# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/261 "2019-06-06T00:42:00Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Do you understand the difference between religious people advocating for policy of social justice & equality vs religious people advocating for policy of discrimination based on religious convictions? In this specific context? No. Unless the rule is, “Only appeals to theology with which I agree are allowed in public debate.” ---
**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 6, 2019, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/262 "2019-06-06T00:58:12Z")
> [@SantaMan](#): > > Yes I do. > I also understand people who invoke their religion when advocating for policy of social justice Excellent point. So, a religious person advocating for LGBTQ rights because they believe Jesus said to love everyone? Not unheard of. However, far from the more commonly heard argument from the religious right. If challenged to restate his position without drawing on his religious convictions, could/would he say it’s also a humanitarian and moral position to hold, or would he abandon it? ---
**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 6, 2019, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/263 "2019-06-06T01:02:23Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > In this specific context? No. Unless the rule is, “Only appeals to theology with which I agree are allowed in public debate.” Sure. But we’re discussing a more narrow definition of “public debate”, ie. public policy in the context of establishing legislation/laws. ---
**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 6, 2019, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/264 "2019-06-06T01:09:40Z")
N.B. I’ve stipulated back on page one of this thread that appeals to theology in open public debate should not be restricted. ---
**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 6, 2019, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/265 "2019-06-06T02:26:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > In this specific context? No. Unless the rule is, “Only appeals to theology with which I agree are allowed in public debate.” You might have noticed that he gave plenty of secular reasons to be against segregation. You might also have noticed that he had plenty of supporters who were not Christian. If you removed all the religion-based arguments from his speeches, you’d still have powerful speeches and powerful reasons to be against Jim Crow laws. And his arguments would have been a lot weaker if restricted to “Jesus said so.” ---
**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 6, 2019, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/266 "2019-06-06T08:32:18Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > This is an a-historical portrayal. It ignores the centuries of brutal oppression, torture and war at the hands of the Christian Church and its policies towards subjected populations. There was nothing “inevitable” about the outcome, no matter how eagerly Christianity wants to take credit. What is demonstrably inevitable is that increased secularization lead to the improved outcomes, not Christian values. If it was truly a-historical, would it not be likely that a just society arose from some other area in the world. The oppression and torture cannot be considered aligned with Christian values since it is diametrically opposed to these values. This brutality is considered worse than the oppression and brutality of others since Christians knew better and should not have allowed it to happen. I have difficulty in understanding your contention that increased secularisation inevitably lead to improved outcomes. Wasn’t Pol Pot Mao’s China and the USSR secular? ---
**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 6, 2019, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/267 "2019-06-06T12:45:21Z")
> [@Gullibility\_is\_Underated](#): > > If it was truly a-historical, would it not be likely that a just society arose from some other area in the world. The oppression and torture cannot be considered aligned with Christian values since it is diametrically opposed to these values. This brutality is considered worse than the oppression and brutality of others since Christians knew better and should not have allowed it to happen. Please let’s not have a, “No _real_ Christian would \_\_\_\_\_\_\_…” conversation. The fact is that under the auspices and direction of Christian faith and its many leaders, terrible injustices were committed over centuries. You don’t get to claim now that it was not so. Christianity has a lot to answer for. As do the other major religions. So they are all share that ignominy in that respect. > [@Gullibility\_is\_Underated](#): > > I have difficulty in understanding your contention that increased secularisation inevitably lead to improved outcomes. Wasn’t Pol Pot Mao’s China and the USSR secular? Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler… All said to be secular or said to lead secular societies. Not true of all of them as both Stalin and Hitler enjoyed the support of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Church, respectively. Stalin, was a seminary school graduate and knew very well how to control the largely peasant population through the local churches. The Communist Party government leveraged Stalin’s model of rule and turned it into a kind of Communist Orthodoxy for years after his death. Mao and Pol Pot actually banned all religions, however, it may be argued that they did so to set themselves up as the ultimate godlike authority, and they were treated as such. Much like the three generations of Kims in NK. All that to say, being secularist doesn’t mean you can’t be a sociopathic monster. But at least you can’t say you have divine authority to commit atrocities. To do that successfully, you need to set yourself up as the divine authority. ---
