# 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:** 23
**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 16, 2019, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/441 "2019-06-16T15:12:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Those are the ones where the response should be “show me that God said it.” They’ll point to the Bible. 'Show me why the Bible can be trusted." They say it is all correct. That’s where the falsifiable stuff comes in. It’s still not falsifiable, to such people, because they’ll have an explanation for all the contradictions, both internal and with facts on the ground. There are people claiming that God faked geological evidence as a test. People have been spending thousands of years arguing over the meaning and validity of bible verses, and what we get is more and more religious sects, because the arguments don’t lead to agreement but to schisms. > [@ISiddiqui](#): > > There are plenty of beliefs that are not falsifiable. Have you every tried to argue with a Marxist about the historical dialectic? But arguing in legislatures about unfalsifiable beliefs is a waste of time. And I don’t think we’ve currently actually got people arguing that laws should be written in a certain fashion “because Marx said so” – or, for that matter, any significant number of people in current USA legislatures arguing for Marxism. People arguing for other degrees and types of socialism bring practical arguments, and point to existing societies which function well while doing things that USA politics writes off as “socialism!” > [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Hell, our belief (hopefully we share it) that all people have inherently equal moral worth is a non-falsifiable statement. You can try to argue against it, but you can’t show physical proof against it. Which is why I referred to the Pratchett quote. We have to believe in justice, in order to be human. That doesn’t mean that justice exists in the universe as a whole. (And it pretty obviously doesn’t mean that humans are going to always agree on what’s just and what isn’t. We wouldn’t need all those legislatures in the first place, if we did.) ---
**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 16, 2019, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/442 "2019-06-16T15:50:51Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > That may be the wrong question, I think. There have been progressive Christians and conservative Christians for generations. The makeup of Christianity among progressive and conservative elements ebb and flow based on the makeup of society and who is in charge. I have noted that before the American Civil War, along with those Christians who tried to assert slavery was ok with Scripture you had just as loud, if not louder, Christians who were on the forefront of the Abolition movement (including John Brown who tried to start a slave rebellion because he believed it to be God’s will). The American Civil Rights movement had progressive Christians marching and agitating for Civil Rights while conservative Christians declaimed them. In Latin America, you had progressive Christians standing with the poor proclaiming a Liberation Theology, while conservatives stood with oppressive regimes - of course that creates a very interesting question of Catholicism in general which tends to be very left on economic issues but very right on social issues. > > Anyways, all that saying that I think a big issue is the mainstream news media for the last 40 years has ignored the progressive Christians (aside from every 4 years when some persons is now the vanguard for some sort of religious left - Buttigieg this cycle). I do know that Secretary Clinton’s very deep Methodist faith was minimized or treated as a joke. And President Obama’s faith was treated like some sort of non-entity (or fake, depending on who you talked to), even though he spoke about it quite often, even when he didn’t have to. It’s kind of strange considering the most outward religious President since the end of World War 2 is big liberal named Jimmy Carter, who still teaches Sunday School to this day. > > So that’s a long winded way to say that perhaps the religious community isn’t evolving progressively rather than religious progressive elements are being covered more (and I know the news media is fond of having religious progressives speak out against President Trump but who know if that continues after). Religious progressives have sometimes shot themselves in the foot - for example very few of us were loud in critiquing President Obama for drone strikes (which we all disagreed with, but more in it’s a shame this is happening as opposed to let’s speak truth to power). But I think that’s part and parcel of seeing the religious right rise up in the 1980s and a desire to not be THAT, and retreating a bit from the outward advocacy of progressive religious beliefs. > > Bright side is that a lot of young Evangelicals are listening to progressive mainline Christians on homosexuality and Creation Care - part of that may be that we are being covered a bit more and young questioning evangelicals may have realized that there is another part to conservative Christianity? > > I dunno. But I have hope that this unveiling will allow for some evolution. I also think that the religious conservatives trying to act out about abortion is the last gasp movements of a dying animal - they’ve lost on LGBTQ issues (thought they think they have something on Transgendered persons because even a lot of liberal people don’t understand them) and are flailing. At least that’s my take. They have to know that they are completely damaging their brand by allying with someone like Trump - the only reason I can see it is due to the fear that they are finished (and willing to bet everything on the Supreme Court). > > Uh… sorry, that was a book. But it’s not a simple questions. We’ve (religious progressives) always been around and we’ve always been fighting. It just depends on what box the body of religious believers end up falling