Defined broadly enough, the tinfoil hatters are part of the national debate. “Nobody takes them seriously” is exactly what I’m getting at. If “because God said so” is given the same treatment as the flat earth, I’d be quite satisfied.
There appear to be places in Europe where this is the case.
I’m in a state where in the last election candidates competed on how much they hated Trump, and I know there is a national debate.
There is a debate on how much real scientists should pay attention to loons like creationists, and whether engaging them in debate legitimizes them. Or even science popularizers.
A while ago we’d frequently get new posters popping into GD to evangelize us. There was almost a template for responding to them, it didn’t take a lot of thought, and a lot of people laughed at them if they didn’t want to debate honestly. I had the impression that these people had talking points from their church and didn’t know how to respond when these points got demolished.
Now what we do here is of little import to the world at large, so letting people spout doesn’t hurt anything.
And it depends on what the response is to our response. If it is honest, people don’t laugh. If it reiterates the script, then people laugh.
Those in the public debate I want to laugh at have been refuted over and over again. Do you think we should respond as if they wanted an honest debate?
He was removed from every committee, ostensibly limiting his influence in congress. More should have been done.
I’ve been watching the rate of hate crime rise dramatically across the nation, due in no small part to Rep. Steve King.
Seems to me you’re okay with allowing religious arguments in legislative bodies that influence the passing of laws that do indeed discriminate. Not sure how you can claim “probably” standing up for protection of minority rights. Is that you having it both ways?
I disagree. The axiom “God exists” is and always has been based on faith, otherwise it would not be an axiom. I suspect for many people the existence of God is not an axiom itself, but at some point down the line one makes a “leap of faith”. Whether that be the authority of a bible or minister, or multiple life experiences inexplicable without a “leap of faith”, it makes no difference. A set of axioms that implies God exists is just as religious as the single axiom asserting the existence of God.
I am also talking about those kinds of religion.
I’m not sure if Spain was objectively wrong to impose the Spanish inquisition because I have my doubts that objective morality exists. By my personal standards, of course it was wrong because I do not accept the premises used to justify the inquisition.
I’m not sure what to think if the entire public voted on the matter according to rules agreed upon by a supermajority of all people, and the inquisition was voted into effect. That would be a direct conflict between different principles I hold dear - the principle of democracy and the fact that I seriously disagree with the majority. It is a real cognitive dissonance for me and I am very uncomfortible with my decision.
If I were a Catholic who somehow disagreed with the rationale for inquisition, I would argue against the inquisition, refuse to obey the order to kill my neighbors, and petition for exile, but accept death if that was the judgement handed down to me for the crime of heresy.
If I were not a Catholic I would petition for exile. If I never had the opportunity to leave the country of my own will, and the people had no say in whether or not to start an inquisition, then I would resist. Otherwise, I would accept the judgement handed down to me for the crime of heresy.
Invalid for you, not to the person who had the revelation. If the majority of people had revelations or otherwise come to consensus on some point…
According to the Talmud there are seven sheva mitzvot b’nei Noah in Genesis which apply to all of humanity (Sanhedrin 56b:26). Six of these laws were given to Adam who may have passed them on to Noah. Noah was either given all seven laws from God directly, or just one from God and six from his ancestors. Later all seven were given again to Moses in the book of Genesis. These laws are:
[ol]
[li]to prohibition idolatry[/li] [ul][li]Given to Adam in Genesis 2:16 which contains an alliteration to Exodus 20:2 (Sanhedrin 56b:6)[/li] [li]Given to Moses via Exodus 20:2[/ul][/li][li]to prohibition blasphemy[/li] [ul][li]Given to Adam in Genesis 2:16 which contains an alliteration to Leviticus 24:16 (Sanhedrin 56b:6)[/li] [li]Given to Moses in Leviticus 24:16[/ul][/li][li]to establish courts of justice[/li] [ul][li]Given to Adam in Genesis 2:16 which contains an alliteration to Genesis 18:19 (Sanhedrin 56b:5)[/li] [li]Given to Moses via Genesis 18:19[/ul][/li][li]to enforce capital punishment for the crime of murder[/li] [ul][li]Given to Adam in Genesis 2:16 which contains an alliteration to Genesis 9:6 (Sanhedrin 56b:6)[/li] [li]Given to Moses in Genesis 9:6[/ul][/li][li]to prohibit arayot (forbidden sexual relations)[/li] [ul][li]Given to Adam in Genesis 2:16 which contains an alliteration to Jeremiah 3:1 (Sanhedrin 56b:6), also implied by Adam himself in Genesis 2:23, as explained by Genesis 2:24. The meaning of that passage is that sexual relations are forbidden between a man and anyone except his wife (another man, another man’s wife, a woman who is not his wife, beasts), also prohibited are sexual relations between a man and either his father’s sister and his mother’s sister, or his father’s wife and his mother (a disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva respectively, I think R. Eliezer’s interpretation is better). Sanhedrin 57b:10-58a:8.