**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 6, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/268 "2019-06-06T16:08:05Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Please let’s not have a, “No _real_ Christian would \_\_\_\_\_\_\_…” conversation. The fact is that under the auspices and direction of Christian faith and its many leaders, terrible injustices were committed over centuries. You don’t get to claim now that it was not so. Christianity has a lot to answer for. As do the other major religions. So they are all share that ignominy in that respect. This is probably a fair point. But. Suppose someone knocks on your door, and when you open it, they say, "Hi, I’m a good friend of (name of one of your best friends), and he told me that I should look you up and (hang out together, or help you with something you need help with, or something like that that makes you think this is a good person to let into your home). You let them in and offer them hospitality, which they take advantage of by tying you up, raping you with a plunger, and stealing all your stuff. Needless to say, this person is actually not a friend of (name of one of your best friends); they were just saying that. Under these circumstances, is (name of one of your best friends) culpable for what happened to you? I don’t think so. And neither do I think that Christianity/religion should be held responsible for everything that is done in its name. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/269 "2019-06-06T16:15:20Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Under these circumstances, is (name of one of your best friends) culpable for what happened to you? I don’t think so. And neither do I think that Christianity/religion should be held responsible for everything that is done in its name. All deeds, evil _and_ good? ---
**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 6, 2019, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/270 "2019-06-06T16:57:06Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > This is probably a fair point. But. > > Suppose someone knocks on your door, and when you open it, they say, "Hi, I’m a good friend of (name of one of your best friends), and he told me that I should look you up and (hang out together, or help you with something you need help with, or something like that that makes you think this is a good person to let into your home). > > You let them in and offer them hospitality, which they take advantage of by tying you up, raping you with a plunger, and stealing all your stuff. Needless to say, this person is actually not a friend of (name of one of your best friends); they were just saying that. > > Under these circumstances, is (name of one of your best friends) culpable for what happened to you? I don’t think so. And neither do I think that Christianity/religion should be held responsible for everything that is done in its name. That’s a common refrain, however, I’m not sure it’s a plausible deniability. As Christopher Hitchens noted: _“The Vatican agrees that HIV/AIDS is bad. But not as bad as condoms.”_ Additionally, the crime of child abuse (rape) and subsequent obfuscation is an institutional problem. No arguments on both those counts, I assume. ---
**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 6, 2019, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/271 "2019-06-06T21:30:00Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > This is probably a fair point. But. > > Suppose someone knocks on your door, and when you open it, they say, "Hi, I’m a good friend of (name of one of your best friends), and he told me that I should look you up and (hang out together, or help you with something you need help with, or something like that that makes you think this is a good person to let into your home). > > You let them in and offer them hospitality, which they take advantage of by tying you up, raping you with a plunger, and stealing all your stuff. Needless to say, this person is actually not a friend of (name of one of your best friends); they were just saying that. > > Under these circumstances, is (name of one of your best friends) culpable for what happened to you? I don’t think so. And neither do I think that Christianity/religion should be held responsible for everything that is done in its name. I’m not sure who the best friend is here. If it is God, then you’ve never actually spoken to your best friend, but just heard he is cool from others. Exactly the others who are hurting you. If it is the Pope or the church, they harm you directly also. Not to mention that many of those hurt don’t even claim the “best friend” as their own. Which infuriates the person coming to their houses. The harm done by Christianity was in large part instituted by official Christianity, not some wacko cult. ---
**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 6, 2019, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/272 "2019-06-06T22:12:54Z")
I thought I had made my point explicit: “ **neither do I think that Christianity/religion should be held responsible for everything that is done in its name.** ” Some things, yeah. But not _everything_. I was mostly agreeing with what **QuickSilver** said (particularly his first paragraph from Post #267), but I was qualifying that agreement: _Just because_ someone (some person or entity or regime) _claims_ to be Christian (or some other particular religion) does not _necessarily_ mean that Christianity/religion can legitimately be held responsible for their misdeeds. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/273 "2019-06-06T22:58:46Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I thought I had made my point explicit: “ **neither do I think that Christianity/religion should be held responsible for everything that is done in its name.** ” Some things, yeah. But not _everything_. > > I was mostly agreeing with what **QuickSilver** said (particularly his first paragraph from Post #267), but I was qualifying that agreement: _Just because_ someone (some person or entity or regime) _claims_ to be Christian (or some other particular religion) does not _necessarily_ mean that Christianity/religion can legitimately be held responsible for their misdeeds. Or their deeds. ---
