Does religion have a place in public debate?

[Voyager]

@Max_S

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.

Sure you are. Flat Earthers are not a part of the national debate. So far no legislator I’m aware of has proposed a motion condemning NASA for teach sphericalism. When that basketball player mentioned the flat earth, he got laughed at, and Steph said that his mention was a joke.
We can’t laugh at even the more absurd religions though.

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.

Lack of debate? Where have you been? Though the winner was the person who lied through his teeth, made up any facts he wanted to, and insulted everyone far more than any politicians insulted him.

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.

All of these things have been refuted many, many times. How many times must we refute the flat earth story before we give up and just start laughing? Ever watch a video from a YEC? The bullshit just streams out of their mouths. How many times must scientists refute this crap?

I’m not saying addressing political speech will prevent all terrorism, but I think it will reduce some.

~Max

I don’t know. We haven’t heard much from the North Pole Liberation Front, fighting to end Santa’s oppression of elves.

[Voyager]

@Max_S

What do you mean by an “unexaminable axiom”? Does this address your concern?

When you get down to it, today the axiom “god exists” is based on faith. That was not always the case when a god was the best known solution to problems such as the origin of man.
Now some religions think that they could be wrong about this premise, and thus do not want to impose it on others. I’m talking about the god exists, therefore we know what he wants, therefore all must follow what he wants. Which was the law when religions had secular power, and still happens in places where religions are heavily involved with the government.
What do you think “making America a Christian nation” is about?

I would not personally support that, because I do not accept the premises.

Of course you don’t, and of course you don’t support the premise. But why do you think they were wrong to do this? Are they less wrong or more wrong than those who want to take away abortion rights based on religious arguments?

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.

Any religious argument based on unverified revelation is equally invalid.

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.

I’m Jewish, and when I was religious as a kid our rabbi never once said that anyone not Jewish should do anything based on our beliefs. Even the Orthodox limit their requirements to Jews. I can’t think of any Jewish legislators pushing laws based on their religion. If religions follow this model, then I’m happy to limit examination of their axioms to religious debate forums.

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).

~Max

How they come up with their justification is not really the issue. Especially since Biblical justifications can go either way, depending on what passages you accept. Jews accept this, inerrantists not so much.

Here is an example of this done right. John Kerry, when he was running for president, said that since he was a Catholic he was opposed to abortion personally. But he recognized that this was a matter of faith for him, and he supported abortion rights for those who didn’t share his faith.
Setting a personal example, but not forcing it on others, is an excellent way of including religion in the public debate.
Or do you think he would be more correct to oppose abortion for everyone because the Pope said so?

[Voyager]

@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 who justifies his arguments by citing Marx and Lenin as holy writ should be treated the same way as someone who cites the Bible.
Remember. blasphemy against Communism in Stalinist Russia led to about the same result as blasphemy in Merrie Olde England. But colder.
If you were lucky.

[QuickSilver]

@ISiddiqui

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).

I take this to mean you’re done trying to defending the validity of religious argument in (legislative) policy debates.

[ISiddiqui]

@QuickSilver

I take this to mean you’re done trying to defending the validity of religious argument in (legislative) policy debates.

I don’t see the point. Considering that it appeared you were against religion being used in policy debate because you felt it was irrational and that only evidence supported starting points and rational debate from those should allowed in policy debate. It has become apparent that you don’t really care about evidence or rational starting points/debate; you just don’t like religion. It’s simply viewpoint based animus. So trying to argue against your emotional starting point won’t get anyone anywhere.

Though I do hope you enjoy all the uses of religion in legislative policy debates going forward.

[ISiddiqui]

@Voyager

A Marxist who justifies his arguments by citing Marx and Lenin as holy writ should be treated the same way as someone who cites the Bible.
Remember. blasphemy against Communism in Stalinist Russia led to about the same result as blasphemy in Merrie Olde England. But colder.
If you were lucky.

I don’t disagree. As stated earlier, I’m perfectly fine with people getting laughed out of the arena or the halls of power. I just think they should all be allowed to speak in halls of power before that.

(I think we end up in the exact same position in terms of rights to make one’s point in the public debate, even though our personal views may be very different - I think that’s healthy and far healthier than banning a viewpoint from public policy debates)

[Voyager]

@ISiddiqui

I don’t disagree. As stated earlier, I’m perfectly fine with people getting laughed out of the arena or the halls of power. I just think they should all be allowed to speak in halls of power before that.

