# Does religion have a place in public debate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2019, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709 "2019-05-29T15:02:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/201 "2019-06-01T13:42:27Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > And some people understand that transcendence is a feeling and emotion You’re using the word “transcendence” in a different sense than **senoy** is, if you’re using it to refer to a feeling or emotion. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/202 "2019-06-01T14:07:27Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > You’re using the word “transcendence” in a different sense than **senoy** is, if you’re using it to refer to a feeling or emotion. Yep. I’m not sure why there is a desire to ascribe _transcendence_ to concepts beyond immediate human physical needs. Did I misunderstand what **senoy** is attempting to communicate? ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/203 "2019-06-01T15:13:51Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > try explaining that to a guy that is both bigger and dumber than you. I don’t have to. Evolution has. All social species have rules of behavior. They may not be written down. They may not even be in anything resembling human language. And, among humans, they may vary widely from one group to another. But no social species simply thinks there’s nothing wrong under any circumstances with killing other members of the group: because no such group would survive. Yes, people sometimes break those rules anyway. [ETA: And the rules of a particular society may allow killing certain of its members under some circumstances.] But that’s not the same thing as claiming no society had any such rules until we got around to writing them down. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Even after the 10 commandments came down from the mountain, they still didn’t see anything wrong with killing or stealing. > > Killing or stealing from their own community, sure, that was “wrong”, but the bible is chock full of them going out and killing and stealing from others. And people still do that; and modern societies, in certain circumstances, still agree with it. Modern societies allow among other things for self-defense, for killing in war, and for such things as ‘eminent domain’, which is taking property against people’s will, supposedly (and sometimes actually) for the good of the group. Precisely as you say: the 10 Commandments didn’t change any of that. This bit of discussion is in response to some people claiming that before the 10 Commandments people had no idea of what was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. > [@senoy](#): > > I think you do. There’s no physicalist reason to prioritize wealth or stability over anything else. Sure there is. There’s no _logical_ reason for the underlying desire to do so, no. But there’s a _physical_ reason: which is that we have emotions, which make us want to be comfortable – and, for that matter, make us want to be alive. And, given that physical reason, one can apply logic to the probable consequences of poverty and instability. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You claimed that abortion wasn’t a sin. > > Ok, genius, the word “abortion” isn’t in the Bible. Probably because the word itself didn’t exist thousands of years ago. 1. No word in an English edition of the Bible existed thousands of years ago. (Well, maybe a few along the lines of ‘Mama’.) 2. The claim had nothing to do with whether abortion is a sin. It had to do with whether the subject is discussed in the Bible. 3. Even if abortion were discussed in the Bible (unclear; there’s an entire other recent thread on the Dope about that subject, I suggest you go read that one); and even if it were forbidden in the Bible (which according to many people who consider those references to be about abortion it isn’t; see that same thread), statements in the Bible even if their meanings are agreed upon by all Christians (rare) and all Jews and Muslims (even rarer) aren’t binding upon anybody who isn’t a practicing member of any of those religions. 4. “Sin” is religious terminology. To people who don’t believe in that particular religious concept, coming into a discussion about what the secular laws should be on the subject of abortion (or on any other subject) by saying ‘abortion should be forbidden because it’s a sin’ makes exactly as much sense as saying ‘abortion should be forbidden because it’s a pink polkadot unicorn’. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/204 "2019-06-01T15:29:29Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Yep. > > I’m not sure why there is a desire to ascribe _transcendence_ to concepts beyond immediate human physical needs. > > Did I misunderstand what **senoy** is attempting to communicate? I’m also having a bit of trouble. I think it may come from the is/ought distinction [Is–ought problem - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem) Seems a little strange for a concept from David Hume to get used that way. There is potentially quite a difference between the method we use to determine what is from the method we use to determine what ought to be. While scientific data and engineering intelligence can tell us a great deal about the most effective or efficient way to bring about our desires, our desires are not, at the subjective level at which we experience them, empirical facts. It can be factual or not that we have them but the sentiments that move us away from something and towards something are not the same as scientific facts. If I understand correctly, Senoy would also extend transcendence to things like art or a completely secular Civil Rights speech. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/205 "2019-06-01T16:03:53Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > If I understand correctly, Senoy would also extend transcendence to things like art or a completely secular Civil Rights speech. Sure, I get that. Some words and images serve to communicate ideas, others tend to also move us in emotional ways. Emotion is a human physical condition/response to such stimuli. But to me, that is the limit of their transcendence, and I question those who claim it is anything beyond that. Still not sure if **senoy** is making that claim or not. Is transcendence a thing floating in the ether? