From a secular perspective, society (the people in aggregate) determines what is or is not a right. In American society we defer to the Constitution, treaties, courts, laws, state constitutions, etc. which are all expressions of the will of American society.
You and I and American society as a whole considers the freedom of speech to be a right, with exceptions. But I don’t think those exceptions extend to political speech just because said political speech contains religious rationale. The current standard for exceptions to free speech is whether said speech reasonably leads to “imminent lawless action” (Brandenburg v. Ohio). If the political speech in question is intended to legally amend the laws or constitution so as to lawfully discriminate against LGBTQ people, I do not see how such discrimination constitutes an “imminent lawless action”.
I do not believe political speech inherently deserves consideration just because it is protected by the right to freedom of speech. It is always up to the individual whether to consider or give value to any expression of political speech. But I do not believe we should in any way prevent individuals from presenting or considering political speech by disqualifying specific political opinions from public debate.
The reason you or I personally object to LGBTQ discrimination is because we personally believe LGBTQ people have the right to equal protection of the laws - that discrimination against LGBTQ people is wrong. You can say, “everyone should agree with me therefore religious arguments in favor of LGBTQ discrimination should not have a place in public debate”, and I might agree with you. But if we take as a premise that not everyone agrees with us, I say religious arguments in favor of LGBTQ discrimination should have a place in public debate so long as someone is willing to present them. I don’t mean to advocate for a false balance, ideally the public debate regarding LGBTQ discrimination should be proportional to the number of people espousing that view.
If the vote comes to pass and LGBTQ discrimination makes its way into the constitution, you and I and LGBTQ people haven’t much recourse. We can push for a repeal if possible (as I am not LGBTQ), leave the country if possible, or attempt by use of force to protect what we see as inalienable rights. Or we could give up. That’s about it.
I do not see what is wrong with that. These are two mutually contradictory yet, in isolation, valid arguments:
P → Q, P ⊢ Q
P → ¬Q, P ⊢ ¬Q
The basic premise of democracy is that a plurality decides whether to implement Q or ¬Q. We live in a constitutional republic, so instead of a head count it is a vote to elect representatives who then vote on the issue, and the resulting law is subject to limits in the constitution. But the way our government is set up, a supermajority can amend the constitution to overcome those limits.
Neither has anyone argued that anybody must be moral, for this goes against free will. Therefore citing immoral acts is not a refutation of universal morality, nor citing moral acts as proof of universal morality. Despite the misleading usage of the word “universal”, it is not implied that all things are universally or even mostly moral, only that the standard is universal. So when you point to immoral acts of a church, the response is that the church was immoral, or as Thrasymachus might say the church ceased to be a church; indeed many Catholics leave their churches for that exact reason.
Wherein lies our fundamental disagreement. I believe religious argument should be restricted from public policy for reasons I won’t bother to re-iterate, and you do not.
You’re talking about rescinding equal protection under the law based on religious argument. You don’t see that as being immoral as well as crossing the line of separation of church and state, thus trending towards theocracy?
Did you mean to say “specific religious opinions”? If so, I strongly disagree because of the demonstrable negative consequences this has on society. We can list them. Why do you argue as if those real world harmful consequences are simply theoretical?
Some things are wrong. We don’t need everyone to agree that they are wrong. We need only ensure that they remain wrong. If we as a society have already agreed that everyone deserves equal protection under the law, why should we allow people to present public policy arguments in favor of codifying discriminatory laws?
Which is why we ought not let it come to that by preventing discriminatory laws from being presented in public policy debates in the first place.
I realize your argument is to impress the importance of not discriminating against those with religious beliefs. But often, those religious beliefs cause discrimination against those who either don’t share the same belief system. I don’t know of any organized and concerted effort by the LGBTQ community of trying to impose their lifestyle on anyone. It’s been my experience that they pretty much live their own lives not bothering anybody. The same can’t be said for religious blue-nosed busy bodies that insist on telling everyone how to live. And this is an institutional problem, not down to a handful of individuals who can’t mind their own business.