(I think we end up in the exact same position in terms of rights to make one’s point in the public debate, even though our personal views may be very different - I think that’s healthy and far healthier than banning a viewpoint from public policy debates)

Cool.
I consider Communism a form of religion, with splinter sects, saints, icons (Christians have Jesus everywhere, Communists have Marx and Lenin) and revealed writ.
But I agree we pretty much agree.

[QuickSilver]

@ISiddiqui

I don’t disagree. As stated earlier, I’m perfectly fine with people getting laughed out of the arena or the halls of power. I just think they should all be allowed to speak in halls of power before that.

But they never do get laughed out of the halls of power, do they?

Quite the opposite:

In 2016, atheists and other freethinkers barred from acting as guest chaplains sued the Pennsylvania House leadership, claiming that the legislators were violating the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge ruled in favor of the nontheists. Republicans have appealed the decision.

It’s a Holy War, they claim:

A state legislator in Washington is under scrutiny after issuing a document that outlines the “Biblical Basis for War.”
The manifesto distributed by state Rep. Matt Shea (R-Spokane Valley) conjures up images of a “Holy army” that will overturn marriage equality and legal abortion as well as ban “idolatry and occultism.” Openly proclaiming that “God is a Warrior,” the document chillingly lays down rules for dealing with those who refuse to obey “biblical law”: They should first be given a chance to surrender, but if they choose to resist, they should be invaded, conquered and, in some cases, killed.

@ISiddique

Though I do hope you enjoy all the uses of religion in legislative policy debates going forward.

Doesn’t look like I have much of a choice in the matter. So you win!

[Max_S]

@QuickSilver

If you find yourself in agreement with #1, what specifically gives your trouble with #2?

You haven’t given me any reason at all, so I have to assume your rationale. Here is my sorry attempt (premises have the first couple words highlighted):
[ol]

**QuickSilver** thinks

all religious arguments are invalid arguments.

**QuickSilver** thinks

invalid arguments should be disqualified from public policy debates.
[li]Therefore, QuickSilver thinks all religious arguments should be disqualified from public policy debates.[/li][li]What QuickSilver thinks is that invalid arguments should be disqualified from public policy debates. (2)[/li]

What **QuickSilver**

thinks is QuickSilver’s opinion.
[li]Therefore, QuickSilver’s opinion is that invalid arguments should be disqualified from public policy debates.[/li][li]QuickSilver thinks all religious arguments are invalid arguments. (1)[/li]

It is

possible for QuickSilver to hear a religious argument before it is presented in a particular public policy debate.
[li]Therefore, it is possible for QuickSilver to think an argument is invalid before it has been presented in a particular public policy debate.[/li][li]It is possible for QuickSilver to think an argument is invalid before it has been presented in a particular public policy debate. (10)[/li][li]QuickSilver thinks invalid arguments should be disqualified from public policy debates. (2)[/li][li]Therefore, it is possible for QuickSilver to think an argument should be disqualified from public policy debates before it has been presented in a particular public policy debate.[/li]

A supermajority

of the electorate*****, properly informed by public policy debate, should decide public policies.

Whether to

disqualify an argument from a public policy debates is a public policy.
[li]Therefore a supermajority of the electorate, properly informed by public debate, should decide whether to disqualify an argument from public policy debates.[/li][li]A supermajority of the electorate, properly informed by public policy debate, should decide whether to disqualify an argument from public policy debates. (15)[/li]

A supermajority

of the electorate cannot be properly informed by public policy debate before it has been presented in a particular public policy debate.
[li]Therefore, whether to disqualify an argument from public policy debates should not be decided before it has been presented in a particular public policy debate.[/li][li]It is possible for QuickSilver to think an argument should be disqualified from public policy debates before it has been presented in a particular public policy debate. (12)[/li][li]Whether to disqualify an argument from public policy debates should not be decided before it has been presented in a particular public policy debate. (18)[/li][li]Therefore, it is possible for QuickSilver to think an argument should be disqualified from public policy debates, while at the same time it should not be decided whether to disqualify an argument from public policy debates, which is a contradiction.[/ol][/li]*****A supermajority as required by existing law to pass a bill or constitutional amendment, subject to applicable constitutional restraints, which implies an exception for arguments that are directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, obscenity, defamation, and other standard exceptions to the principle of free speech (political or not).