**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 7, 2019, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/274 "2019-06-07T00:13:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Ethics are not universal. They depend on logic, but they also depend on axioms. That ethics are not universal is itself either an axiom or derived from axioms. You have made your opinion on that clear, but there are certainly people who disagree with you. What do you say to a man who claims that ethics are in fact universal? No religion or supernatural power involved, it just so happens to be that there exists a universal code of ethics, regarding certain actions. He might say, I don’t know… the purpose of life is to ensure the continuation of the species, and that any action that does not serve this purpose directly or indirectly is unethical, and that children should be instilled with these ethics. What if he uses that as an axiom (with others) to build an argument about public policy? And what if you disagree with conclusion of that argument? Do you debate, or dismiss him, or what? Ignore the rhetorician at your own peril, for without opposition he may gather a following and effect his policies. Neither can you forcibly quiet the man who demands freedom of speech; that is his right to speak freely (with certain restrictions). What do you do? It seems that you would debate him, if not directly then indirectly by convincing others of your own position. You might say to a group of undecided friends, “don’t listen to this man because…”, and if they hesitate to agree I assume you will argue your position. It is not difficult to see how such a conversation becomes a full fledged debate. Do you walk away? What if everybody who disagrees with the rhetorician walks away and refuses to debate him, or anybody who entertains his position? What would that mean for the uninformed public? In the worst case, public policy becomes a race: who will make their argument first? Say a citizen appears, _tabula rasa_, and the rhetorician reaches this citizen before you do. The citizen takes on a default position that ethics are universal, therefore… they support that horrible conclusion you so strongly disagree with. You approach the citizen and refuse to speak to them unless they accept the “fact” that ethics are not universal; you might say to yourself: if they cannot accept this basic axiom, you are wasting your time. The citizen in turn thinks that you are pretentious and illogical, and they are justified in doing so because all they have it on authority (even if misplaced) that ethics are universal. There may be some who come to the alternative conclusion on their own, sure, but it is implied that these enlightened people never return to the cave. Let’s carry this worst-case to the limit. Let’s say the rhetorician’s conclusion is that people should have lots of monogamous, unprotected sex and lots of babies and raise their children to do the same; that the law should outlaw birth control and fornication because they are universally unethical. If an individual’s political opinion is merely a race to make the first political impression, and the rhetorician’s policies are not self-destructive, over time “they” will simply outnumber “you”, and by the principle of majority rule they will out-vote you, if not by statute then by constitutional amendment. The point is that there is no difference, in terms of effect, between a disagreement over the universality of ethics (or underlying premises) and a disagreement over religious premises. If you are willing to debate the former you should be willing to debate the latter. ~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 7, 2019, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/275 "2019-06-07T00:57:44Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Religious morals assume a universal morality, and the axiom is that God gives morals to us. And that we can’t argue this, only if we understand God’s message properly. _Au contraire_, the idea is that there are multiple axioms beneath any given religion. For example, [ul][li]God exists[/li][li]The will of God is…[/li][li]To be moral is to adhere to the will of God[/ul][/li] If these are religious axioms due to their inclusion of a superhuman controlling power (God), we could say any argument which relies on one of these (at any point in the logical tree) is a religious argument, unless the same argument could be made with entirely secular premises. It is impossible to prove an axiom without using circular logic, otherwise it would not be an axiom. Similarly it is impossible to prove a religious argument if you flat out deny the truth of any religious axioms. So when you say: > [@Voyager](#): > > Of course for this to be true you need to demonstrate that the particular god giving morals exists. Which seems to be kind of difficult. That