[/li] [li]Given to Moses in Genesis 2:24[/ul][/li][li]to prohibit theft[/li] [ul][li]Given to Adam in Genesis 2:16 when God gives Adam permission to eat from trees in the garden of Eden, it is implied that Adam was prohibited from eating animals because God had not given him permission to do so, thus the animals belong to God and to eat them would amount to theft (Sanhedrin 56b:4).[/li] [li]Given to Moses in Genesis 2:16.[/ul][/li][li]to prohibit eating living flesh[/li] [ul][li]Not given to Adam, who was never allowed to eat flesh at all.[/li] [li]Given to Noah in Genesis 9:4.[/li] [li]Given to Moses in Genesis 9:4.[/ul][/li][/ol]
Not all of Jewry accepts the Talmud as authoritative, but Orthodox Jews (I think it’s the largest denomination) definitely do. Orthodox Jews do in fact believe non-Jews deserve capital punishment for performing abortions after 40 days. Genesis 9:6 applies to killing the fetus (Sanhedrin 57b:5), although a fetus is merely water, not yet a person until 40 days after conception (Yevamot 69b:10).
If someone wants to propose a statutory ban on say, abortion after conception, that would need to come as a constitutional amendment because there is no secular rationale that would pass the Lemon test*. See my response to QuickSilver’s hypothetical in [POST=21681388]post #237[/POST], where I played a religious lawmaker given the choice of supporting a discriminatory law based on my religion.
*ETA: unless the proponent thinks the current court will overrule Planned Parenthood v. Casey
There are pseudo-scientific claims which are not supported by science. We don’t give them special merit because they are popular among a self-identified group who earnestly believe them. Anti-vaxers, for example, or Scientologists.
Our system of governmental rights (in the US) are absolutely about having it both ways. All groups have free speech rights to make the points they want while also limiting their legislative actions through Constitutional means. That’s the whole point.
And once again it isn’t only religious arguments that influence the passing of discriminatory laws. And religious people have stood against discrimination in the public policy debate using religious reasons. Therefore trying to use that to argue for the banning of religious arguments in public policy debates seems to be a not so subtle ruse (and this is after saying you wanted to ban it due to the lacking of suitable reason for the policy debate) - this is merely about anti-religious animus. No more, no less.
Basically, I don’t think you were really arguing in good faith. It wasn’t about rational debate in the legislative process or not allowing discrimination advocacy in public policy debates, but you believe religion is a specific evil which is not shared by anything else that shouldn’t be allowed. A specific objection rather than a general (all irrational or all discrimination) objection.
If I had known that starting out, I wouldn’t have bothered.
No. God at one time was the best known answer to the problem or origins and the organization of the natural world. Paine specifically used the structure of the solar system as the basis for his belief in a God. Just not the Christian one.
As scientist found better answers, there was a reduction in mention of God in scientific papers, since he was no longer a good answer. This is pre-1800. Now of course there is no mention at all of God.
I’m far more interested if you think that their use of the axiom I mentioned before was valid. Sure you disagree with it, but you seem to think that it is improper to argue against an axiom. Remember the axiom is that those not accepting Jesus will be doomed to eternal torment. Given that, the forcible conversion of nonbelievers follows rather naturally, since it is in their best interest to convert, and temporary worldly torture is far better than eternal torture.
My position would be that since there is no proof or even evidence for hell and eternal torment, their premise is invalid and thus their actions are unethical.
Your position seems to be that you wouldn’t support their actions because you don’t agree with their axiom. Which is fine for you personally, but seems a bit weak in arguing against their actions. All axioms are created equal in your book, it seems.
If a majority of people had consistent revelations that gave evidence of something they couldn’t know without it, then there would be evidence for whatever the revelation revealed. One person having a revelation don’t mean diddly. If a guy says he is talking to god, he could at least ask god for the winners of the next day’s races at Belmont. That would be evidence.
I’m aware of some laws that are supposed to apply to all humanity, but I’m unaware of any Jewish effort to enforce them.
