# 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:** 12
**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, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/221 "2019-06-02T19:43:49Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Is that all we’re talking about? I thought the topic of this thread was wider than that. The topic of the thread is certainly wider than that, but I was responding to a specific poster that was talking about these specific people. > [@](#): > > 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. I agree. As I said upthread, only 2 of the 10 commandments are laws. 20% is not, as the poster I was responding to there claimed, “largely reflective”. > [@](#): > > 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). they had no civilization of their own. > [@](#): > > 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). It’s been a while since I read it all the way through, so I thought it took longer than that. But, in any case, while there isn’t a rigorous timeline, many concur that Lord of the Flies took place over only a couple of months. Moses was then gone for a good month up the mountain. > [@](#): > > 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 I actually quoted the same passage in my post. (different bible version, but same passage) And, they didn’t actually have the commandments yet. When Moses came down and saw their wickedness, he cast them down, then commanded the genocide of his own people. > [@](#): > > 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. I’m not making that theory. They were not a part of the civilization of Egypt. They were slaves. The laws over them were that they had no rights and had to do whatever they were told by their oppressors. Then they were free. Free to determine their own laws and their own morality. Then they were given a new covenant, new laws, and the Ten Commandments were, while the most important of the laws, certainly not the entirety of the codified rules of conduct that came along with them. > [@](#): > > 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. I only pointed out that I am using it as historically accurate as one poster already pointed out that the story of them leaving egypt has no evidence to back it, and the fact that the very existence of Moses himself has no evidence to back it up, so I wasn’t wanting to get bogged down in that side track of a discussion. > [@](#): > > 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’. Law needs to extend from some authority. Laws have to be in place because _someone_ said so. In our secular democracy, we say that laws extend from the govt that extends from those governed. They are enforced with well trained and equipped (okay they could in many cases use better training, but who would you rather deal with, your average modern cop, or your average egyptian law enforcer). Making them come from God gives them that authority, and gives them a form of enforcement that was not possible in that day and age. The laws were not made for the majority of the people who already agreed with those laws, they were made for the people who needed to be told how to behave in civilization, and that there would be consequences if they didn’t. At the same time, as I said, there was more than just the commandments. They cam with a whole host of laws, many of which we would think are pretty common sense today. Stuff had to be spelled out: > [@](#): > > “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. > > 8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. > > 9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. > > 10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you. > > 11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister. > > 12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative. > > 13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative. > > 14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt. > > 15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her. > > 16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother. > > 17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness. And of course, there was a bit of self serving in there too: > [@](#): > > “‘When anyone brings a grain offering to the Lord, their offering is to be of the finest flour. They are to pour olive oil on it, put incense on it 2 and take it to Aaron’s sons the priests. The priest shall take a handful of the flour and oil, together with all the incense, and burn this as a memorial[a] portion on the altar, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord. 3 The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the food offerings presented to the Lord. Yeah, give me your best flour, 'cause God said so. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/222 "2019-06-02T20:08:24Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > It doesn’t match at all with a modern sense of ‘thou shalt not kill’, though. Well, not really. The original word in Hebrew was a reference that often meant murder." Executions and war were not forbidden under that command. For some reason, the Septuagint translated the Hebrew word for murder to the Greek word for kill. (There might have been a connotation in Greek that indicated the killing referenced was illegal, but if so, that connotation has been lost through the years.) Bibles translated from the Septuagint, even when they claim to be translating from the original languages, are not correct. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/223 "2019-06-02T20:17:06Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > 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. > > 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. > > 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 > > [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. > > 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. > > 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’. It is my understanding that ‘Thou shall not kill’ was a reference to the tribes of Israel; everyone from outside of the twelve tribes was fair game. God Himself set a pretty shitty example by indiscriminately killing Egyptians, especially by drowning them at the Red Sea. God—the original mass murderer. But of course it was justifiable if used to help the ‘chosen people.’ ---
**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 2, 2019, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/224 "2019-06-02T20:33:38Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > It is my understanding that ‘Thou shall not kill’ was a reference to the tribes of Israel; everyone from outside of the twelve tribes was fair game. God Himself set a pretty shitty example by indiscriminately killing Egyptians, especially by drowning them at the Red Sea. God—the original mass murderer. But of course it was justifiable if used to help the ‘chosen people.’ Wasn’t the first nor last time he chose sides. ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/225 "2019-06-02T20:41:09Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > And, they didn’t actually have the commandments yet. When Moses came down and saw their wickedness, he cast them down, then commanded the genocide of his own people… Moses had them. And he was, as you say, the one who commanded those murders. > [@Biffster](#): > > It is my understanding that ‘Thou shall not kill’ was a reference to the tribes of Israel; everyone from outside of the twelve tribes was fair game. ’ Did you note that my post pointed out that the first thing Moses did with those commandments was to have the members of the tribes of Israel murder each other? – more later, maybe; or maybe not. I’ve got to get something else done for a while. ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/226 "2019-06-02T21:00:25Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > How do you debate religion? > > It’s the fucking word of God. > > You want me to debate the merits of those requirements put forth upon us by Our Creator, the Omniscient and All Powerful Creator of the Universe? > > Not interested, thanks. Fine, as long as you agree which god it is. The sparks tend to fly if you don’t. So it is a duel to the death between a Christian god (some will say: no, you mean \*the \*Christian God) and Allah? Or are they one and the same? I do wish somebody would find out. ---
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/227 "2019-06-02T21:49:56Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Hmm, no. Re-read the thread and try again. Umm, no. Re-read the thread and try again. ---
**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, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/228 "2019-06-02T21:53:40Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Umm, no. Re-read the thread and try again. I’m sorry if this is over your head and you are having trouble keeping up. Good luck in the future, though. ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/229 "2019-06-02T21:58:21Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’m sorry if this is over your head and you are having trouble keeping up. > > Good luck in the future, though. It’s not over MY head, it’s over yours. Please put me on ignore. ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/230 "2019-06-02T22:01:29Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > It’s not over MY head, it’s over yours. Please put me on ignore. :rolleyes: ---
**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 2, 2019, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/231 "2019-06-02T23:44:29Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > It’s not over MY head, it’s over yours. Please put me on ignore. Please don’t interrupt while adults are speaking. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/232 "2019-06-02T23:54:05Z")
> [@Brayne\_Ded](#): > > Fine, as long as you agree which god it is. The sparks tend to fly if you don’t. > > So it is a duel to the death between a Christian god (some will say: no, you mean \*the \*Christian God) and Allah? Or are they one and the same? I do wish somebody would find out. The ones who know have unfortunately not come back to life to be able to report. ---
**Author:** ![Gullibility\_is\_Underated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecae2f/32.png) [@Gullibility\_is\_Underated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gullibility_is_Underated)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/233 "2019-06-03T07:41:24Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > If you’re looking for Utopia, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed. > > Here are [16](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/the-16-most-socially-advanced-countries-in-the-world/) that by most standards are considered best of breed with respect to socially democratic ideals. Not one is a theocracy. I have a sneaking suspicion they made room for the US at the bottom of the list. Interesting that 15 out of the 16 started off as ostensibly Christian countries. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/234 "2019-06-03T12:38:17Z")
**D’Anconia** , **k9bfriender** , and **QuickSilver** knock it off. Go open a \*\*Pit \*\* thread if you need to vent without participating in the actual discussion. [/Moderating] ---
**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 3, 2019, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/235 "2019-06-03T12:55:18Z")
> [@Gullibility\_is\_Underated](#): > > Interesting that 15 out of the 16 started off as ostensibly Christian countries. Yes they did. They got better as they became more democratic and secular. That’s not all that’s required to create a more just society, but it’s a good place to start. Is it your contention that Christianity is responsible for the secularization and democratization of these countries? Or are you saying, ‘Look how well that turned out – they are hardly Christian at all!’ ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/236 "2019-06-03T17:23:58Z")
