should not substitute for arguments grounded in reason and in which the theologic cannot replace pure logic. If individuals who publicly profess faith do not wish to face this scrutiny, they should share their convictions of faith on a private level, on a semi-private level with a community of like believers, and hopefully in an open forum, instead of with the public at large.