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/206 "2019-06-01T16:27:17Z")
To start off, I ask the question, is this an appropriate use of religion in the public sphere? > [@Stupid Republican idea of the day](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/41203): > > Florida State Rep. Mike Hill (R-Pensacola) jokes about filing a bill to execute gay people: > > A citizen comments: “In 1 Corinthians, it says that a man who has an affair with another man will be put to death.” > > Hill’s response? > > “It says that in the Old Testament, too.” > > Another attendee asks, “Can you introduce legislation?” > > Chuckles are audible. The state representative joins the laughter. “I wonder how that would go over?” Hill says. > > [Rep. Mike Hill facing bipartisan condemnation after joking about filing bill allowing gays to be executed | The Capitolist](https://thecapitolist.com/rep-mike-hill-facing-bipartisan-condemnation-after-joking-about-filing-bill-allowing-gays-to-be-executed/) > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You claimed that abortion wasn’t a sin. Ah, there’s your problem, that is not the claim that I made. > [@](#): > > Ok, genius, the word “abortion” isn’t in the Bible. Probably because the word itself didn’t exist thousands of years ago. First of all, please cite that the King James Bible was written thousands of years ago. Moby Dick never says that only virgins can ride Unicorns, did you need a cite for that too? > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > I don’t have to. Evolution has. > > All social species have rules of behavior. They may not be written down. They may not even be in anything resembling human language. And, among humans, they may vary widely from one group to another. But no social species simply thinks there’s nothing wrong under any circumstances with killing other members of the group: because no such group would survive. Like I said, it is not coincidence that civilization grew up around those who shared a premise that murder was bad. But that did not mean that all members of a community agreed with that. Sometimes those members would leave the community and act as bandits or raiders, and sometimes they would stay in the community and do harm from there. It actually did need to be written down, in stone as a matter of fact, in order for the people to really _get_ it. > [@](#): > > Yes, people sometimes break those rules anyway. [ETA: And the rules of a particular society may allow killing certain of its members under some circumstances.] But that’s not the same thing as claiming no society had any such rules until we got around to writing them down. > > And people still do that; and modern societies, in certain circumstances, still agree with it. Modern societies allow among other things for self-defense, for killing in war, and for such things as ‘eminent domain’, which is taking property against people’s will, supposedly (and sometimes actually) for the good of the group. Which is my point, we still don’t think that killing is wrong if there are no negative consequences. > [@](#): > > Precisely as you say: the 10 Commandments didn’t change any of that. This bit of discussion is in response to some people claiming that before the 10 Commandments people had no idea of what was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. No idea as to what was right and wrong? Not really, they had ideas. An _agreement_ as to what was right and what was wrong? That needed to be written down for everyone to see. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/207 "2019-06-01T17:23:32Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > It actually did need to be written down, in stone as a matter of fact, in order for the people to really _get_ it. > . People didn’t “get it” any better after it was written down, in stone or otherwise, than they did before. There continue to be people who don’t get it, no matter how many times or where it’s written; as well as people who “get it” just fine but don’t like it and think they can get away with violating rules. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > No idea as to what was right and wrong? Not really, they had ideas. > > An _agreement_ as to what was right and what was wrong? That needed to be written down for everyone to see. The reason it helped for it to be written down had to do with population levels and the development of kings/ruling castes\*. Small groups can come to consensus as to what the rules are without needing to write anything. Large groups of people find this more difficult. Groups ruled by kings\* run into the problem that if the law is whatever the king says it is, then nobody knows at any given time whether they’re violating the law or not – specifically because at that point you’re not going by agreement, you’re going by edict. If edicts are written down, at least people can find out what they are, and have something they can point to in their own defense if the king says on Tuesday that everybody should raise pigs because they’re great food and on Wednesday that eating pork is a horrible crime. A written law provides limits on kings/rulers. And plenty of people wrote rules and agreements down, in one form or another, long before they ever heard of the Ten Commandments. \*For “kings”, please read also “or any individual or small group, priests included, which is a small percentage of the community but makes rules other people have to abide by.” ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/208 "2019-06-01T18:18:58Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Sure, I get that. Some words and images serve to communicate ideas, others tend to also move us in emotional ways. Emotion is a human physical condition/response to such stimuli. But to me, that is the limit of their transcendence, and I question those who claim it is anything beyond that. Still not sure if **senoy** is making that claim or not. Is transcendence a thing floating in the ether? To me, adding the supernatural to this seems like a fig leaf but I guess religious people appreciate those. An hypothesis I’ve had, which may be completely off or only be accurate with a small minority, is that some people perceive something good yet, for whatever reason, don’t ascribe it to their own minds\*. I remember a woman with bipolar disorder reporting that during her psychotic episode, she heard voices telling her she was loved. Since she was alone, she couldn’t ascribe the mental phenomenon of voices to her environment and, being psychotic, didn’t have the self-awareness to realize that she was perceiving, but not recognizing, her own self-talk. If it doesn’t come from the external world and you can’t/won’t see that it comes from within you, what do you ascribe it to? The supernatural. If someone who dives deep in existential questions, which I presume Senoy has done a fair amount of, they may perceive something great yet ascribe it to_something_ that’s neither their own mind nor the external physical world; The supernatural. It’s probably the same reason schizophrenics report hearing voices; A part of their mind perceives another part of the mind yet fails to recognize it as itself. Remember Marcus Aurelius:“Look within, within is the fountain of the good. It will ever bubble up if you will ever dig”. Now look at the first quarter of AA steps: Step 1: We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable. Step 2: Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. Step 3: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him 1. I’m not good enough, I’m a mess, I’m powerless. 2. Something better/greater/more powerful than me can make things better. 3. I trust the Greater Thing will make things better. This reduces anxiety, fear of failure. If you believe that about yourself, you may not believe that it will ever bubble up if you will ever dig. You might think it’s not a fountain but a swamp or sewer. The way of thinking isn’t limited to alcoholics or people having a psychotic breakdown. As you can see from the first quarter of the steps, especially the first, some people may think that no matter how much they dig, they’ll only find shit. Yet they perceive something good as a mental phenomenon they’re experiencing and which demands an explanation. That then gets projected unto the world as supernatural (just like the bipolar woman hearing her own living voice). It’s the equivalent of perceiving a bunny in the clouds, hearing that bunny gently whisper for peace, love and happiness and then worshiping the Sky Bunny and insisting that the Bunny Church should get to speak in favor of good things without being prejudged. Which, I suppose, is fair enough. - In a way, they may be half right but that’s straying too far. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/209 "2019-06-01T18:58:27Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > They do have evidence, it’s just evidence you find flawed. There’s a difference. > > Regarding Voyagers statements, the question posed was not whether or not a particular person would find their arguments convincing, but whether they have a ‘place’ at the table. Whether you find them convincing depends largely on your presuppositions. If you presuppose that all religious arguments are wrong, you are unlikely to be convinced. A certain type of Neitzschean might find any appeals to fairness or equality fundamentally wrong-this does not mean that arguments about fairness have no place in political duscussions. Simply because we all have different presuppositions does not mean that any assertion that relies on a particular subset of presuppositions does not deserve a hearing. If we disallowed any argument based on presuppositions that others might find flawed, no arguments would be allowed at all. Being convinced has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of purely secular arguments I don’t find convincing, but they are arguments with a place at the table. The problem is when the premise of an argument is absolute knowledge or morality, like much religious morality, justified from an unfalsifiable source. Let’s face it - when pressed hard enough religious people resort to faith, which is not a valid justification for a position. (If it were, many totally opposite positions would be equally justified.) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/210 "2019-06-01T19:03:51Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > An _agreement_ as to what was right and what was wrong? That needed to be written down for everyone to see. Besides the other objections to this, remember that even when it was written down 95% or more of the people wouldn’t be able to read it. Chimps seem to have a sense of fairness, so much of our universal morality seems to be hard-wired. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/211 "2019-06-01T19:17:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Besides the other objections to this, remember that even when it was written down 95% or more of the people wouldn’t be able to read it. True, but you still had leaders that interprets law, and having them all on the same “page”, as it were, allowed the community to have consistent applications and expectations of law across many parts of the community, and probably more importantly, over multiple generations as well. > [@](#): > > Chimps seem to have a sense of fairness, so much of our universal morality seems to be hard-wired. Many animals tend to have a sense of fairness, but that does not mean that they always act in ways to promote that fairness. If I give one of my dogs a treat and not the other, the second dog gets rightly upset about the unfairness of the situation. If I give the second dog a treat and not the first, the second doesn’t offer to share it. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/212 "2019-06-01T19:21:44Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > People didn’t “get it” any better after it was written down, in stone or otherwise, than they did before. There continue to be people who don’t get it, no matter how many times or where it’s written; as well as people who “get it” just fine but don’t like it and think they can get away with violating rules. The people themselves may not have cared what was scribbled on some clay tablets, but those charged with enforcing those law certainly did. Without those laws set in stone, what was impermissible was up to the ones who could enforce it to determine. > [@](#): > > The reason it helped for it to be written down had to do with population levels and the development of kings/ruling castes\*. > > Small groups can come to consensus as to what the rules are without needing to write anything. Large groups of people find this more difficult. Groups ruled by kings\* run into the problem that if the law is whatever the king says it is, then nobody knows at any given time whether they’re violating the law or not – specifically because at that point you’re not going by agreement, you’re going by edict. If edicts are written down, at least people can find out what they are, and have something they can point to in their own defense if the king says on Tuesday that everybody should raise pigs because they’re great food and on Wednesday that eating pork is a horrible crime. A written law provides limits on kings/rulers. Right, which is why you need to write them down to build a civilization. If you consider a tribe of a few dozen to be a civilization, then you would object, but I am talking about societies that are integrating many different families and tribes. > [@](#): > > And plenty of people wrote rules and agreements down, in one form or another, long before they ever heard of the Ten Commandments. Plenty of people, sure. But were these people the nomadic wanderers who had recently escaped slavery in Egypt? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/213 "2019-06-01T20:33:21Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Plenty of people, sure. But were these people the nomadic wanderers who had recently escaped slavery in Egypt? No evidence for the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/214 "2019-06-01T22:07:08Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Many animals tend to have a sense of fairness, but that does not mean that they always act in ways to promote that fairness. > > If I give one of my dogs a treat and not the other, the second dog gets rightly upset about the unfairness of the situation. If I give the second dog a treat and not the first, the second doesn’t offer to share it. Just like us. Fairness counts more when we’re not getting our fair share. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/215 "2019-06-02T00:02:22Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Ah, there’s your problem, that is not the claim that I made. Yes, it is. > [@](#): > > First of all, please cite that the King James Bible was written thousands of years ago. Who made that claim? It wasn’t me. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/216 "2019-06-02T02:40:46Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Without those laws set in stone, what was impermissible was up to the ones who could enforce it to determine. Pretty sure I just said that. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Plenty of people, sure. But were these people the nomadic wanderers who had recently escaped slavery in Egypt? No, exactly the point I’m making is that they weren’t. Are you claiming that those were the only people who counted? Look, what I’m trying to get across here is in response to the discussion quoted below (quoting both sides as it doesn’t make much sense otherwise): > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Because religion is not a basis on which to build a just society. If you disagree, I challenge you to cite one country governed by religious doctrine that you would call a just society. > [@Biffster](#): > > Hmmm. I wonder if we could find a country whose laws largely reflect the Ten Commandments…where killing and stealing are prohibited by law for example… > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Is it your contention that people simply didn’t know that it was wrong to kill, steal and lie, until Moses came down from the mountain and administered a dose of moral code in tablet form? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > To be fair, they probably didn’t. Not really. What was the consequence of murder, or of theft? These were nomads wandering the desert, even the code of Hammurabi would be probably mostly unknown to them. > > How can you say that something is wrong if there is no consequence. and what I’m doing is agreeing with QuickSilver that the laws of the USA and other countries don’t need to draw on the Ten Commandments to ban killing and stealing, because people clear back as long as there have been people and most likely before had reasons to ban killing and stealing\*; and yes indeed people knew that long before anybody told a story about Moses and stone tablets, and knew it after that in parts of the world where they’d never heard of the Ten Commandments. (\*yes, under some circumstances and not others, and not perfectly obeyed – but that’s also true of people who do think of themselves as following the Ten Commandments, and also true in the modern USA.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/217 "2019-06-02T04:00:58Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > Hmmm. I wonder if we could find a country whose laws largely reflect the Ten Commandments…where killing and stealing are prohibited by law for example… > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Is it your contention that people simply didn’t know that it was wrong to kill, steal and lie, until Moses came down from the mountain and administered a dose of moral code in tablet form? