Only in a Theocracy.
I don’t challenge, but object to the premise that there is such a thing as a ‘country … that you (one) would call a just society’ and would ask what country you feel qualifies as this and on what bases.
If you look into it I don’t believe you will find any.
I have never thought hard enough to answer that question. I’ve tried, sure.
So pretend society is undecided on the issue affecting some human right. Someone comes forward with a moral argument based on religion. If you found the debater to argue in good faith, do you go into the weeds with them?
~Max
Sure, but the utility is highly dependent on the topic being debated.
How so? Say the local Christian radio station airs a debate like this:
“All of you protestants out there, you should take position A because of religious reasons X and Y.”
“No, Y is a misinterpretation of passage Z of the Bible, and you should take position B because…”
Or even an interfaith debate.
~Max
If you’re looking for Utopia, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed.
Here are 16 that by most standards are considered best of breed with respect to socially democratic ideals. Not one is a theocracy. I have a sneaking suspicion they made room for the US at the bottom of the list.
Not a political debate and doesn’t impact social policy; Don’t care. They can have at it all day long.
If the two people debating cannot agree on premises, your options are to go deeper into the weeds or walk away. I don’t see why this should be any different if one premise is the authority of the Quran.
If a significant number of people believe in the authority of the Quran, and use this belief to inform their personal morals, and use their personal morals to inform their opinions on public policy, and if every person is entitled to express their opinion on public policy, and if the purpose of public debate is for society to establish a consensus on public policy, then would you admit that religious arguments have a central place in public debate?
I’m not convinced myself but nobody is representing this side of the argument. Perhaps that is not the purpose of public debate, and we would be better off stigmatizing religion and letting the public slowly shift to a more atheistic position as the religious adherents die out. Perhaps not every person is entitled to express their opinion on public policy, or perhaps public policy should not be decided by public debate.
~Max
Religious freedom includes freedom from religion.
From Wikipedia:
What if position A and position B are sides on the abortion debate, or the use of torture, or the death penalty, or contraceptives, or any other social policy? Or if the positions are whether to support a given candidate? Or whether to donate to a certain cause?
~Max
Demonstrate for me by example a ‘moral’ religious position or argument for an undecided human right that I could not hold, support or put forward as an a-religious human rights advocate.
I don’t understand what you mean. Does the freedom for an individual to be irreligious somehow imply that public political debate should be irreligious?
~Max
That’s not what I meant by ‘moral’. I meant a moral argument, as in an argument about morals, opposed to a financial argument for example. I did not mean to imply that the argument is morally sound to anybody except the one presenting it, who ostensibly thinks the argument is morally sound and wants to debate it.
~Max
Yes it should since it’s part of human history. Humans can’t and won’t argue purely from rational arguments based on objective observations.
Again, I object to public policies made on the basis of religious convictions, if those policies are designed to restrict human rights. I hope your next question isn’t going to be about protecting human rights of cannibals and pedophiles.
Like abortion?.. I’m happy to have that debate publicly. I object to having religious doctrine with no evidentiary basis dictate public policy, regardless of how ‘moral’ they believe their argument to be.
John Rawls came up with the notion of public reason which is relevant here: Public reason - Wikipedia
Religious justifications for public policies tend to either fall flat or be attempts to exert power and control over others.
Muslims are as likely to be convinced by Jewish arguments that YHVH gave Jerusalem to the Jews as Jews are to be convinced by Muslim arguments that Allah gave Jerusalem to Muslims. In the same way, slavers and segregationists found religious justifications for slavery and segregation while abolitionists and anti-segregationists found religious justifications for the opposite. You recently saw the same thing with homosexuality. I doubt quoting Bible verses convinced many people even if they were of the same religion.
Religion makes it easy to make up whatever you want and then pretend to have absolute certainty and authority to carry out a deity’s will; A deity who turns out to have the same opinion you started with, how blessed are you! I’m not sure how else to phrase it but the US has a large swath of gas-lighting bullies and religion is a useful banner and drum to them.
That doesn’t mean religious people can’t express opinions which are motivated by their faiths. But they’ll have to find arguments which someone who doesn’t share their faith could agree with. Plenty of religious people have no problem with that. The people who think they should be able to say: “My religion says this” and have it carried out into law are those with a ravenous need to control others and demonstrate power over them which is what you would expect from a slaver society.
See how many “if’s” you’re stipulating? It makes the claim you are making not very generalizable. And what does “central place” really mean in this context?
Since abortion is what led to you start this thread, let’s use this as an example. In this country, some segment of the population using the Bible to inform their personal morals. Others do not. Some people use their Bible-based moral system to inform their opinion on public policy. Others do not (even including some who believe in the Bible). Bible-believers who want public policy to reflect their moral beliefs want abortion banned. People who don’t believe the Bible should dictate public policy don’t want to ban abortion.
Is the Bible informing/influencing one side of the debate? Sure.
Does this mean anti-abortion side should make appeals to the Bible when debating the other side? No, not if they are trying to persuade. But sure they can do this if they just want to create hot air?
It means the debate between a pro-life Christian and a pro-choice atheist should be about the whether the Bible should inform public policy, not whether pro-life or pro-choice implies some sort of ulterior motive.
~Max
How do you debate religion?
It’s the fucking word of God.
You want me to debate the merits of those requirements put forth upon us by Our Creator, the Omniscient and All Powerful Creator of the Universe?
Not interested, thanks.