Does religion have a place in public debate?

Great Debates
241

I just can’t get behind the idea that religion has no place in public debate. I don’t even understand why it shouldn’t have a place. Even if I reject the premise that God exists, so long as people think God does exist and is the basis of morals it seems to me that public political debate should contain some religious arguments.

If you said there should be no religion, in that case I could understand saying that religion shouldn’t have a place in public debate. I’m undecided on that premise myself but I could see an argument, to an extent. Until religion ceases to exist it follows that religious arguments will continue to have a place in public debate.

If you said morals are unnecessary to debate politics, I would have to ask why because I tend to disagree.

If you said society or public debate is unnecessary itself, well I suppose that is an argument too.

But what I am seeing in the majority of posts in this thread is that religious arguments are inherently weak and undeserving of attention. Even when aimed at the same/similar faiths a religious argument has no place in political debate. This I do not understand.

~Max

242

Though this is probably nonstandard, I use morals as a system inspired by the interpretation of the words and intentions of a deity or deities, and ethics as the logically constructed system based only on clearly stated nonreligious premises and secular reasoning.
There is overlap - the prohibition of murder for instance can be justified in both systems. But there are cases where there is no overlap. Blasphemy laws have a solid moral foundation but not an ethical one.

Same sex marriage is an excellent example. I’d not be surprised if religious entities comprising the majority of the religious population are or were morally opposed to it, for what they saw as good moral reasons. It became increasingly clear that the ethical argument against SSM was shaky at best. As people switched from moral condemnation to ethical approval, the clearly religious based laws against it lost support.
The California case was a great example of how opponents of SSM, forced to make an ethical and not a moral argument, floundered badly.

243

Well, to apply your household rules to society is like saying we all have apartments in a building, we’re debating shared rules for the whole building, and you say we should adopt the rules you made for your apartment for the whole building. What you say is relevant, but if I think you’re making serious suggestions I’ll explain why I disagree and I hope the other tenants will do the same. If it turns out most tenants vote for your rules, that’s too bad for me.

You don’t need to show that God exists and I don’t think that’s even possible. You just need to identify the disagreement and either leave it at that, point to a previous debate over the same disagreement and ask if there is anything your opponent would like to add, or attempt to “convert” your opponent.

~Max

244

Are the ethics universal - does the same set of ethical rules apply to you as to me? What is the basis of these ethics? Hedonistic deontology? I’ve always thought that leads to a situation where every person’s brain is effectively isolated in a chemical bath to induce maximum pleasure. That leads to an embrace of solipsism and then it becomes meaningless to talk about ethics at all.

More importantly, what makes ‘secular’ reasoning into a solid ethical foundation while ‘religious’ reasoning is not? What if the majority of society is religious?

~Max

245

I believe the Christian values, held in common by a large percentage of Western civilisation, inevitably resulted in raising the living standards of less fortunate in society. As a larger percentage of the population becomes literate, democratic government becomes the only reasonable government consistent with christian values.
I do not believe Christianity is a prerequisite for democracy or a secular government but have not seen another set of values that would contribute to a more just and free society.
I believe the question of whether they become “better” has not been settled yet

246

Not so fast Max S. The question wasn’t whether you would support the US Constitution. The question was a simple choice of whether you would support your religious views on red-heads or oppose it.

To make this argument a bit more real, let’s switch red-heads to LGBTQ folks. Your religion says LGBTQs are an affront to your god, church and country and you are adherent faithful member. Should your religious views be considered as part of public policy/governance?

This is you having it both ways and I won’t have it. Pick a side, Max S.

In other words, your views on LGBTQs are informed by your religious affiliation and as an elected representative of ALL the people in your constituency, you would not put aside your religious convictions because you feel they are “informed” and “you get what you voted for”. This is why we ought not vote for people who do not respect the importance of separation of church and state.

So the “importance to your religion” is a deciding factor in your position. Thank you for that admission in the context of a debate of whether religious views (discriminatory in this example, as in IRL) ought to be considered in public policy decisions.

You’ve punted, Max S. You’ve admitted that you would vote with your religious convictions and “trust” that people with secularist views would oppose and defeat your immoral position in a freely held election.