What this means is that your mere opinion that an argument is invalid (for example, if you deny every religious premise) is not enough to say the argument should be disqualified from public policy debate; unless you deny one of the highlighted premises above or my logic is faulty. (Both possible!)

~Max

[QuickSilver]

What’s your point with the above, Max? Are you trying to impress upon me that changing or passing actual laws in order to implement my world view re: limiting religious argument in legislative processes, to be unlikely? If so, I concede that point, as I have to ISiddique. I’m not sitting here holding my breath, believe me. Fact is, humans are irrational and I find myself to be in good company in that respect; It’s irrational for me to expect people to suddenly abandon belief systems that are so entrenched mentally, institutionally and socially. Be that as it may, I think it would be beneficial for humanity at large to at least limit public policy decisions to more secular lines of reason.

Legal and legislative arguments aside, do you disagree?

[QuickSilver]

@QuickSilver

Legal and legislative arguments aside, do you disagree?

Should have said: Legal and legislative impediments aside, do you disagree?

[thorny_locust]

Max, re your long and involved post #349:

We already had that vote and that constitutional amendment. See my post #340.

Have we always lived up to it? Of course not; we haven’t always lived up to anything in the Constitution – well, except having elections, come war, civil war, or high water. But that doesn’t mean that we have to vote on it all over again every time somebody wants to say ‘we should write civil law to suit my particular religious beliefs’.

[Max_S]

@QuickSilver

What’s your point with the above, Max? Are you trying to impress upon me that changing or passing actual laws in order to implement my world view re: limiting religious argument in legislative processes, to be unlikely? If so, I concede that point, as I have to ISiddique. I’m not sitting here holding my breath, believe me. Fact is, humans are irrational and I find myself to be in good company in that respect; It’s irrational for me to expect people to suddenly abandon belief systems that are so entrenched mentally, institutionally and socially. Be that as it may, I think it would be beneficial for humanity at large to at least limit public policy decisions to more secular lines of reason.

Legal and legislative arguments aside, do you disagree?

I haven’t yet read most of the posts #328-348, but I’ll quickly respond to this one and hopefully I can catch up later today.

The point is that my construction of your argument with premise #2 is illogical unless you do qualify it upon the majority of people abandoning religious belief systems. You cannot think it is beneficial for humanity to limit public policy decisions to more secular lines of reason, not the way I understand your argument. That is why I am asking for your help to understand your argument.

~Max

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

I haven’t yet read most of the posts #328-348, but I’ll quickly respond to this one and hopefully I can catch up later today.

The point is that my construction of your argument with premise #2 is illogical unless you do qualify it upon the majority of people abandoning religious belief systems. You cannot think it is beneficial for humanity to limit public policy decisions to more secular lines of reason, not the way I understand your argument. That is why I am asking for your help to understand your argument.

~Max

I’m not sure why you assume that my position requires the majority of people to abandon of religious systems. Particularly when most do so anyway as part of daily life to some extent or another. I don’t think a religious person can avoid compartmentalization of their belief systems in the modern world and a more distinct separation of church and state could hardly be an undue burden on most. You cannot argue that this is an ongoing trend in most develop-ed/-ing nations.

What you’ve taken great pains to point out as illogical seems perfectly logical to me. I can think of any number of examples where non-secular public policies have caused actual harm to specific groups of people in society. We’ve discussed them already. I don’t recall you citing examples of the opposite where secular policies have cause actual harm to groups of religious adherents, unless you consider the relaxation of theocratic and religious rules/laws/practices to be harmful on the same level as their enforcement on those who don’t adhere to them.

[Max_S]

@QuickSilver

What you’ve taken great pains to point out as illogical seems perfectly logical to me. I can think of any number of examples where non-secular public policies have caused actual harm to specific groups of people in society. We’ve discussed them already. I don’t recall you citing examples of the opposite where secular policies have cause actual harm to groups of religious adherents, unless you consider the relaxation of theocratic and religious rules/laws/practices to be harmful on the same level as their enforcement on those who don’t adhere to them.

I don’t think there’s anything illogical in your opinion that non-secular public policies cause actual harm to specific groups of people in society, or even causes actual harm to society. That all goes under premise #1. The illogical part is when you say preventing what you consider harmful to society should always be good for society, but fail to assert that the majority of society agrees with you, such agreement properly being the aggregate individual decisions of the public informed by public debate.

~Max

[ISiddiqui]

@QuickSilver

Be that as it may, I think it would be beneficial for humanity at large to at least limit public policy decisions to more secular lines of reason.