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > To be fair, they probably didn’t. Not really. What was the consequence of murder, or of theft? These were nomads wandering the desert, even the code of Hammurabi would be probably mostly unknown to them. Back in Intro to Anthropology, (45 years ago, so I have no citation handy), the claim was made that every society has laws prohibiting Murder, Incest, and Theft. This definitely included all the pre-literate societies. The definitions may differ from group to group, _e.g._, murder might be defined as killing a member of one’s own group while outsiders are fair game, theft might be similarly circumscribed, and incest is defined by a whole host of complex relationship rules. However, a written language was hardly needed for the rules to be memorized and internalized. Even if one went with the flawed premise that literacy was required for laws, The Decalogue found in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy was probably written around the 6th century B.C.E. while the Code of Hammurabi dates to about 1720 B.C.E, preceding the Decalogue by 12 centuries. The notion that humans existed without laws for close to 200,000 years is not a realistic assumption. Now, it is probably true that all laws originally derived from religious belief. However, that is simply the function of our current understanding of the way that religion has appeared to have provided cohesion for all societies up until that last couple of centuries. If all societies found their cohesion in religion, then lawgiving was an obvious outcome of that phenomenon. (It still did not require divine intervention.) = = = As to the OP, religion continues to effect the moral/ethical beliefs of most humans. As such, it deserves a place at the roundtable of discussion just as any significant social organization deserves a place. However, that means that it shares a place with the ELKS, the VFW, the NRA, a political party, fans of a sport, or any other social organization. In other words, as representative of groups of varying sizes, any group can express a collective voice. Further,if the group has developed a philosophy, that group is entitled to express desires for laws based on that philosophy. What that group has NO right to do is to insist that their philosophy has a right to dictate law for others because of divine authorship. Putting forth the group’s philosophy to be evaluated by the rest of society is fine, as long as they express it as “This is our belief and this is why we believe it to be better than other proposals.” If the rest of society says, “That makes sense.” all well and good. If the rest of society rejects either the arguments or the underlying philosophy, the group must (in a Democracy), simply live with the result, although the group may continue to argue for their rejected proposal. There is no reason why a (religious) group must remain silent, but they are not justified in insisting that their proposals must be right because God said so. If they present an argument, it must be couched in the language and logic of the overall society. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/218 "2019-06-02T06:13:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Now, it is probably true that all laws originally derived from religious belief. However, that is simply the function of our current understanding of the way that religion has appeared to have provided cohesion for all societies up until that last couple of centuries. If all societies found their cohesion in religion, then lawgiving was an obvious outcome of that phenomenon. (It still did not require divine intervention.) If some of our morals are genetically based, I’d think the content of our laws comes from that. But I think you’re probably right that the enforcement of the laws, and their codification, comes from religious belief. So it depends on what is meant by derived. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/219 "2019-06-02T14:50:06Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Yes, it is. Hmm, no. Re-read the thread and try again. > [@](#): > > Who made that claim? It wasn’t me. Sorry, that was presumptuous of me. What Bible is it that you are claiming was written thousands of years ago? > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Pretty sure I just said that. Right, I think we are in agreement then. > [@](#): > > No, exactly the point I’m making is that they weren’t. Are you claiming that those were the only people who counted? Only people who counted? Not really. People who count when we are talking about the origins of the Abrahamic religions that largely influence the public policy of the US? Yeah, they are pretty important. > [@](#): > > Look, what I’m trying to get across here is in response to the discussion quoted below (quoting both sides as it doesn’t make much sense otherwise): I’m just talking about this group of people, who, after having left civilization and were wandering the wilderness for a while, had seemed to have lost all sense of right and wrong. The Ten commandments and all that “covenant” stuff was the formation of a new civilization, a new society based upon agreed upon rules. Moses’s God considered the creation of the Golden Calf a much greater sin than murder: > [@](#): > > 22 “Do not be angry, my lord,” Aaron answered. “You know how prone these people are to evil. 23 They said to me, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.’ 24 So I told them, ‘Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!” > > 25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him. > > 27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.” (For the purposes of this discussion, I am treating the King James Bible as a historically accurate document, even though there are a _few_ inconsistencies here and there from secular archeology and history.) > [@](#): > > and what I’m doing is agreeing with QuickSilver that the laws of the USA and other countries don’t need to draw on the Ten Commandments to ban killing and stealing, because people clear back as long as there have been people and most likely before had reasons to ban killing and stealing\*; and yes indeed people knew that long before anybody told a story about Moses and stone tablets, and knew it after that in parts of the world where they’d never heard of the Ten Commandments. I agree with that, we are not at odds on this. I am not talking about why we should follow religious traditions, I am just saying that in their time and place, they did make sense. I think it is necessary to understand