Search by Media

Os Guinness

 Os Guinness is an author and social critic. He is in demand around the world as a speaker on issues of faith, society, and public policy.

Guinness is well-known for his emphasis on the subject of truth and for arguing against moral and cultural relativism. His latest book is titled The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends On It




Subscribe to our iTunes Vodcast/Podcast - If you have a podcast reader other than iTunes click here

Bookmark and Share
06-Dec-2008 05:59 PM Warwick Howard Grace 4 out of 5 stars
No feedback was left by this visitor.
24-Dec-2008 11:27 AM Anonymous 1 out of 5 stars
Good to hear that Os Guinness understands something of what it means to have a secular constitution (i.e. separation of church and state). The ‘Sacred Square’, where only one religion is presumed to be true, certainly is unjust and unworkable. But he does seem a bit confused about the role of faith in a multi-religious society. On the one hand, he thinks people must be allowed to bring their religious beliefs into the public square, but on the other hand he also thinks that they need to keep all attempts to convert others (or talk about their faith as being ‘true’) in the private sphere. So what exactly is it that he thinks CAN be brought into the public square? Perhaps he thinks that a Christian, for example, could ‘announce’ that it is their Christian faith that underpins their particular stance on some political issue. But it is not clear how such a conversation could proceed if the interlocutors do not share the Christian faith. Put another way, if a Christian argues for some political right P on the grounds that P is consistent with or an implication of the Christian faith, then how will that persuade a Muslim, a Jew or an atheist? It won’t matter that the Christian might be arguing that P is a right for Muslims, Jews and atheists as well. The problem here is that a Muslim, a Jew or an atheist will not be persuaded by the Christian’s argument for P, since it rests on the truth of Christianity. Perhaps a Muslim, a Jew or an atheist might be able to find some other basis for believing P. But if that is how P comes to be accepted by them, then it would follow that the role of Christian faith in the public debate will have disappeared. It would have made no difference to whether or not P is accepted by the Muslim, the Jew or the atheist, since they will have accepted P on other grounds entirely. The only other option would be for the Christian to persuade all the non-Christians that Christianity is true. This would then ensure that their acceptance of P was based upon the Christian faith. But aside from the impracticality of such a suggestion (we are talking about national politics here), attempts to convert are, as Guinness argues, a private matter. As he puts it in the video: “If I want to witness to someone about my faith in Christ, that’s not something we should be doing in the public square”. There are two other possibilities: (A) Bring all the truth-claims of religions into the public sphere (e.g. Jesus rose from the death, the Koran is divine revelation), and let them be rationally assessed for their credibility so that we can, as a nation, determine which, if any, is a sufficiently plausible foundation upon which to base the political direction of our national life; or (B) argue for political positions on the basis of premises that are available or acceptable to people or all faiths or none, i.e. secular premises. Option (A) would be a wonderful idea, as it would ensure that the truth-claims of religions are not given the ‘free pass’ that they are so often given in politics. But it is a strategy doomed to fail, for two reasons. First, even if it was shown, in the public sphere, that a particular religious belief was not sufficiently credible to serve as a foundation for political decisions, that would be unlikely to persuade those who hold that belief. They would merely resort to the usual fall-back of ‘well, it’s a matter of faith, not reason’ – or ‘you can’t understand because you haven’t experienced the love of Jesus’, or whatever. Second, the only way that any religious believer would be satisfied is if their own religion won the debate. But if this happened, then we would be back with the unjust ‘Sacred Square’. This is precisely why the founders of the American constitution argued that the only just and workable solution to the question of “how do we live with our religious differences” is option (B), that is, the ‘Naked Public Square’, where appeals to faith are excluded from public debate. Call yourself a Christian in public if you like, but (a) don’t assume that non-Christians are, for that reason alone, obliged to take your political claims seriously; and (b) don’t try and argue for political claims merely by appealing to the truth of your faith, since that will not persuade any non-Christians who are not already persuaded on other grounds. If you want to enter the public square, then you need to use arguments that will be persuasive to those who do not share your faith. In short, feel free to be religious if you want. But best to keep it to yourself. Happy Xmas!
25-Jan-2009 04:54 PM Anonymous 1 out of 5 stars
Thank goodness we now have an American President, Obama, who - contra Os Guinness - understands the importance of and rationale behind keeping the 'Public Square' free from the intrusion of explicitly religious values and arguments. As he puts it: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." Best wishes, Anon.
20-Feb-2009 12:21 AM Jane Doe 3 out of 5 stars
The responses given here only highlight problems with a purported solution given by Guinness. I'm not seeing a counter solution presented, just complaints.
20-Feb-2009 04:48 PM Anonymous 1 out of 5 stars
Dear Jane, thanks for your response - - The counter-solution that was presented in both responses is the 'Naked Public Square': that is, (1) "appeals to faith [should be] excluded from public debate"; or as Obama puts it (2) "the religiously motivated [should] translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values." Regards, Anon.
02-May-2009 02:10 AM John Woodford 4 out of 5 stars
I've known about Dr. Guinness for quite some years, very glad to see he is continuing to offer his wise counsel. In this case, with his words about being a person of faith (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or of no faith) - and a good citizen, in the best sense - in today's world, remind us that we can hold very deep convictions with civility, with a love for those who honestly and, sometimes, sharply disagree. In the world, but not of it . . . but also, not against it, as in "if you are not for us, you are against us."
06-Apr-2010 08:53 AM M Wright 3 out of 5 stars
I find it hard to understand the difference between 'universal' and 'religious' values. Being brought up in the UK, avowedly a Chrisian state by historic inheritance, I was constantly finding 'universal' values put before me that were clearly against my faith. This is not the fault of my teachers per se, but of a popular belief that you can hold convictions without them penetrating your thoughts, words and deeds. A 'Public Square' is always governed by someone, or a party, or a set of rules, and these carry implicit value statements. It's never neutral, not can it be. These are the people who decide what is a 'universal value' at any particlar point in any 'public square', and that will refelct their ideals and priciples. Or perhaps you want politicians without principles?

Surely it has always been a matter of 'by their fruits you shall know them,' the simple matter of knowing whether you can trust someone or not. Knowing their beliefs is useful in this, but pretending that beliefs can be boiled down to common absolutes is not an option.

Having said that, God deliver us from partisan rabble rousers. It's knowing the person and responding appropriately that is the answer here, not stale rules of engagement.
03-Jul-2010 12:59 AM Charlie J. Ray 3 out of 5 stars
I for one do not agree that Christians have no freedom of speech and religion to speak openly and freely in the public square. Os Guinness is obviously a compromiser.

Comment


No Very





Captcha
•