is not difficult, but logically impossible without religious arguments. You didn’t say to prove the existence of God without religious arguments, but this is implied. To ask for proof that a “particular god giving morals exists” is to beg the question. Begging the question is fallacious, therefore to ask for proof of God without using religious arguments is itself fallacious. ~Max ---
**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 7, 2019, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/276 "2019-06-07T07:26:07Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > _Au contraire_, the idea is that there are multiple axioms beneath any given religion. For example, > [ul][li]God exists[/li][li]The will of God is…[/li][li]To be moral is to adhere to the will of God[/ul][/li] > If these are religious axioms due to their inclusion of a superhuman controlling power (God), we could say any argument which relies on one of these (at any point in the logical tree) is a religious argument, unless the same argument could be made with entirely secular premises. > > It is impossible to prove an axiom without using circular logic, otherwise it would not be an axiom. Similarly it is impossible to prove a religious argument if you flat out deny the truth of any religious axioms. So when you say: > That is not difficult, but logically impossible without religious arguments. You didn’t say to prove the existence of God without religious arguments, but this is implied. To ask for proof that a “particular god giving morals exists” is to beg the question. Begging the question is fallacious, therefore to ask for proof of God without using religious arguments is itself fallacious. > > ~Max Never meant to imply that what I gave was the only axiom. However “God exists” is not a good axiom, and is not treated as such even in the Bible. Abraham had direct evidence of God. He certainly did not consider God as axiomatic. And more recently, if God were axiomatic we would not have religious types offering proofs for his existence. Further, God exists is not adequate by itself. The axiom would have to specify something about the type of God exists. If it were valid to follow from the axiom that the Judeo Christian god exists, then systems postulating another type of god would be equally valid, and we’d have many mutually contradictory but equally valid religious systems. That’s another reason the axiom isn’t valid. Axiomatic morality combines your second and third points. The will of God covers more than just what actions he wants us to do. But we could rephrase it as God wants you to be moral by doing the following moral things. I agree that they are axioms because an existent god does not necessarily imply that we must follow his rules. ---
**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 7, 2019, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/277 "2019-06-07T07:31:03Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I thought I had made my point explicit: “ **neither do I think that Christianity/religion should be held responsible for everything that is done in its name.** ” Some things, yeah. But not _everything_. > > I was mostly agreeing with what **QuickSilver** said (particularly his first paragraph from Post #267), but I was qualifying that agreement: _Just because_ someone (some person or entity or regime) _claims_ to be Christian (or some other particular religion) does not _necessarily_ mean that Christianity/religion can legitimately be held responsible for their misdeeds. Okay, I think I didn’t consider that interpretation because it is trivially true. We should be more concerned with things done under the command of the official structure of a church. If the choice of a Pope is divinely inspired, then evil done under the direction of that Pope is the direct responsibility of Catholicism. And God, I suppose. I definitely agree that some whackjob saying he killed because Jesus told him to is not the responsibility of the Church or Christianity. ---
**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 7, 2019, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/278 "2019-06-07T07:49:45Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > That ethics are not universal is itself either an axiom or derived from axioms. You have made your opinion on that clear, but there are certainly people who disagree with you. We have evidence that ethical systems are not universal since there are so many of them and they evolve. The only way one could claim that an ethical system is universal is if you dismiss all the others. > [@](#): > > What do you say to a man who claims that ethics are in fact universal? No religion or supernatural power involved, it just so happens to be that there exists a universal code of ethics, regarding certain actions. He might say, I don’t know… the purpose of life is to ensure the continuation of the species, and that any action that does not serve this purpose directly or indirectly is unethical, and that children should be instilled with these ethics. What if he uses that as an axiom (with others) to build an argument about public policy? And what if you disagree with conclusion of that argument? Do you debate, or dismiss him, or what? People can say anything, but someone who makes his assumptions clear makes it possible to have those assumptions debated. I don’t know why you would think that someone would not debate them - the whole reason for secular ethics is that all points can be debated. Which is not to say that someone couldn’t support their ethical postulates with an army. But we’re assuming a slightly higher level of discourse here. I won’t go into the validity of