that they were necessary, that they did do some measure of good, in their time and place, in order to understand why they no longer are useful for this time and place. Most people will not kill or steal because their conscience tells them it is wrong. Many more will not kill or steal because their community tells them it is wrong. But there are many who do not kill or steal only because they are afraid of the punishment for doing so. Creating an invisible man in the sky that sees everything you do and will hold you to account in this life or the next is necessary to keep those people in line. It’s no different than a prudish parent telling their son that mastubation will make them go blind. I like to think that we are beyond such superstitious threats. > [@](#): > > (\*yes, under some circumstances and not others, and not perfectly obeyed – but that’s also true of people who do think of themselves as following the Ten Commandments, and also true in the modern USA.) And they were often commanded by the same “entity” that told them not to kill or steal to go out and kill and steal. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/220 "2019-06-02T18:48:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Now, it is probably true that all laws originally derived from religious belief. . If you mean that by the time people started writing down laws we’d also developed religions and that the early written laws reflected the various religions in the places in which they were written, that’s quite possibly correct. If you mean that the underlying formation of those laws were derived from religious belief, I suspect it was more the other way around. I think we had evolved ideas of justice, and had developed in various areas various practical ways to stay alive and to keep groups cohesive; and when we then proceeded to invent gods, we ascribed these ideas of justice, rules of interaction within the group and between groups, practices about what to eat, etc. to those gods. I agree that doing this served a function within society. It may well have been at least part of the reason why we developed religions. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Only people who counted? Not really. > > People who count when we are talking about the origins of the Abrahamic religions that largely influence the public policy of the US? Yeah, they are pretty important. Is that all we’re talking about? I thought the topic of this thread was wider than that. And while I agree that the Abrahamic religions, primarily Christianity, do influence the public policy of the US, I don’t think that’s at all the same thing as claiming that we set up our legal system to be in accordance with the Ten Commandments; or that the existence of the Ten Commandments was necessary in order for people to start setting up legal systems. Which, again, are the claims I’ve been trying to respond to. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’m just talking about this group of people, who, after having left civilization and were wandering the wilderness for a while, had seemed to have lost all sense of right and wrong. I’ve just re-read most of Exodus, and I’m not seeing that at all. According to that story: First of all, while they were still in civilization in Egypt, they didn’t have our ideas of what’s right and wrong; because they said God told them to steal the jewelry of their neighbors and guests. [Exodus 3-22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+3&version=KJ21). Second, when Moses first got those commandments, they’d been in the wilderness all of three months. [Exodus 19-1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+19&version=KJ21). Third, and most relevant, they clearly didn’t have our ideas of right and wrong after they got those commandments; because pretty much the first thing they did was > [@](#): > > ‘Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.’ [Exodus 32-27](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+32&version=KJ21). They didn’t do that because they had no sense of right and wrong, but because they’d just been told it was wrong to make idols, and they apparently thought that doing so deserved a death sentence. It doesn’t match at all with a modern sense of ‘thou shalt not kill’, though. So it seems to me that they had a different sense of right and wrong than we did; and that they had it both before and after they got those commandments. But I don’t in any case see any supporting evidence for a theory that they were moral in civilization, became immoral in the wilderness, and then became moral again on getting the Ten Commandments. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > (For the purposes of this discussion, I am treating the King James Bible as a historically accurate document, even though there are a _few_ inconsistencies here and there from secular archeology and history.) There are quite a lot of such inconsistencies. But since you said you’re using the King James, I used that version for the above quotes. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I am not talking about why we should follow religious traditions, I am just saying that in their time and place, they did make sense. I think it is necessary to understand that they were necessary, that they did do some measure of good, in their time and place, in order to understand why they no longer are useful for this time and place. I agree that human societies must have found them useful, and often still do; there’s got to be a reason why so many societies developed them. They’ve done a lot of harm as well as good, however – go ask Aaron. And the good that they’ve done can all be backed by other reasons. So people trying to live with each other without murdering each other over religious differences need to find other ways to back the good reasons. If they also feel that the things they want to back are God’s will, that’s fine – but if the only reason they’ve got for backing a law that’s going to be inflicted on other people is ‘God said so’, and/or “Tradition!” – that’s not enough. And what it leads to is all too often ‘slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=12)