Defend religious rights & freedoms all you want. I’m right there with you. Right up to the point where their rights & freedoms begin to impinge on rights & freedoms of those who don’t believe as they do.
I would argue that you may be asking that individual to lie about the sources of their position (because the humanitarian and moral position that the individual believes is derived from their faith). Is that any better?
Most of the denominations that affirm LGBTQ rights do so based on the religious idea that God loves everyone. And some of the individuals in those churches have had their minds changed based on those arguments (I’ve met some of them). Perhaps they would have a difficult time explaining their beliefs in a non-religious way - many, if not most, religious people view society through the prism of their faith.
Besides, it isn’t as if those alt-right folks who consider themselves atheist (a growing number) are beacons of tolerance for LGBTQ rights.
I may be wrong, but what I understand Max S. to be saying is: If there is a fundamental disagreement at the axiomatic level, why does it matter whether those axioms are religious or secular?
Correct. A proponent of universal ethics will necessarily disagree with other ethical systems, much like you would tell me that discriminating against LGBTQ people is wrong.
That doesn’t imply they would subvert the democratic principles of government to impose their ethics against the will of society. It is a possibility but by no means implied.
If by “possible to have those assumptions debated” you mean “possible to have those assumptions refuted”, I disagree. The assumptions we are discussing are religious axioms. You cannot refute an axiom except by contradiction with other axioms used in an argument, which may or may not be possible. That is why I defined “debate”, in [POST=21682798]post #252[/POST], as “to lay out your argument and, if possible, to invalidate contradictory arguments.” I’m open to other definitions, but reading your post gave me the impression that you used “debated” as a synonym for “refuted”, and I disagree with your statement given that construction.
You have misinterpreted the premise of universal ethics. It is not that all people think they share the same ethical system, it is that there is a system of ethics which can apply to all people, usually accompanied by the argument that this system should apply to all people.
Would you say religious beliefs should have a place in public policy debate so long as people espouse those beliefs? And that people should not espouse religious beliefs due to a lack of evidence? That ideally, people shouldn’t espouse religious beliefs and therefore religion should not have a place in public debate?
That is an argument I can understand, although I may not agree.
Which illustrates an excellent point. In society, good people will do the best they can, while bad people will do the worst they can. And each will use whatever means they have to justify their actions. Thus, religion does not offer a moral framework, only an excuse for the one they chose.
One can say that for just about any philosophical moral framework. Not sure why religion should be singled out for not having a place in public debate.
Make no mistake, I think an amendment discriminating against LGBTQ people would be immoral. I don’t see it as violating the separation of church and state, though it does come close, because from my (secular) perspective the amendment is passed via democracy, not theological fiat. At some point all of those people had to vote for the amendment, and so long as the people have a choice, it is not in my opinion a theocracy. Trending perhaps, but in my eyes it does not cross the line.
I meant specific political opinions, which as a class encompasses specific political opinions based on religious arguments. I will make exceptions, but as I explained in the next sentence, those exceptions are the same as for any other free speech.
I personally agree that a law and constitutional amendment discriminating against LGBTQ people (the law would have to have an amendment to pass constitutional muster) is immoral and leads to demonstrably negative consequences on society. But when I put myself in the shoes of a religious person whose religion defines morality and considers LGBTQ discrimination to be moral, what you (and I) call “negative consequences” become “positive consequences”. What you (and I) call “immoral” becomes “moral”. It’s not because religious people are illogical or sadistic or “want to control women’s bodies” or what have you, although there are certainly some people who fit that bill. There is a fundamental disagreement on what is or is not moral.