into (and that’s not even getting into that plenty of religious believers post hoc religiously justify political positions they have found themselves agreeing with - conservatives and progressives). > > (Mind you I say this as someone who was atheist moderate Republican who converted and through reading Scripture and attending Worship veered very very left - flirting with Christian socialism before coming more center left) Would you abandon these positions if the rules were changed in legislative bodies to restrict religious based arguments as part of public policy legislation? I would assume (hope) not. I would assume you would continue to espouse them in public debate forums such as this, including various media outlets, etc… ---
**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 17, 2019, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/443 "2019-06-17T18:39:24Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Relevant quote [here](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/66591-all-right-said-susan-i-m-not-stupid-you-re-saying-humans). > > More in this thread eventually, probably. Fields have dried out enough to work in. Mr. Pratchett’s Death character reads like a nihilist, so my question to him is how he could possibly take a position on a political question. How can one answer “should we…” if one believes the word “should” is _meaningless_? Nihilism implies anomie. ~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 17, 2019, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/444 "2019-06-17T18:52:40Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Mr. Pratchett’s Death character reads like a nihilist, so my question to him is how he could possibly take a position on a political question. How can one answer “should we…” if one believes the word “should” is _meaningless_? Nihilism implies anomie. > > ~Max He is making the claim that DESPITE the seeming futility and arbitrary nature of it all (i.e.: from a nihilistic point of view, the universe will end in entropy), humans still strive to do the _RIGHT_ thing. Which is EXACTLY THE POINT. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/445 "2019-06-17T19:58:44Z")
All hypotheses are welcome in the Marketplace of Ideas. But don’t be offended if what’s considered priceless wisdom in your village is relegated to the bargain bin in the Marketplace. It’s value drops to almost zero when compared to the 24k gold Ideas of reason and logic. Please understand that as we don’t have a lot of time to peruse all the trillions of Ideas available we’re going to choose from the time-tested 24k stuff. ---
**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 17, 2019, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/446 "2019-06-17T20:07:36Z")
Yup, Quicksilver. If anything, Death’s saying that it’s important for humans to believe in justice and mercy BECAUSE the universe doesn’t. That’s not nihilism. Defiance, maybe; but not nihilism. ---
**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 17, 2019, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/447 "2019-06-17T20:32:44Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > He is making the claim that DESPITE the seeming futility and arbitrary nature of it all (i.e.: from a nihilistic point of view, the universe will end in entropy), humans still strive to do the _RIGHT_ thing. Which is EXACTLY THE POINT. I’m not sure how you got that. First Death says justice, mercy, and duty are a bunch of big lies. Then Death says in no uncertain terms that humans act “AS IF THERE IS SOME…SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED”. Susan asks, if there were there no such ideal order, what would be the point? To which Death implies, there is no point. That was my read of the snippet without surrounding context, and it reads a lot like nihilism. I’m not sure how you came to your alternative conclusion. ETA: Maybe Death was saying this search for an ideal order _is_ the point, but that doesn’t square up with calling the same order a “fantasy” or such things as justice a “lie”. ~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 17, 2019, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/448 "2019-06-17T23:47:30Z")
Max, I gotta ask and I assure you that this is in no way meant as an insult. However, I get the subtle feeling that there may be an Asperger’s type issue at play here. Am I completely off base? We seem to be communicating in a common language but failing to understand each other on some fundamental level. ---
**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 18, 2019, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/449 "2019-06-18T00:42:21Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > We seem to be communicating in a common language but failing to understand each other on some fundamental level. I’m getting that feeling too. > [@](#): > > HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE. > [. . .] YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES. > > “So we can believe the big ones?” > > YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING. > > [. . .] people have got to believe that, or what’s the point—" > > MY POINT EXACTLY.” Death is saying that humans have to believe in justice, mercy, etc. in order to be human. And that it matters a great deal that we do so. He’s not saying that there is no point; he’s saying that because we believe them, then there is a point. We\* invented these things because we need to believe in them. But because we believe in them, they do exist. Just like money. Those bits of pieces of paper, let alone ones and zeros stored somewhere in the cloud, are entirely worthless except for our belief that they have value – but that belief changes the world. So does belief in justice and mercy. \*not just us, and not out of whole cloth. There’s evidence that other species have some sense of justice also. My guess is that social species evolved these things so that we can live together. [ETA: not ‘so that’ in any sense that evolution planned it, which doesn’t happen; just