# 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:** 17
**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 10, 2019, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/321 "2019-06-10T20:49:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I think American exceptionalism could qualify as a non-religious faith-based argument. > > America is the best! In everything. We don’t need no socialist healthcare! > > But these European countries have better outcomes for less money. > > Didn’t you hear me say America is the best. All those facts are invalid. > > Should be laughed out of the public arena (but not banned) just like religious arguments. At the risk of derailing my own thread, what if I told you we have evidence that laughing away this exact mentality _does not work_ (c.f. 2016 election)? How could it work? The religious person might not realize _why_ people are laughing at them, they would feel offended and marginalized. To laugh and ridicule their _bona fide_ argument without actually addressing has a chance of backfiring and reinforcing religious fundamentalism. By pushing them out of mainstream public debate they have nowhere to express their ideas but in private, likely with the religious group they are affiliated with (if any). If the religious group as a whole finds itself laughed away by mainstream society, their internal discussions might be little more than an echo chamber; an echo chamber of fundamentalists breeds extremism, and suddenly we have a cult religion holed up in some remote pocket of the country practicing polygyny with minors. What if the religious group adopts your tactic as well, and instead of addressing _bona fide_ extreme positions, dismisses them out of hand? The same thing happens. The extremist feels offended and marginalized, except this time they have nowhere to continue discussions except possibly family and friends. If these last lines of defense fall, you might end up with suicides or worse, domestic terrorists. None of this actually requires the person to attempt to present their arguments and meet laughter or silence. Just the mere _expectation_ that they will not be taken seriously is enough. ~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 10, 2019, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/322 "2019-06-10T21:14:31Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > At the risk of derailing my own thread, what if I told you we have evidence that laughing away this exact mentality _does not work_ (c.f. 2016 election)? How could it work? That was laughing at a person, not at axioms. In any case, we sure as hell don’t do what I’m proposing today. Not in America, anyhow. > [@](#): > > The religious person might not realize _why_ people are laughing at them, they would feel offended and marginalized. To laugh and ridicule their _bona fide_ argument without actually addressing has a chance of backfiring and reinforcing religious fundamentalism. By pushing them out of mainstream public debate they have nowhere to express their ideas but in private, likely with the religious group they are affiliated with (if any). If the religious group as a whole finds itself laughed away by mainstream society, their internal discussions might be little more than an echo chamber; an echo chamber of fundamentalists breeds extremism, and suddenly we have a cult religion holed up in some remote pocket of the country practicing polygyny with minors. The same could apply to flat-earthers. And you might recollect that we already have cult religions holed up in remote sections of the country practicing polygamy with minors. Are the actions of governments in places where religion gets special treatment any more free than those where religion does not get special treatment. See Saudi Arabia for example. > [@](#): > > What if the religious group adopts your tactic as well, and instead of addressing _bona fide_ extreme positions, dismisses them out of hand? The same thing happens. The extremist feels offended and marginalized, except this time they have nowhere to continue discussions except possibly family and friends. If these last lines of defense fall, you might end up with suicides or worse, domestic terrorists. I don’t think arguing people out of extreme positions has worked very well. Especially lately. Instead of people moving towards the center, the extreme position becomes the norm and there are those who just become more extreme. > [@](#): > > None of this actually requires the person to attempt to present their arguments and meet laughter or silence. Just the mere _expectation_ that they will not be taken seriously is enough. > > ~Max If someone is upset by this, all they have to do is to present some decent evidence for their position, and we’d all stop laughing. Being taken seriously is not a right, it must be earned with a serious argument. Is that really too much to ask? A lot of terrorist of all stripes do not come from an environment where they and a few others are alone, but from a big support system. Look at abortion clinic bombers. Look at Isis fans. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/323 "2019-06-10T21:16:28Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > While there is space on the bookstore shelves for all kinds of ‘philosophies’, I hope you’re not suggesting Deepak Chopra’s pseudo-scientific blather should be given equal standing in a scientific discussion about the nature of the universe. But why should Chopra’s arguments be limited out beforehand? One is always free to come back and say it does not have evidence to support it. > [@](#): > > I consider this to be a disqualifying basis of reason in public policy debates concerning the making of legislative decisions. Does it not concern you that you are determining which arguments are disqualified prior to the discussion? Does rational debate require you have to submit your underpinnings of your position to a gatekeeper first? And it seems that you would not appreciate it if instead of you being the gatekeeper for the qualifying basis of reason in public policy debates would be someone more positively inclined toward religion. And