Of course religion should have a place in the public debate. Religion is a very important part of many peoples lives, and in many cases provides a great deal of solace and comfort. As something that is such a important part of the lives of the citizens it should be taken into account. So should football fandom, and enjoyment of amateur ornithology. If there is a piece of lad that developers want to build a football stadium on, that is also an important migratory stop for birds, as well as a sacred site of the native American tribes of that region, then any discussion of what should be done with the site needs to take all three viewpoints into account. The only question is the extent to which religious interests take precedence over other interests. Given their importance to the lives of the citizens, I do see reasonable reasons to give it precedence over some other interests. Apparently our founding fathers agreed to the extent that it is one of the few activities mentioned in the constitution, along with other such important activities like voting, speech, assembly and (for some reason) firearm ownership. So it makes sense to the largest extent possible to attempt to accommodate the beliefs of religions individuals. But this does not extend to forcing those religious beliefs and practices on to a population that doesn’t hold them. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/237 "2019-06-05T02:33:55Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > What if you held the same belief about red-haired people because you attended the same church? Would you argue against the law based on the fact that it unfairly discriminates, or would you agree with your fellow anti-gingers? If it was my belief that red-haired people who walk in the park on Sunday represents a grave moral wrong, my beliefs would be in direct conflict with the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution. I would therefore go for a constitutional amendment rather than a state or federal law, unless I somehow thought an unconstitutional state or federal law would gather political support for a constitutional amendment. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > And what if you were in a position of power, like a congressman in a representative democracy, representing lots of constituents that were also anti-gingers? If I took an oath to uphold the constitution, or felt it was my duty to do so, I would vote against the proposed law on the basis of its unconstitutionality; alternatively, I would vote for the law but make clear for the record that I think it is unconstitutional and prefer a constitutional amendment. I would make clear that I support a constitutional amendment by proposing or co-signing such an amendment. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Would you then think it fair and right to pass laws based on your religious belief system despite the fact that many of the people you also happen to represent are red-heads? It depends. I would hold meetings and possibly debates with my constituents and welcome their letters/emails. There is a little bit of “you get what you voted for”, but it is also my responsibility as the informed representative to keep an open mind, to try and convince the population to support my decision, or at least to make clear my rationale. If it is clear to me that nobody agrees with my crazy religious belief and they only elected me because of my secular positions, I would not have the “mandate of the people” so to speak. It would depend on how many people disagree with the law, how strongly they disagree, how many people would actually be affected, and how important it is in my religion to keep red-headed people out of parks on Sunday. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Can you now see how arguments from religious convictions are a problem in public policy debate? No, how do you reach that conclusion? Realistically speaking, this red-headed walking in parks on Sunday ban is a stupid belief, but only because I don’t actually believe it. If somehow my religion places red-headed people walking in parks on Sunday on the same level as genocide it would make sense for me to amend the Constitution to prevent this. Needless to say it would take a _lot_ to go from my current view of red-headed park-goers to that position. Even if I was a representative with such religious views, I trust the rest of society to provide strong pushback in public debates. Public debate informs voting and I assume such an outlandish view would be shot down at election day. Now if we were talking about something like a ban on homosexual relations, that would be different. Three major religions have a long-running tradition of considering homosexual intercourse an “aberration”. I tend to disagree that the Constitution protects the right to privacy or personal sexual acts in one’s own home (the Supreme Court certainly thinks so and their ruling is currently the law of the land, _Lawrence v. Texas_). I’m not religious so I don’t support a ban on homosexual intercourse, but if I were religious and my religious beliefs say a society that allows homosexual intercourse is immoral, I might support a law or constitutional amendment banning such acts. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/238 "2019-06-05T05:52:35Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Hold on - why can’t a religious premise be invalid? And what does it mean for a premise to be invalid, again? > > From my education in formal logic, arguments are invalid; premises are either true or false - which really means “accepted as true” or “not accepted as true”. > > The nature of a religious premise is that people only accept it as true if they’re part of the religion that sources the premise. Which means that every religious argument is automatically unsound to everyone not of the religion. This is not so good for debate - it forces the debate to immediately turn to a debate over the validity of the premise. Well, that or one side or the other forces the issue through fiat or force of arms or something. You are right. I should have written “I’m open to another definition of ‘religious’ so long as it does not imply an argument is universally invalid on account of an underlying religious premise.” At the base of every tree of logic there is a set of fundamental premises or axioms, and the definition of ‘religious’ needs to determine which axioms are religious and which aren’t, if any. My definition says all of the fundamental premises are religious, therefore all logical arguments are ultimately religious. Now I realize my original question with that definition of ‘religious’ is meaningless. I will henceforth stop using that definition of ‘religious’. I can see that **Czarcasm** and **k9bfriender** (and others) prefer the dictionary definition so I will go ahead and use that definition from now on. Just for fun, within this spoiler is another attempt for me to define ‘religious’. I will still be going with the dictionary definition after this post. [SPOILER]I can infer from posts in this thread that such a thing as a ‘secular’ argument or premise exists, and being ‘secular’ is the opposite of being ‘religious’, thus the two properties are mutually exclusive. I agree with both of these statements, therefore _some_ fundamental premises are not religious. So my old definition won’t do. How about this: in a debate between two parties, a religious axiom is one accepted by one party but rejected by the other. A non-axiomatic premise is said to be religious if it is the conclusion of an argument for only one party and rests on at least one religious premise (axiomatic or non-axiomatic). A premise is said to be secular if it is not religious.[/SPOILER] > [@begbert2](#): > > Of course in practice the religious people are aware that nobody else is going to buy their arguments, because religious doesn’t automatically equal stupid. The arguments they pull out instead do tend to be invalid, though. Agreed. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/239 "2019-06-05T05:55:54Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > a moral system; - religious dogma - has no place in public debate Why do you believe morals have no place in public political debate? The following is my own opinion, or at least my opinion when I am feeling conservative: I cannot imagine any society that exists without morals, arbitrary they may be; it makes no sense to talk of a society which does not enforce morality, because in my eyes that is the express purpose of society. This societal moral system is usually codified and called the law. Every single action of government, and therefore every political question, should come down to whether the action is a _moral_ good action. In a democratic or republican society such as our own, the law is ideally determined after public debate where people argue for their various personal moral systems. Ideally each citizen has an opportunity to evaluate all the arguments, and to participate in debate if they so wish, and comes to their own position about any given topic. Then either through direct vote or an elected representative, each person or group of people express their interest and a law is passed or rejected. You might object that it is unfair for you to be subject to the majority rule if their arguments are religious and yours are secular. What right have they to impose their morality upon you? I counter that this is the way the world works, specifically you and your fellow citizens have mutually agreed to respect a form of majority rule, subject to the limits of the Constitution. You may find this social contract unfair, but chances are you were not born yesterday and have almost certainly reaped some benefits of society. You may sue for an injunction and may well win one in case of a statute, but if a constitutional amendment is passed your options are, at your own expense: to petition for repeal, to emigrate, and/or to defy the law. > [@Crane](#): > > Please provide an example of how any of these topics could provide premises for public debate in a way that does not violate separation of church and state. I don’t believe that would be possible using solely religious arguments, given the interpretations of Amendments I and XIV currently espoused by the Supreme Court, particularly the Lemon test which specifically requires secular rationale. A law supported by a combination of religious and secular arguments should be and has been debated on both religious and secular grounds. For example, it is difficult to overstate the importance of religion in movements such as abolition, child labor, compulsory elementary education, women’s suffrage, prohibition, and _both_ sides of the 1960s civil rights movement. And of course, before the civil war the “separation of church and state” only applied at the national level (I think Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish its state church in the 1830s). A constitutional amendment is obviously exempt from the doctrine of separation of church and state. And if the Supreme Court takes a more strict (originalist or textualist) view of the Constitution, a law with only religious justification may very well be upheld. Finally the separation of church and state is always up for debate. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/240 "2019-06-05T06:04:11Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > before the civil war the “separation of church and state” only applied at the national level I missed the edit window, but the separation of church and state only applied at the national level until 1947 (_Everson v. Board of Education_, 5-4 decision). ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=13)