Which illustrates the point why secular public policy is superior to religious public policy if we all agree that we want to live in a more just society and not a theocracy.

247

Do you agree that this has a place in infoprming public policy?

I think the problem is, is that you asked a specific but ambiguous question, and will only accept your definition as to what constitutes debate, religion, and “acceptance”.

This is why you keep making strawman to argue against, rather than against the actual arguments presented to you, as people disagree that they must use the words the way that you have defined them.

You keep saying “public debate”, and we keep saying pubic policy. You keep saying that religious arguments should not be invalid and should be debated on their merits, but the whole problem is is that religion asserts that its argument is infallible and cannot be debated. You are asserting that not allowing bronze age mythology to dictate our society is against free speech.

You can justify anything with religion, which is why it cannot be used to justify public policy. Anything else that you have read into this is simply that, a product of your own creation.

248

My answer remains the same: if my religion calls for discrimination against LGBTQ people, that is in direct conflict with the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution. I would therefore back a constitutional amendment rather than a state or federal law, unless I somehow thought an unconstitutional state or federal law would gather political support for a constitutional amendment.

I am not opposing my religious views, I am just saying that a statute which discriminates against LGBTQ people walking in parks is unconstitutional on its face. My personal religious views do not override the Constitution, but a constitutional amendment does. So yes, I would argue that the anti-LGBTQ law unconstitutionally discriminates, therefore I would argue against the proposed law, yet I would still agree with my fellow anti-LGBTQ people on the principle of discrimination. From my point of view their heart is in the right place but the method is doomed to failure.

You are giving me a false dilemma.

Right, unless it is clear that my constituency largely disagrees with me in regard to this issue. And I do believe it is my duty as a representative to continually communicate with my constituency so as to gauge their support.

But that is my personal opinion. I don’t see anything inherently wrong with a representative who says “you get what you voted for”. If the constituency has a problem with this, don’t re-elect!

I don’t see that as a violation of the separation of church and state. If I ran as a Christian candidate in favor of a constitutional amendment banning homosexual acts, proposing that constitutional amendment does not appear to contradict the separation of church and state. I suspect you and I have different views on that doctrine.

But obviously, if you don’t believe LGBTQ people should be discriminated against, don’t vote for the candidate that runs on an anti-LGBTQ constitutional amendment.

Admitted.

The text you quoted was poorly written, because the “I” who wants the rest of society to defeat the candidate is different than the “I” who is the candidate.

You and I might agree because we are not religious people. Religious people might not agree. Even so I am not convinced that religious public policy leads to a theocracy or is less just than secular public policy.

~Max

249

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.

250

Are there cases where a particular religion gained control over a government and did not use the situation to lord it over(sorry about that) others not of their particular sect?

251

So you would not judge their bigotry as immoral, despite their heartfelt convictions that it is moral? In service of what, Max?

In what is it a false dilemma? Seems to be this is as cut and dried as it gets.

It certainly does when the basis for argument for discrimination is because, “god said so!”

And neither should you, if you are in favor of government that is not promoting an inherently bigoted ideology.

a) I’m not looking to reach agreement with people arguing for discriminatory religious public policies.

b)I’ll give you 10 seconds. I bet you can think of at least three example where religious belief systems led to discriminatory public policy, IRL. Ready? Go.

c)If not theocratic, what would you like to call religion based public policies that lead to real world discrimination?

d) By implication, are you saying secular public policy can also be discriminatory? We’re not really talking about that are we? And nobody has made the claim. But if that’s all you’ve got left… roll with it.

252

I might personally disagree with the authority First Corinthians, but in my opinion that book should have a place in informing public policy so long as people use it to inform their moral system.

My definitions of ‘religious’ and ‘public debate’ were provided upon request. I’ve given up my definition of ‘religious’ in favor of the dictionary definition, but I did not realize my definitions of debate or ‘acceptance’ were in dispute.

I do include public policy debate under the aegis of ‘public debate’, and in effect I ask whether religion ought to have a place in public policy debate, but I do not intend to ask whether religion ought to have a place in public policy itself. That question is related though distinct from the topic of this discussion, though I won’t shy away from addressing it.