this ethical system, since that would be a hijack. > [@](#): > > The point is that there is no difference, in terms of effect, between a disagreement over the universality of ethics (or underlying premises) and a disagreement over religious premises. If you are willing to debate the former you should be willing to debate the latter. > > ~Max If someone has a premise that an ethical system is universal, they have the obligation to answer counterexamples to this premise. And we can reject ethical systems based on premises contrary to fact. I’m certainly willing to debate religious premises, and have been doing so for a very long time. Religious people often aren’t. When one uses faith as justification, it means that the existence of god is not subject to debate. An honest secular debater would, I hope, accept that a premise is incorrect when presented with a counterexample. Faith being so prevalent, I wouldn’t call those who use faith as the basis of a moral system dishonest. Because faith by its nature is not subject to contradiction, so believing despite lack of evidence is not dishonest. Incorrect, but not dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2019, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/279 "2019-06-07T13:49:11Z")
“…faith by its nature is not subject to contradiction” A faith based premise may or may not be factual. It is, at least, insincere to present it as a factual premise in a debate. The real problem is that religion and politics are symbiotic social parasites. An excellent example is Russia pre-revolution - a corrupt theocracy, ruled by a God appointed Tsar. The secular Soviet Federation, raised the literacy rate from 16% to above 90%, industrialized the country, defeated Nazi Germany and launched the first earth satellite. ---
**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 7, 2019, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/280 "2019-06-07T15:34:41Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > It seems to me that you’re concerned that religiously motivated individuals would be relegated to second class status when it comes to public policy discussions. I want to stipulate that that is not my personal view or objective. That is good to hear, although you previously made it clear that you don’t take that exact position. Another of my concerns is that religiously motivated individuals will be relegated to second class status when it comes to public policy discussions _unless and until they present secular arguments_. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > My personal view and objective is that in matters of public policy discussions, especially those that lead towards formalizing laws (local, state, fed, constitutional), theological arguments based on the word of god are problematic because it’s difficult, if not impossible, to avoid alienating other competing religious beliefs or lack thereof, thus disqualifying them on that basis alone. I don’t understand why a theological axiomatic disagreement is any more problematic than a secular axiomatic disagreement. There is no room for agreement on certain issues between a consequentialist and a deontologist, between a dualist and a physicalist, between a utilitarian and a hedonist or personalist, or between a nihilist and almost anybody else. That groups with one set of beliefs (religious or not) are “alienated” from groups with another set of beliefs is innevitable unless all people share a homogenous set of beliefs, and I assert that all people do _not_ share the same beliefs. So I do not understand why irreconcilable disagreement is a disqualifier for public debate. If it is, what makes secular beliefs better than religious beliefs? This is a rhetorical question in the general sense, because a religious person might define “better” differently than a secular person, such that their religious beliefs are “better”, or vice versa, thus there is no argument that can answer the general question. Pure democracy would imply the answer is a head count, but it ceases to be a healthy democracy if the minority is disqualified from debating the majority until they accept the premises in dispute. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > In other words, everyone is free to believe whatever they want when they worship in whatever manner they worship. But they must check their dogma at the door if they are in a position to inform and influence public policy. This is exactly what I’m concerned about. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > All I get back is that you disagree and that people’s heartfelt beliefs, no matter how wrong or immoral, should be given voice and consideration when making public policy. Believe that if you want. You’re hardly alone. That is what I believe, although as with most things I’m not 100% certain. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Just don’t pretend it doesn’t carry real life discriminatory consequences to large segments of the population. If you’re cool with that, then I guess there’s nothing left for us to discuss. Allowing the public to consider religious arguments does not imply discriminatory public policy will be effected, although it is definitely a possibility. I may or may not be cool with a given public policy, but I am generally not okay with preventing the consideration of religious arguments or stifling the voices who express them. I would make exceptions, just as with other forms of free speech, but I do not extend the exception to every religious argument. I do hope you stick around because we seem to disagree here, for reasons I honestly don’t understand. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=15)