By the way, Orthodox is hardly the largest denomination. This souce puts them third in the US, and significantly behind secular and non-denominational Jews even in Israel. And of course there is no body making laws for all Jews, let alone gentiles.
The point is, those actions are not as limited as you would like everyone to believe. And when they are limited, it is not in large part due to religious conscientious objectors quoting biblical texts advocating tolerance and acceptance, but by secular arguments.
If and when a bigot stands up in congress and argues for bigoted policies, he/she is usually criticized. I have yet to see the same kind of criticism leveled at a religious argument that advocates for discriminatory policies because of religious convictions. You may find the latter excusable as a right of religious expression. Many do not.
I have gone to some pains to make clear that I do not wish to exclude religious thought, speech and practice from the public sphere. However, based on my understanding of the OP and the ensuing discussion, I have suggested that American public/legislative policy could benefit from a better defined line of separation of church and state. Which is not a new or novel idea in American politics. It’s certainly an idea that other democratic societies have managed to accomplish without insult or injury to religious thought and practice in people’s lives. If you think religion absolutely must continue to play an integral part in politics, it’s not enough to simply say, “It has always been thus!” The onus is on you to show evidence of significant social/legislative good it has contributed over time and is continuing to do so.
I grant you that there are many religious individuals who argue and support social justice. I do not suggest all religious thought is bad in all contexts. But you cannot ignore the recent laws passed limiting women’s rights to abortion, limiting LGBTQ rights, repeated demands(not yet laws) of equal standing of teaching creation myths with evolution - all based on religious doctrine - and claim that is simply an expression of religious freedoms guaranteed by the constitution and therefore a net good for society. And all those who disagree can just lump it and take it up with the religious majority. Even more amazing is how the religious majority manages all aggrieved and oppressed when the secular minority suggests a little more equity in legislative policy procedures.
The design of the limiting document was supposed to, well, limited. I’m well aware of how limited it is (I took Constitutional Law in Law School). And it was intended as more of a neutral arbiter, so therefore it is written in non-religious legal terms. If the government were to apply laws otherwise, it would be considered a violation of 1st amendment protections (another limiter in the limiting document).
Of course this whole thing seems to purposely ignore people of faith who push for progressive laws or push against regressive ones. I think it maybe somewhat intentional. After all, the people of the US have mostly considered themselves religious until quite recently. Why ignore those who advocated for things you may like because of their faith? For all the talk about religion being used to advocate for slavery and segregation, there is an ignorance (or secularwashing?) of the strong faith advocacy for abolition and Civil Rights (John Brown and Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke very openly about their faith being the reasons they were doing what they were doing). More recently, Catholic leaders (mostly Democrat) speak of their faith when they talk about the abhorrent things done at the border to migrants and refugees (Congressman Beto O’Rourke called a protest against the administration’s family separation policies to be a “religious experience” and talked about his Catholic faith).
Whole denominations, of course, are for a woman’s right to choose and pro-LGBTQ accordance with their faiths - and have advocacy arms in Washington that lobby against discrimination (my denomination is one of those).
Pete Buttigieg is not the first “religious left” person (in fact all of the major candidates running for the Democratic nomination, with the exception of Senator Bernie Sanders, are people of faith).
I have, of course, mentioned the alt-right having religious and atheist members, but they do not get the same response that their free speech rights be curtailed in the halls of policy debate.
It’s sounds bit Orwellian to claim the limiting of freedom of speech rights (and yes, that’s exactly what banning religious arguments in policy decisions is) is simply ‘a little more equity’ and that those who wish to keep an equal right to speech in the policy decision process need have the onus, as opposed to those who wish to deny those rights.
And I find it completely absurd to say one is ok with religious arguments in the public arena, but it should be taken out in the public policy debate. Aren’t public policies ideally supposed to reflect the desires and wants of the population… which are evidenced by the debate in the public arena? If something has mass approve in the public arena, telling those individuals who represent those populations to come up with different justifications (which will end up be easily seen through anyway - the other politicians participate in the same public arena) seems absurd.
If said policy if enacted would infringe on others’ freedom of religion – say, for instance, their freedom to perform a gay marriage – then yes, you are arguing that you ought to be able to infringe on others’ freedom of religion. If you can make no secular argument for doing so, then you are arguing specifically that your religion ought to be established over theirs. If this argument is taking place in a context in which the arguers have sworn to uphold the US Constitution, they’re in violation of their sworn oath and in violation of their legal purpose.