Being undecided on the question of religion, I see at least a couple different positions:

[ul][li]A religious belief ought to have a place in public policy if and only if I personally endorse that belief.[/li][LIST][li]Religious beliefs should have a place in public policy because my religion says so.[/li][li]Religious beliefs should not have a place in public policy because my religion says so.[/li][li]Religious beliefs should not have a place in public policy because I do not hold religious beliefs.[/ul][/li][li]A religious belief ought to have a place in public policy if and only if some authority figure or group endorses that belief.[/li][ul][li]Religious beliefs should have a place in public policy because some authority figure or group says so.[/li][li]Religious beliefs should not have a place in public policy because some authority figure or group says so.[/ul][/li][li]Religious belief ought to have a place in public policy if and only if a plurality of the public, according to rules agreed upon by a supermajority, endorse those beliefs.[/li][ul][li]Religious beliefs should have a place in public policy because a plurality of the public, according to agreed rules, endorses those beliefs.[/li][li]Religious beliefs should not have a place in public policy because there is not a plurality of the public, according to agreed rules, which endorses those beliefs.[/ul][/LIST][/li]
I’m not sure what to call the first position (perhaps an autocratic narcissism), but I identify the second position with theocracy and the third position with democracy, the latter seems most agreeable.

Can’t you debate an infallible argument? I guess we are in disagreement as to the definition and purpose of public debate. I think ‘debate’ is to lay out your argument and, if possible, to invalidate contradictory arguments. The purpose of debate is multi-faceted: if you are undecided, you might convince yourself of a position. If you are already decided, you stand to convince undecided people in the audience (by informing them of your and your opponent’s full argument, or lack of one). If you find contradictions in your opponent’s argument, you might even convince your opponent to switch sides!

The purpose of a public debate (whether about public policy or any other topic) is similar, but with an emphasis on informing the public. It may often be the case that both positions are infallible, and I don’t see anything wrong with that. Remember that every truly logical argument comes down to fundamental premises (religious or not). Public debate then serves the important role of informing the public as to each position, and ideally each individual will consider the premises and vote accordingly.

No, I do not make that assertion. However, not allowing bronze age mythology to be brought up in the realm of public debate just because it is bronze age mythology is against free speech. You have repeatedly told me you do not make this argument although I had thought QuickSilver implied it in [POST=21670036]post #95[/POST], and Crane was pretty explicit about it in [POST=21670831]post #107[/POST]. Maybe the free speech thing is a straw man, but unless you assume that everybody abandons religion, I’m not sure how else you can keep religion out of public policy debate.

If you say everybody should abandon religion, that’s an argument but my follow up question will be “what if they don’t? Should religion still have a place in public policy debate?”

I think public policy (in this country) should be primarily justified by public opinion via their choice in representatives. It makes no difference to me whether religion is behind the public vote, or the representative’s vote, or public policy debates. I might personally disagree with the rationale, but I would not say it is unjustified to allow and consider religious arguments in public debate, as a matter of public policy.

~Max

253

Ethics are not universal. They depend on logic, but they also depend on axioms. If your axiomatic system includes the proposition that those outside your tribe are not human, then the ethical prohibition of murder (defined as killing a human) does not apply. We all agree that all born people are human, but some of us think that certain animals fall under the prohibition against killing and some do not.
Maximizing one’s own pleasure as the justification for actions is an axiom. The benefit of ethics is that we get to debate the axioms, and at least understand our cause for disagreement. That we have never arrived at a universal moral system just shows that we don’t all agree.

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. 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.

And there is the well know problem of do morals get created by God willy nilly, and we must accept them because he is powerful, or does god just transmit an existing perfect moral system to us, which leads to the problem of where it comes from.
Whether of not god exists, we have the problem of the morals being transmitted to us by people, people with sometimes less than moral tendencies. If the prophet is into having multiple wives, all of a sudden God supports it. If the current prophet wants to get his state admitted to the Union, god changes his mind.

I’d buy religious morality if we could log in to the God website and the answer straight from the Man. In our universe, not so much.

254

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.

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.

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.

I’m not sure how many more times I have to state this position but I feel like I’m not getting it across in a way that is making a marked impact at all. 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. 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.

