ith and se Invgrity of he Polity
incremigt of direct democracy, the kindof democracy that docs not
‘merely Feckon with my wants but admis me asa moral person to be
resent at decisions end conerbuse my moral creativity. And if such a
slrgt democracy is to be possible, ie mas be paired with « new bicth
Gl gion, for which I tink ee Christian church an the synagogue
lus cake responsibility.
‘We cannoc continve any longer simply eo exscrate bad civil eligion
withoue saying what we chink would be better. Moral discourse that
clares to be creative can be sustained only by promi, by tligion that
at coce opens the future, makes it plausible tha things can be different,
and makes it tolerable to step into that open furue, by saying that
‘knowable good is waiting there, That is to say, mon discourse that
dates moral creatviy can be sustained only by seligio that isa celigion
of promise
For when we are not called ro choose what isco be done on the buss
of exiscng moral standards bu co choose new sandasds — as we were,
fo example, over agains slavery — then we cur dizaiy in the sphere
‘of feeedom: we do noe know anymore what isthe eight; we are to
sliscover what isthe eight. Humans cannot stand to ener that sphete
if ei eapey, if la Sartre che only ching hae wil fli is our owa,