Only the premises? Are you saying that your personal standards would have no problem with the means if you accepted the premises?
If the overwhelming majority of people came to consensus about religious issues, I’d take that as evidence of something – something about the nature of humans, at any rate, if not necessarily evidence of the existence of some specific god. But that doesn’t happen.
I have been doing my very best to point out the existence of such people, and that their religious rights would be violated by imposing laws based solely oh other people’s religious beliefs.
I’d encourage a progressive arguing for good causes based on religion to find better arguments. There are certainly those who argue for LGBTQ rights based on the Bible, but their argument seems a lot weaker than those who claim the Bible is against these rights. Biblical quote mining is a poor justification for nearly anything, and the history of religion in regard to these things is not very encouraging.
The problem is that if religion is a good argument for the good side, why isn’t it an equally good argument for the bad side?
Unfortunately, progressive are too with it to claim that Jesus appeared to them and came out for LGBTQ rights. Maybe someone should try it. He changed all the rules once, after all.
If they’re arguing in formal political bodies, then I agree with you (except that if they’re answering someone else in the same venue who’s specifically trying to make public policy based on a religious agreement, they could briefly point out that religious viewpoints differ). If they’re arguing in church, or at a family dinner, or whatever, with others claiming to be following the same scriptures, then I hope they keep at it.
Regarding the oath thing: one can reasonably say that they are arguing for a policy that would violate current Constitutional jurisprudence, but may not comport with their viewpoint of what the Constitution says, of course. And part of our system allows for that - you can agitate for changing the document. It’s why we have an amendment procedure after all. So therefore they can reasonably assert that they are not violating their oath. They may also have the viewpoint that establishment clause refers incredibly narrowly in an originalist POV (only actual establishment would do). Settled Constitutional jurisprudence can and is argued against all the time when it comes to the making of laws (more than a few Congresspeople and Senators have argued against Citizen’s United or its predecessor, Buckley v. Valeo).
In the end this is a debate on the limits of freedom of speech, and I think that the bar to ban speech in public policy debates should be insanely high. If anything I think in that arena freedom of speech should be considered mostly sacrosanct. I think it is for that reason that you are unable to be sued for anything you say in any speech or debate in Congress (Art 1, Section 6, clause 1), in order to preserve that ability.
How may progressive Christians do you know? I feel that a lot of people in thread don’t know the long history of theological debate because there is an assumption the progressives treat Scripture similar to conservatives but end up in a different place. Progressives tend to Biblical quote-mine far less than conservatives - as progressives aren’t believers of inerrancy. Though every once in a while, it comes in handy, such as pro-immigrant and refugee verses (I’m generally not in favor of it because I have issues with the quote-mining you reference). Progressives tend to stress the whole body of work rather than a few verses here and there like the literalists tend to do.
And a lot of Christian progressives are not at all shy about saying that the Holy Spirt led them to understand that God’s love for all means LGBTQ people deserve rights and God wants them to have those rights. During the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. said as much when it came to African-American rights (as he talked about doing God’s will).
The issue I have with progressive non-believers is an inverse of your own statement: if religion is a ‘good’ argument (so to speak) for the bad side, then why can it not also be an equally good argument for the good side? Instead of shooting yourselves in the foot with believers who may be inclined to listen, why not make common cause with those who believe in a particular cause you are trying to achieve? Are you more concerned with stamping out religion, even those who believe in the social concerns that you do, than fighting for gender equality, racial justice, LGBTQ rights?
After all, as I’ve shown a few times, you don’t have to be religious to be a white supremacist or a support of patriarchal norms.
There are people who still argue that God the watchmaker and intervenor is the most pragmatic cosmology. There was once a time where that theory was widespread among scientists, although as you say that time has passed. Even back then, to assume that God exists due to a lack of suitable alternative theories for some phenomena, rather than to admit that you don’t know, is still to make a leap of faith. A God-of-the-gaps argument was faith-based then and is faith-based now.
It’s not an axiom, it’s a premise. There’s a big difference, because it is easier to argue against a non-axiomatic premise than an axiomatic premise, because non-axiomatic premises may have their underlying arguments examined while an axiom can not (both can be checked for inconsistency with the other premises accepted by the debator). Even so, that is not at all the rationale behind the Spanish Inquisition, which never had formal jurisdiction over non-Christians (see spoiler).