that it improved survival by making it possible to live in groups.] ---
**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 18, 2019, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/450 "2019-06-18T02:55:19Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Max, > > I gotta ask and I assure you that this is in no way meant as an insult. > > However, I get the subtle feeling that there may be an Asperger’s type issue at play here. Am I completely off base? We seem to be communicating in a common language but failing to understand each other on some fundamental level. No offense taken, although I don’t have Asperger’s syndrome. At least I am unaware of any such diagnosis of myself or any relatives, and I don’t identify with the symptoms normally attributed. My word-for-word pedantry might come off as unusual but that is just how I think sometimes - substitution and comparison and categorization. Especially so when analyzing a snippet of writing, such as a post on these forums or a quote from a book (Pratchett or the Bible or the Constitution). In spoken words I use more pronouns and less rigid language because the feedback is immediate and varied if I am not understood. Here online, all I have to go by are the letters. ~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 18, 2019, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/451 "2019-06-18T03:56:15Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Death is saying that humans have to believe in justice, mercy, etc. in order to be human. And that it matters a great deal that we do so. He’s not saying that there is no point; he’s saying that because we believe them, then there is a point. Death also implies those things - justice, mercy, duty - are big lies. That they are fantasies. It seems that Death had been talking down towards Susan before the text begins, because she opens up saying “I’m not stupid”, as if Death had implied she was too stupid to understand his point. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > We\* invented these things because we need to believe in them. But because we believe in them, they do exist. Just like money. Those bits of pieces of paper, let alone ones and zeros stored somewhere in the cloud, are entirely worthless except for our belief that they have value – but that belief changes the world. So does belief in justice and mercy. > \*not just us, and not out of whole cloth. There’s evidence that other species have some sense of justice also. My guess is that social species evolved these things so that we can live together. [ETA: not ‘so that’ in any sense that evolution planned it, which doesn’t happen; just that it improved survival by making it possible to live in groups.] Well no, they do _not_ exist in reality. This is made clear by Death’s penultimate speech, where he says you cannot find a physical atom of justice “And yet you act _as if_ there is some ideal order in the world”. Combined with calling justice, mercy, and duty ‘big lies’, Death is saying morality is _made up_. It’s not real, it doesn’t exist. That is the definition of nihilism. People believe morality exists, which does change the world as you say. According to physicalism, you could theoretically look at someone’s brain and say “this person _believes_ that act is moral”; belief would be an emergent property of a physical brain. But this is like a description of the Cheshire cat; no matter how many words or paintings describe the famous cat, it never actually existed. So it is with morality, one person’s belief of morality is like a description of morality, and the underlying thing described never physically exists. ~Max ---
**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 18, 2019, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/452 "2019-06-18T11:33:38Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Death is saying morality is _made up_. It’s not real, it doesn’t exist. Because it’s made up doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. We made up this entire conversation; but it exists. See also my example about money. ---
**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 18, 2019, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/453 "2019-06-18T12:23:21Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Death also implies those things - justice, mercy, duty - are big lies. That they are fantasies. It seems that Death had been talking down towards Susan before the text begins, because she opens up saying “I’m not stupid”, as if Death had implied she was too stupid to understand his point. > Well no, they do _not_ exist in reality. This is made clear by Death’s penultimate speech, where he says you cannot find a physical atom of justice “And yet you act _as if_ there is some ideal order in the world”. Combined with calling justice, mercy, and duty ‘big lies’, Death is saying morality is _made up_. It’s not real, it doesn’t exist. That is the definition of nihilism. > > People believe morality exists, which does change the world as you say. According to physicalism, you could theoretically look at someone’s brain and say “this person _believes_ that act is moral”; belief would be an emergent property of a physical brain. But this is like a description of the Cheshire cat; no matter how many words or paintings describe the famous cat, it never actually existed. So it is with morality, one person’s belief of morality is like a description of morality, and the underlying thing described never physically exists. > > ~Max Glad I didn’t offend you with my previous post. I’ll try harder this time. 