what if people used other Christian Humanism buzz words for religious language? Would the gatekeeper have a buzzer? It also appears the scientific research is indicating that we enter emotionally into our positions first and then add ad hoc rationality after the fact to justify our already decided positions. Therefore would a ‘bar of reason’ even matter? ---
**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 10, 2019, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/324 "2019-06-10T21:28:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m not disputing that the religious person honestly believes what he or she is saying. I’m just saying that their beliefs are based on unexaminable axioms. What do you mean by an “unexaminable axiom”? Does this address your concern? > [@Max\_S](#): > > Well, if it was an honest debate the defender of faith would be willing to let you examine the premise, that is, they would have to address any apparent contradictions you point out in their own position. They are not obliged to offer proof for an axiom, neither are you obliged to adopt their axiom. > [@Voyager](#): > > For example, the Catholic majority in Spain honestly thought that not being Catholic would be harmful to a person in the afterlife, and therefore forced conversion was both moral and imperative. Letting a Jew stay Jewish was immoral. Is this the kind of thing you would support? I would not personally support that, because I do not accept the premises. > [@Voyager](#): > > Remember, examining their axioms would get one the rack at best. That is assuming they already passed the laws. > [@Voyager](#): > > Another example. There are certain crimes for which the death penalty is mandated in the Bible. There is no getting away from that if you think the Bible has special importance. There are crimes for which the death penalty is mandated in secular law, but we have been able to examine the reasons for this, and have mostly done away with the death penalty. Quite apart from which side of this debate you come down on, we can all agree that in the secular case there is room for us to evolve our positions. Not much when religious arguments are made. A valid criticism of religious arguments that rely on the ultimate authority of the Bible, although this criticism cannot extend logically to all religious arguments. I am sure you are aware that in Judaism, the bible is subject to rabbinical interpretation (it is argued that this has been the case since Moses) and is not always to be interpreted literally - Jewish fundamentalism has been dead since the destruction of the Second Temple and resulting extinction of the Sadducees. Hence the _Talmud_. Similarily you will find that Catholics subject the Bible to the interpretation of the magisterium (the pope, bishops, and ecumenical councils). Hence the _papal bulls_ and now _papal briefs_. The pope has the authority to speak as a formal authority on the interpretation of the bible, and such a formal proclimation is considered by Catholics to be divinely inspired and thus infallible. I think the only recent example of such a thing was Pius XII’s declaration of the Assumption (that Mary ascended to heaven). > [@Voyager](#): > > However, once again you are misinterpreting what we are saying. We don’t want to gag anyone with religious views. Say someone stands up in a legislature and proposes a bill because that is what Barney the Dinosaur told him he wants. I think the proper response here would be “that’s nice. Let’s move on.” If we treated religious arguments similarly, I’d be happy. > > So the right response would be for them to be ignored. No special Streep pleading. > > … > > Already dealt with. Their arguments can be presented but laughed at, and soon enough they’ll stop presenting them. Not laughed at because they are wrong, just because they are based on faith… > > Arguments based on faith and axioms that cannot be examined shouldn’t be banned, they should be laughed out of the arena. I believe I addressed this just now in [POST=21691057]post #321[/POST], which I now realize I posted out of order. ~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 10, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/325 "2019-06-10T21:43:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Why is this axiom any more or less wrong than the God axiom? It is not, and I did not make such a comparison. > [@Voyager](#): > > As for the evolution debate, I should have said that this mandates teaching creationism as a fact as opposed to banning evolution. > Though I suspect that would be the next step. I was prevented from teaching human origins to elementary school children because the father of one was a 7th Day Adventist and had previously threatened to sue if his child was exposed to that evilution. But I’d be hard pressed to make a rational case for this. The resulting changes in logic don’t materially affect my personal conclusion, because I am still denying one premise. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/326 "2019-06-10T21:44:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Should be laughed out of the public arena (but not banned) just like religious arguments. And I am ok with that. My disagreement is with the notion that they should be banned outright in the realm of public policy debates. They can be laughed out there as well. ---
**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 10, 2019, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/327 "2019-06-10T21:55:47Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > This post is effectively an enthymeme and I disagreed with the missing premise. I’m not sure if you are a fan of these syllogisms I’ve been making but I find them easier to understand at a glance: > [ol][li] **QuickSilver** thinks all religious arguments are _invalid_.[/li][li](If **QuickSilver** thinks all religious arguments are _invalid_, then QuickSilver thinks all religious arguments should be disqualified from public policy debates)[/li][li]Therefore, **QuickSilver** thinks all religious arguments should be disqualified from public policy debates.