255

Well said - the entire post. It seems that someone too concerned about religious people being excluded must doubt that they are capable of cogent secular arguments for their positions. I don’t think that, in general. It seems kind of insulting to the religious.

256

I’m not sure why you are surprised. In that hypothetical you said LGBTQs are an affront to my god, church and country and I am an adherent faithful member. So my personal morals are built on my religion and therefore I share the heartfelt conviction that discriminating against LGBTQ park-goers on Sunday is moral.

You said: “What if you held the same belief about red-haired people because you attended the same church? Would you argue against the law based on the fact that it unfairly discriminates, or would you agree with your fellow anti-gingers?”

This is a false dilemma because it is possible to argue against a proposed law but still agree with anti-gingers about the morality of discriminating against red-haired park-goers on Sundays. Specifically, an unfair public policy can be moral. That does not make it constitutional, so I would support a constitutional amendment, not a mere law. Does that make sense?

I see violations of the separation of church and state in things like discriminatory funding for one religious group over another, or requiring a religious test to qualify for public office, or requiring an oath of allegiance to a religious figure, or government authority derives its legitimacy directly from the church rather than the people. Regarding this last point: so long as people have the freedom to vote their conscience, and the government is still a republic, the legitimacy of a law remains the fact that society itself favors that law, and so too with any government action sanctioned by law.

A law passed democratically despite having no secular rationale comes very close, but I don’t think it necessarily crosses the line. Certainly if an amendment was proposed replacing the rest of the Constitution with the Quran and Sunnah; the laws with shariah and fiqh; the legislature and judiciary with ulama; the executive with shurṭa, muḥtasibūn, mujahideen, and caliph; I would call that a theocracy, where government authority is derived from Quran and Sunnah rather than the people. That is not to say it is immoral, quite to the contrary if I were Muslim, but it does violate the doctrine of separation of church and state. (I hope I didn’t botch any of that up)

Now imagine a system where fiqh has no jurisdiction except where one willingly uses it as the foundation of one’s personal morals. The majority of people in the locality do base their morals and therefore politics on fiqh, and so agree on the morality of a proposed law. The law is passed democratically despite having no secular rationale. So long as the people still freely elect representatives, who pass laws and are free to do so without regard to religion, it is still a republic, not a theocracy. The law may still derive its legitimacy through the public, therefore there is not necessarily a violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Now imagine a situation where there are a variety of religious denominations, and while no group within any one faith has the clout to pass a law, an interfaith coalition does. So they pass a law with shaky or nonexistant secular rationale, and a variety of sometimes conflicting religious rationales. The legitimacy of the passed law is due to its overwhelming public support, although were it not for religion the law would never have been passed. So long as this law does not undermine the republican nature of government, I fail to see a violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state.

I wouldn’t support discrimination against LGBTQ people if your hypothetical had not made me a faithful adherent to a religion that discriminates against LGBTQ people.

You should be looking to convince enough people so as to prevent the policy from being implemented, right? It can be the audience of a debate, not necessarily your counterpart on the other side.

It can be theocratic, but it can also be democratic. It depends on how the law is passed, specifically whether the people who make the laws and the people who elect them are free to defy any given religion belief. If there is no freedom to defy religion in the lawmaking process, it is a theocracy. If there is freedom to defy religion, and the process is otherwise republican, it is a republic.

Well yeah, secular policy can also be discriminatory. For example a law that bans red-haired park-goers on Sundays because the public thinks red-heads are statistically likely to trash parks on Sundays. Think of the problems with bail in the criminal justice system, which arguably discriminates against the poor. How about racial profiling?

But that wasn’t my point. Your definition of what is “just” is different from someone who derives justice from religion.

~Max

257

Think about that. Now convince me why that position deserves consideration in matters of public policy in a non-theocratic diverse culture/society.

Objectively speaking true. But in practice, one definition of “just” leads to discrimination and suffering.

258

Admittedly, my first reaction was to think
“Yeah, why couldn’t that pesky preacher MLK jr have just shut up” /s

259

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?

260

Yes I do.
I also understand people who invoke their religion when advocating for policy of social justice