😉 You appear to be taking the view of the Death character quite seriously. I know that you appreciate that he is no more real than the Cheshire Cat. However, that doesn’t stop you from arguing his position without the appearance of awareness of who is really speaking here and what idea is being expressed. TP, the author is speaking, and he is (was) unmistakably real. He created an imaginary dialogue to illustrate a point about human existence and the need for a moral framework, which, while entirely “made up” does deal with the concepts of “right” and “wrong” and does tend to choose one over the other, usually (with countless notable exceptions) tending towards that which benefits the overall benefit/good/right/justice for all. Lofty goal, certainly. Impossible, probably. Futile when everything comes to an unavoidable end. But not until then. Which, again, IS EXACTLY THE POINT. So, Max, are you a nihilist? ---
**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 19, 2019, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/454 "2019-06-19T15:39:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Are you saying then that the NT is axiomatically true? All of it or some of it? If just the part talking about salvation through Christ, then that is equivalent to my point. Well, no. I am not a religious person so I can’t offer my rationale for accepting some part of the Bible as true. I imagine that nobody actually does so, but the reasons behind the faithful are incredibly personal - perhaps a direct revalation (eg: visions of Mary and Jesus), more likely a series of very personal life experiences that somehow convinced one to accept Christ. The rationale would not necessarily be illogical, but there is probably nothing verifiable or scientific, or we would have heard about it. Alternatively, people just _assume_ the New Testament, or their denomination’s interpretation, is axiomatically true out of _ignorance_ or on unverified authority (from parents or ministers). These are the people you want to hear your debate - if you get them to go home questioning their axioms, or even thinking “I can understand **Voyager** ’s argument but I just disagree on the fundamentals”, that’s a victory for the public who becomes more informed and can make a better policy decision. If all they hear is silence or laughter, what do you gain? > [@Voyager](#): > > You said that axioms are not subject to proof or disproof based on evidence. But it seems you think they can be rejected - just because someone accepts contradictory axioms. This seems quite inconsistent. I don’t think contradictory premises (including axioms) constitute evidence as to the validity of either premise. A contradiction is evidence that one of the two must be rejected, but offers no guidance as to which; more importantly, the argument does not follow from the premises because both premises cannot be true. > [@Voyager](#): > > Unless you think that the truth of a proposition can be based on a vote, I don’t see why you keep bringing up voting. People vote for all sorts of stupid and immoral things, that unfortunately is not in question. > > …I don’t see how universal morality is involved in this at all. When I took Ethics in college I don’t recall voting coming up at all. Sort of, yeah. If I am to reject the supernatural and universal morality, for lack of alternatives I see kraterocracy as the foundation of society and morals (might makes right). Through a series of struggles I think the various factions had come to a truce; the powers-that-were surrendered parts of their self-proclaimed sovereignty and dedicated their might to upholding what we call a constitutional democracy. In our constitutional democracy, the laws are decided by votes of representatives, subject to limits in the constitution, which is also the law. The people themselves vote to elect their representatives (directly or indirectly), and certain majorities of those representatives may modify the constitution. If enforcing laws does not equate to enforcing morality I don’t know what laws are. Laws are determined by the vote of representatives, who are in turn voted in by the people, and this whole system is justified by the sheer force which by truce upholds it. So yes, in a sense, I do believe morality is subject to a vote. You could say that this position is stage five of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, but I specifically condition all of this on the absence of universal morality. ~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 19, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/455 "2019-06-19T16:27:18Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Does anyone think the god argument should have been carefully considered? Does anyone think it is a good reason to put children at risk? I think the god argument should be at least debated (laid out and examined) because apparently some people _do_ think it is a good reason to put children at risk. I have no idea how the anti-vaxxers use religion to justify their position. Even from a religious perspective it doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t even know what their argument is, as I have only heard the religious justification secondhand where it is derided as unjustified. So I welcome arguments against vaccination, if only for me to reject them upon examination. That doesn’t mean I would vote for an anti-vax candidate or ask the school board to hold off on mandatory vaccinations. My default position is strongly in favor of vaccination and I seriously doubt any argument will persuade me to abandon that. But if an anti-vax person wants me to support their cause, it is on them to convince me. There is of course a limit as with all things. I don’t have unlimited time and neither do representatives. They cannot solicitate and respond to the opinions of every constituent. So it may be that they address the opinions of their friends, and of representatives of various factions within their constituency (lobbyists), of petitions, of the media, of notable people, and occasionally of normal people too (town halls). ~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 19, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/456 "2019-06-19T16:42:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Right. And you default position has to be not to believe me until I come up with some falsifiable evidence that I am in contact with some deity. Also agreed, but while I would point that out, it is my impression that you think it better to meet