[/ol][/li]I’ll accept #1 for the sake of argument because I could easily imagine myself thinking all religious arguments are invalid. But I still cannot wrap my head around the implied second premise. > > ~Max If you find yourself in agreement with #1, what specifically gives your trouble with #2? ---
**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 10, 2019, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/328 "2019-06-10T22:02:40Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > But why should Chopra’s arguments be limited out beforehand? One is always free to come back and say it does not have evidence to support it. I don’t have any problem with allowing Chopra to espouse his ideas in a non-consequential debate. > [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Does it not concern you that you are determining which arguments are disqualified prior to the discussion? Does rational debate require you have to submit your underpinnings of your position to a gatekeeper first? And it seems that you would not appreciate it if instead of you being the gatekeeper for the qualifying basis of reason in public policy debates would be someone more positively inclined toward religion. And what if people used other Christian Humanism buzz words for religious language? Would the gatekeeper have a buzzer? > > It also appears the scientific research is indicating that we enter emotionally into our positions first and then add ad hoc rationality after the fact to justify our already decided positions. Therefore would a ‘bar of reason’ even matter? I’m arguing for disqualifying a very specific, well worn set of arguments. Not simply any arguments I happen to disagree with. I’m fully confident that a religious person(s) can make a compelling secular argument that would align with their non-secular views. I would happily see those heard and debated. ---
**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 10, 2019, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/329 "2019-06-10T22:07:41Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > And I am ok with that. My disagreement is with the notion that they should be banned outright in the realm of public policy debates. They can be laughed out there as well. I’m all for a good laugh. Legislative discussions could use the levity. But in the interest of saving time, do we really want to hear ad nauseum debates challenging religiously dogmatic positions. Which, btw, currently go unchallenged most of the time. ---
**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 10, 2019, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/330 "2019-06-10T22:09:14Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Right, that has been my position all along. Arguments that boil down to, “Because my God/Religious doctrine says so”, should be excluded from public policy debates when legislation is being made. Not because I disagree with the axiom out of some personal animus, but because the axiom lacks evidence, is rife with inconsistencies, contradictions, and is damaging to humanity. Let me address these in turn. **Religious axioms lack evidence** All axioms lack evidence _by definition_. If all axioms lack evidence, there is no difference in this regard between a religious axiom and a secular axiom. Therefore a lack of evidence for religious axioms is not a valid criteria with which to disqualify arguments based on religious axioms. **Religious axioms are rife with inconsistencies and contradictions** It would seem that debate is the best way to point out these inconsistencies and contradictions. Surely there exists _some_ set of religious axioms which are consistent. **Religious axioms are damaging to humanity** You might as well say something damaging to humanity is wrong, therefore arguments based on religious axioms are wrong. Certainly it is not _always_ the case that religious axioms are damaging to humanity, and ostensibly the religious people will disagree with you. So I am downgrading your argument to “_ **QuickSilver** thinks religious axioms are wrong_”, and granting that. It does not follow to disqualify arguments based on religious axioms, see [POST=21690987]post #320[/POST]. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/331 "2019-06-10T22:11:40Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’m arguing for disqualifying a very specific, well worn set of arguments. Not simply any arguments I happen to disagree with. I’m fully confident that a religious person(s) can make a compelling secular argument that would align with their non-secular views. I would happily see those heard and debated. And I simply do not see the reason why those set of arguments should be disqualified from a public policy debate while other arguments based on other sorts of secular philosophical bases should not. For instance a Marxist may believe in those principles with the same fervor of any religious zealot. Besides public policy debates are simply distillations of public debates. We aren’t dealing with philosopher kings of fable here, but elected officials. They are going to be making legislation on the basis of what is being talked about out in public. So why not take those the actual reasoning for those discussions out there in the public square rather than attempting to stifle the speech of those positions and come up with coded buzz words? Makes no sense whatsoever. How is encouraging dog whistles (for lack of a better term) better? ---
**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 10, 2019, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/332 "2019-06-10T22:15:09Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Are you saying people should be able to simply ‘opt out’? It doesn’t strike me that the new laws prohibiting abortion in Georgia and Alabama are open to such flexible interpretation of compliance. No, people should not be able to opt-out of following the law. The "should"s in post [POST=21690605]#316[/POST] were made in the character of someone presenting their argument for a law or public policy. The law has not been enacted yet, therefore it would be incorrect to say “everyone else has to”. ~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 