I have my doubts about universal morality which carry over to the premise that “some things are wrong”. Leaving morality aside, a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional by definition. You say that the notion of equal protection is permanently settled, but I disagree and say nothing is permanently settled. Just because society decided there should be equal protection for all a hundred fifty years ago does not mean society is bound by that decision for all of eternity. There exists mechanisms to reverse course. Specifically there is precedent for repealing a constitutional amendment in Amendment XXI, Section I:
Your only protection against legal discrimination is that the majority of society is willing to punish people who discriminate. In my opinion we are also willing to punish people who discriminate against political speech, including religiously motivated political speech. These and other rights are the truce between innumerable factions who would otherwise be fighting wars against each other. If one group or coalition wants to change that understanding, through open debate as allowed by the rules of society, who are you to deny their rights and shut them down?
Actually I disagree. Both secular and religious axioms depend on the unfalsifiable authority of the axioms, which are by definition unfalsifiable. As I mentioned in a list before, modus ponens is itself an axiom and thus unfalsifiable.
I am arguing because I do not understand why you answer the original question in the negative, although I think we are getting close to understanding each other.
Voyager was willing to debate religious premises, but I thought you would disqualify religious arguments and ask your opponent to come back with a secular argument?
I thoroughly apologize if I have misconstrued your position.
I’ve agreed from page one to debate religious premises in public forums. However, I’ve also argued from page one to exclude them from political policy debates. i.e.: We ought not permit religious doctrine inform laws that end up discriminating against women, minorities, etc…
It matters, to me at least, if the axioms come from religious authority. Lack of proof of god’s existence aside, religious authorities don’t even agree on many things.
That’s what I’m talking about: religious arguments in public debate concerning public policy. Voyager and I went off into a foray about ethics and public policy debate, and I said it should make no difference if the argument is ethical or religious.
I’m trying to put myself in your shoes but it just doesn’t make sense to me. You can’t prove an axiom so to require proof of God’s existence is nonsensical. If a religious authority is self-contradictory it would make sense to point this out in the debate. If a separate religious authority disagrees, not recognized by your opponent, that sounds like a non-sequiter.
And? It’s generally hard to argue with anyone’s philosophical moral underpinning. You aren’t going to get very far with that.
In addition, theological debates and discussions have been going on from when the first religion was formed. The theology part of the library would be very small indeed if “Because God said so” was the only word (sentence?) in the discussion.
I don’t see the case for restricting something out of the public sphere of debate simply because you believe it to be more intractable to argue someone out of it.
I can imagine ethical systems that do discriminate. I’d find them wrong, probably because of some premise they have - like maximizing human reproduction, for instance. Notice that some religious systems mandate discrimination because God said so. (Not all religious systems, to be sure.) That’s a premise they are unwilling to examine.
I definitely don’t intend to equate debate with refutation. Good debate lays out the axioms and the chain of reasoning. As a high school debater, I in fact changed my mind about some issues as a result of preparing a debate about them.
One part of a debate could be about refuting certain arguments, but that’s not the purpose or the result. I’m assuming honest debating, scarce these days.
I was using universal as the opposite of relativistic. I’d think that universal in the sense of applying to everyone is trivial, since you can special case various classes of people. For instance “all people should be vaccinated - except those for whom it is medically inadvisable.”
I’m fine with people espousing religious beliefs and acting on them when it affects them and others with sincerely held similar beliefs. If someone things Meryl Streep is the best actress ever and holds Meryl Streep viewing parties with those who agree, fine with me. However if they get a law passed requiring the rest of us to attend Meryl Streep film festivals, they have a stronger burden of proof that she is such a great actress that our lives would be improved by being forced to watch her movies.
Espousing Meryl Streep in the free marketplace of ideas, no problem. Espousing Meryl Streep with the intention of forcing a certain behavior on everyone, big problem.
I hope that helps take this issue out of the sensitive topic of god. No one wants to force Meryl Streep viewing parties of course - yet.
Bottom line - We get to examine axioms except in the case of God, who is the subject of all sorts of special pleading. Many Christians think God is universal. Being Jewish, I didn’t think that even when I was a believer. It would have been absurd of us to even propose universal Kosher laws for non-Jews.