such an argument with laughter or silence, just because you disagree with the premises. > [@Voyager](#): > > If I said that God told me something about morality and something checkable - which turned out to be true - wouldn’t it be stronger than if God just told me something about morality and nothing verifiable? > And if the verifiable thing turned out to be false, why believe in the moral command? > > Now, given how the verifiable stuff in the Bible turned out to be wrong (like Jesus saying that some there would not taste death before he came into his kingdom.) If I was truly Biblical, I’d say the revelation was really about another horse named Beeblebaum who will win a race at some time in the future. This is either a straw man or worth pointing out instead of laughing/staying silent. > [@Voyager](#): > > In other words, all revelation is bunk unless it includes some verifiable facts that come true with a very small p value. Certainly not for the person who had the revelation! It’s bunk (meaningless) to you, not to them. ~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 19, 2019, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/457 "2019-06-19T17:36:39Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > There is of course a limit as with all things. I don’t have unlimited time and neither do representatives. They cannot solicitate and respond to the opinions of every constituent. So it may be that they address the opinions of their friends, and of representatives of various factions within their constituency (lobbyists), of petitions, of the media, of notable people, and occasionally of normal people too (town halls). > > ~Max May I take this as your concession (at last) that there are plenty of opportunities and venues for these kinds of discussions outside of the halls of congress where laws are debated/made? ---
**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 19, 2019, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/458 "2019-06-19T17:46:12Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Certainly not for the person who had the revelation! It’s bunk (meaningless) to you, not to them. > > ~Max I don’t doubt their sincerity (under most circumstances). But sincerity isn’t evidence. ---
**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 19, 2019, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/459 "2019-06-19T18:15:16Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > You can argue about how much effect a human behavior is having on the climate, and you can bring physical evidence to that argument. I’m not aware of any religious positions that deny the human effect on climate change. I mean, I could make one up _ad hoc_ but I don’t see the point when we have a much better example to go by: > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > You can argue about whether the risk to a child of getting vaccinated against measles is greater than the risk to that child of significant damage from not getting vaccinated, and to what extent the presence of children unvaccinated due to their parents’ choice risks significant damage to children unvaccinated due to medical reasons: and you can bring physical evidence to that argument. > > You can’t bring any physical evidence to the argument “God told us to do it this way.” A copy of a book isn’t evidence in that argument, because there’s no way to prove that the source of the words in the book were divine inspiration and not just a bad dream (or a good one) that somebody had and wrote down. I’m not sure what argument you think you are up against, but it probably isn’t “God told us that vaccinating children risks significant damage to those children”. Take out “God” and you have the non-religious argument, which is in my opinion pure ignorance. I don’t know what the religious arguments against vaccination are, but it’s probably set against your premise that keeping children physically safe and healthy is “better” than risking disease and possibly death. ~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 19, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/460 "2019-06-19T19:30:49Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Whatever his argument is with the Constitution, he should be having it with the Constitution first. Not just saying he ought to be able to ignore it. He’s not ignoring the Constitution, he’s asking the courts to reconsider their interpretation of the Constitution. As I said later in that post, “It will be understood that the law will meet an immediate injunction, and the senator’s arguments on the floor count as a brief for the State.” After all, Supreme Court decisions can be overturned by the same court as opposed to abrogated by a Constitutional amendment. Long ago, the Supreme Court had ruled that legislatures cannot infringe upon the “Liberty of Contract” (_Lochner v. New York_, 1905), including minimum wage laws (_Adkins v. Children’s Hospital_, 1923; _Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo_, 1937). Would you have the state of Washington (_West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish_, 1937) and the federal government (FLSA, 1938) wait for a Constitutional amendment before passing their own minimum wage laws? > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Please re-read post 431. I’ve addressed that. I’ve addressed the second one repeatedly. I’ve re-read that post and don’t see where you addressed it. You say “Would he be lying? Only if he doesn’t find the secular arguments convincing”, but this doesn’t address the likely case where our senator is not convinced by secular arguments. You are asking this senator to either fail to do his job or to steep to blatant lies, and unconvincing ones at that; you may as well say he is worthless and the religious convictions of the people he represents are invalid and their position is untenable without religion; thus you have disqualified that population from public policy debate on the issue they care about most. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709.md?page=24)