10, 2019, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/333 "2019-06-10T22:40:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The same could apply to flat-earthers. And you might recollect that we already have cult religions holed up in remote sections of the country practicing polygamy with minors. Are the actions of governments in places where religion gets special treatment any more free than those where religion does not get special treatment. See Saudi Arabia for example. My argument could apply to flat-earthers, or Nazis for that matter. Not only did I recollect extant cult religions, it was implied that this “laugh them off” treatment encourages more of them. The actions of government are not necessarily more free in places where religion gets special treatment, but I don’t think I’m advocating for special treatment here. > [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t think arguing people out of extreme positions has worked very well. Especially lately. Instead of people moving towards the center, the extreme position becomes the norm and there are those who just become more extreme. Maybe so, but I tend to take the opposite viewpoint: the lack of debate has polarized politics. When you marginalize someone’s viewpoint, it’s not like that person disappears or magically realizes the error in their ways. > [@Voyager](#): > > If someone is upset by this, all they have to do is to present some decent evidence for their position, and we’d all stop laughing. Being taken seriously is not a right, it must be earned with a serious argument. Is that really too much to ask? Well, yes, it is too much to ask. You can’t expect people to make what you consider to be serious arguments without explaining why you think their argument isn’t serious (addressing their argument). You as an individual are free to laugh off or disregard a _bona fide_ argument you do not agree with, but if you do so, you can’t complain when they seek other ways to make a point. So I say it is not the right thing to do. > [@Voyager](#): > > A lot of terrorist of all stripes do not come from an environment where they and a few others are alone, but from a big support system. Look at abortion clinic bombers. Look at Isis fans. I’m not saying addressing political speech will prevent _all_ terrorism, but I think it will reduce _some_. ~Max ---
**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 10, 2019, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/334 "2019-06-10T23:49:17Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Let me address these in turn. > > **Religious axioms lack evidence** > All axioms lack evidence _by definition_. If all axioms lack evidence, there is no difference in this regard between a religious axiom and a secular axiom. Therefore a lack of evidence for religious axioms is not a valid criteria with which to disqualify arguments based on religious axioms. > > **Religious axioms are rife with inconsistencies and contradictions** > It would seem that debate is the best way to point out these inconsistencies and contradictions. Surely there exists _some_ set of religious axioms which are consistent. > > **Religious axioms are damaging to humanity** > You might as well say something damaging to humanity is wrong, therefore arguments based on religious axioms are wrong. Certainly it is not _always_ the case that religious axioms are damaging to humanity, and ostensibly the religious people will disagree with you. So I am downgrading your argument to “_ **QuickSilver** thinks religious axioms are wrong_”, and granting that. > > It does not follow to disqualify arguments based on religious axioms, see [POST=21690987]post #320[/POST]. > > ~Max If it please the court, allow me then to re-phrase: Arguments that boil down to, “Because my God/Religious doctrine says so”, should be excluded from public policy debates when legislation is being made. Not because I disagree with the _theists_ out of some personal animus, but because _theism_ lacks evidence, is rife with inconsistencies, contradictions, and is damaging to humanity. ---
**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 11, 2019, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/335 "2019-06-11T00:20:52Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > And I simply do not see the reason why those set of arguments should be disqualified from a public policy debate while other arguments based on other sorts of secular philosophical bases should not. For instance a Marxist may believe in those principles with the same fervor of any religious zealot. A Marxist cannot condemn your soul to Marxist hell for eternity. > [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Besides public policy debates are simply distillations of public debates. We aren’t dealing with philosopher kings of fable here, but elected officials. They are going to be making legislation on the basis of what is being talked about out in public. So why not take those the actual reasoning for those discussions out there in the public square rather than attempting to stifle the speech of those positions and come up with coded buzz words? Makes no sense whatsoever. How is encouraging dog whistles (for lack of a better term) better? By way of example: I’ve no doubt that many theists believe that saving the environment is of primary importance to all humanity and generations to come. As an atheist, I would agree. However, I would discourage my fellow conservationists from making the argument that we should preserve the earth because of some belief system that says God has put us here on earth to be shepherd of the planet and all the plants and animals. A far better position would be to argue that destroying the environment would lead to wholesale destruction of many of its inhabitants, including us. Why would I suggest such an approach when they are already on my side? Because it’s my firm belief that making a well informed and evidence based argument is better than making one that can easily be dismantled by opponents who would rightfully demand evidence for the deity whose will they are attempting to impose on those who don’t support their environmentalist views. I see no compelling reason to entertain faulty arguments, even those that are ostensibly in agreement, as a way of showing…what?.. our tolerance of faulty reasoning. In service of what? ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2019, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/336 "2019-06-11T00:47:27Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > A Marxist cannot condemn your soul to Marxist hell for eternity. So? If you don’t consider that condemning to be based on rationality, why do you care? And what if the person making the claim is a universalist? Makes it ok? Seems not to necessarily buttress your claim that this is not due to religious animus. > [@](#): > > A far better position would be to argue that destroying the environment would lead to wholesale destruction of many of its inhabitants, including us. Why? Do you actually think such an argument actually convinces others on the other side? On the other hand, an argument based on Creation Care has seemingly to me resulted in some changing their positions on the issue (while conservative on others). Wouldn’t it be better to persuade the other side? I would submit people change their position when there is an emotional change. Not through rational argument (see this thread or forum). The LGBTQ rights battle was one based on personal connection with those who are gay. Not through reasoned debate (IMO). > [@](#): > > I see no compelling reason to entertain faulty arguments, even those that are ostensibly in agreement, as a way of showing…what?.. our tolerance of faulty reasoning. In service of what? In service of being open to the reasons why people hold the ways they do (as opposed to fictions) and dealing with those at the root. I have a very dim view of rational debate actually changing anything. Especially as when it is often ad hoc justifications for what people have already come to believe. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk ---
**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 11, 2019, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/337 "2019-06-11T01:21:48Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > So? If you don’t consider that condemning to be based on rationality, why do you care? And what if the person making the claim is a universalist? Makes it ok? > > Seems not to necessarily buttress your claim that this is not due to religious animus. I take issue with all institutions that frighten and lie to children. > [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Why? Do you actually think such an argument actually convinces others on the other side? On the other hand, an argument based on Creation Care has seemingly to me resulted in some changing their positions on the issue (while conservative on others). Wouldn’t it be better to persuade the other side? I would submit people change their position when there is an emotional change. Not through rational argument (see this thread or forum). The LGBTQ rights battle was one based on personal connection with those who are gay. Not through reasoned debate (IMO). Where there no LGBTQs in the religious community before the secular movement for acceptance came into its own? Where were these personal connections before the enlightened and informed appeals to reason instead of fear and condemnation? I think you’re short changing the influence of social/secular progress. > [@ISiddiqui](#): > > I have a very dim view of rational debate actually changing anything. Especially as when it is often ad hoc justifications for what people have already come to believe. I believe in human emancipation from oppression of religious dogma. Seems to me, this is the general arc of human history. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2019, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/338 "2019-06-11T01:30:32Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I take issue with all institutions that frighten and lie to children. > > Where there no LGBTQs in the religious community before the secular movement for acceptance came into its own? Where were these personal connections before the enlightened and informed appeals to reason instead of fear and condemnation? I think you’re short changing the influence of social/secular progress. > > I believe in human emancipation from oppression of religious dogma. Seems to me, this is the general arc of human history. So about that this is not religious animus thing… Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2019, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/339 "2019-06-11T01:34:55Z")
I should continue, I guess, since your argument was that it was animus against religion not the religious - it appears that is far more emotional rather than rational at this point (the commonly asserted idea that communism has killed x amount of people for instance, and the counter claim that capitalism has killed more, not receiving the same bar comes to mind). Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk ---
**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 11, 2019, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/340 "2019-06-11T03:33:04Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > “Everyone else _should_ have to follow my religion, because society accepts my religious premises (and my religious premises imply everyone else should follow my religion and everyone else should do as society accepts).” A _bona fide_ argument like that is best countered not with laughter or silence or silenc_ing_ but by pointing out, if possible, that society does not accept the premises, and if possible, that accepting the premises does not mean everyone else should have to comply. – notes Max gives a location in the USA – points out the First Amendment – thinks this is sufficient evidence that everyone else should not have to comply – also thinks that a legislator in the USA should not be arguing that we should violate the First Amendment, at least unless they’re making a straighforward argument for repealing it first [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=18)