Legal and legislative arguments aside, do you disagree?

Well I disagree. It may be for a similar reason as Max S. (if I understand him correctly) - that banning a viewpoint from public policy decisions that a substantial amount of the population holds appears to violate the fundamentals of democracy (or democratic republics, if you will).

[Max_S]

@QuickSilver

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.

I disagree. In the linked discussion I came to the conclusion that there are no compelling (convincing) secular arguments that support pro-lifers. This is backed up by a 2012 Pew survey of 403 self-identified athiest/agnostics found that only 14% them think abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. The number jumps up to 24% if you include the other 872 religiously unaffiliated respondents, but those include a good number of people who identify themselves as “religious” or “spiritual”.

Besides, if you take away the religious motivation you are cutting away the legs of the table. Without religious arguments you get threads such as “Pro-lifers want to control women’s bodies” - Okay, but…why?", and indeed there is hardly any defense to such an accusation if you disqualify the religious arguments central to the pro-life movement. If religious arguments were disqualified from public policy debate, you are effectively forcing the pro-life faction out of the picture without changing their minds on the issue.

And so it goes with other controversial topics, for example homosexual conduct or contraception.

~Max

Pew Forum on Religious & Public Life. “Nones” on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2012/10/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

I don’t think there’s anything illogical in your opinion that non-secular public policies cause actual harm to specific groups of people in society, or even causes actual harm to society. That all goes under premise #1. The illogical part is when you say preventing what you consider harmful to society should always be good for society, but fail to assert that the majority of society agrees with you, such agreement properly being the aggregate individual decisions of the public informed by public debate.

~Max

@ISiddiqui

Well I disagree. It may be for a similar reason as Max S. (if I understand him correctly) - that banning a viewpoint from public policy decisions that a substantial amount of the population holds appears to violate the fundamentals of democracy (or democratic republics, if you will).

I think I’m starting to understand where our paths diverge.

I think you understand my position to be such that:

• Effective today and now, all legislative bodies should restrict public policy debate to arguments based on secular principles of reason.

Which is in fact my aspirational thinking position.

What I may not have expressed with sufficient clarity is:

• I do not expect legislature to take up my position today and now because the majority of legislators and electorate, do not agree with my views.

Now, do I believe that majority views are always more correct than minority views? Not for a second. Neither do you, I suspect. But I do believe in challenging majority views, even if the minority view is not exactly popular, as long as it can be argued and reasoned that it is morally “right” for all (not just those who happen to think it’s right). Making that argument isn’t un-democratic, do you agree?

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

I disagree. In the linked discussion I came to the conclusion that there are no compelling (convincing) secular arguments that support pro-lifers. This is backed up by a 2012 Pew survey of 403 self-identified athiest/agnostics found that only 14% them think abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. The number jumps up to 24% if you include the other 872 religiously unaffiliated respondents, but those include a good number of people who identify themselves as “religious” or “spiritual”.

Besides, if you take away the religious motivation you are cutting away the legs of the table. Without religious arguments you get threads such as “Pro-lifers want to control women’s bodies” - Okay, but…why?", and indeed there is hardly any defense to such an accusation if you disqualify the religious arguments central to the pro-life movement. If religious arguments were disqualified from public policy debate, you are effectively forcing the pro-life faction out of the picture without changing their minds on the issue.

And so it goes with other controversial topics, for example homosexual conduct or contraception.

~Max

Pew Forum on Religious & Public Life. “Nones” on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2012/10/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf

My position on separation of religion from public legislative policy has been consistent. Believe whatever you want and practice it freely within the context of your home, house of worship and public square. Have your own media channel. Shout while standing on a box and hand out newsletters. Your religious rights shall not be restricted. Right up to the edge of the legislative house steps.

And if secularist pro-life views don’t have a compelling argument to make about restricting abortion rights, why is it incumbent on the rest of us to give them more than 14% support? A bad argument isn’t made better just because it happens to come from secularists any more than if it comes from non-secularists.

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

And so it goes with other controversial topics, for example homosexual conduct or contraception.

~Max

Do you think the subject of homosexuality and contraception remain very controversial among most religious groups? Seems to me they’ve long ago accepted contraception and have made great strides towards accepting homosexuality. Do you think acceptance of those issues started out as a popular majority view, or did it start out slow and gradual with growing voices of minority support before it slowly became the accepted norm among the majority?