Historically speaking, the Spanish Inquisition only had jurisdiction over Christians. An inquisition was a determination of heresy for one of the Christian faith, if the individual repents they are The Inquisition was, on paper, intended to stop anti-semetic riots, not to kill Jews. Spain had a large number of conversos, or Jews who converted (often at knifepoint) to Catholicism to avoid public anti-semetic violence instigated by Archdeacon Martinez in the late fourteenth century. These conversos were given legal protection by the Church and the Crown, but unsurprisingly they did not fully assimilate and kept certain Jewish traditions such as the Sabbath and kosher diet. The public did not appreciate the conversions which seemed to be in name only, and directed their anti-semetic ire towards the conversos, often declaring them heretics and burning them at the stake during public riots. I’m guessing Ferdinand II and Isabella I could not care less about the Jews (Isabella thought they were good for the economy), but both of them wanted to unite all of Spain under Roman Catholicism. So in 1478 Pope Sixtus IV, under pressure from Ferdinand II, authorized Spain to appoint “two or three” inquisitors to test the conversos in Castile and see whether they were Crypto-Jews or Crypto-Muslims or otherwise heretical (Real Academia de la Historia, 1889). The Spanish Crown stretched that inch into a mile and extended the inquisition , which proceeded to execute many conversos who failed the test. Unfortunately abuses abounded as inquisitors had no funding except via confiscation and so had an incentive for corruption, which the Pope specifically denounced along with expansion of the inquisition into Aragón and its territories, which then included Southern Italy, Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia. Sixtus IV repeatedly considered calling off the inquisition but apparently Ferdinand pressured him out of this.
That being said, the Spanish Inquisition was accompanied by the taking of Granada on January 2, 1492. This event, probably the most important that year, not only set the stage for Colombus’s voyage but also resulted in the Alhambra Decree. That Alhambra Decree gave Jews four months to either convert, leave Spain, or die. The decree was motivated by suspicions that the practicing Jewish population was influencing conversos and providing a temptation to revert to Judaism, which would be heretical (although practicing Judaism itself was not heresy). The 100,000 (or fewer) expelled Jews and their descendants constitute a diaspora known as the Sepharidim, or “the Jews of Spain”. And so after August of 1492 the entire “Jewish” population of Spain was subject to the inquisition.
The Treaty of Granada, signed at the end of 1491, required Spain to protect its newly conquered Muslim population from religious and civil discrimination. Initially, the treaty was followed as a tolerant converso, Hernando de Talavera, was appointed Archbishop of Granada and confessor to Isabella. In 1499 Cardinal Cisneros, Archbishop of Toledo, took over for both of Talavera’s jobs. Cisneros was religiously intolerant and started burning Arabic manuscripts and forcing Muslims to convert. Cisneros also imprisoned the wives of former Christians who had converted to Islam, effectively holding them hostage. One such hostage-taking led to a crowd coming to the woman’s rescue, killing the constable, arming themselves, and marching to Cisneros’s house. Talavera and the Captain General Mendoza managed to defuse the situation after ten days of negotiation. Cisneros was called before the king and queen to explain his breach of the treaty. Cisneros managed to convince the monarchs that the Muslims had started an armed uprising and were thus responsible for breaching the treaty, but he begged that they be pardoned if they convert to Christianity. The monarchs assented and Muslims, unwilling to convert, fled to the nearby Alpujarra mountains and started the Rebellion of the Alpujarras among the almost exclusively Muslim population there. The ensuing war, led by Ferdinand personally, saw many Catholic atrocities such as the enslavement of entire villages, the destruction of a mosque with women and children inside, and the execution of thousands of prisoners of war. After victory, Ferdinand gave the Muslims of Granada a choice between conversion, exile (for an outrageous ten gold coins), or death or slavery.
Muslims were still tolerated in other regions. In February of 1502 Isabella decreed that Muslims in the rest of Castile had just over two months to leave, while also forbidding travel to pretty much anywhere except Egypt from anywhere except one port on the north coast. That means people would have to sell all of their property and walk up to 1000km within two months, then pay the exorbitant fare for one of the few ships to Egypt. In September, Isabella issued another edict forbidding newly converted Muslims from leaving the kingdom for two years. Ferdinand himself was the king of Aragón, but he had sworn an oath of coronation not to forcibly convert his Muslim subjects (Granada was part of Castile). Ferdinand’s successor, Charles V, also took the oath of coronation. It was not until 1524 when Charles V persuaded Pope Clement VII to release him from the oath, and in November of that year he ordered the Muslims to leave the kingdom within two to three months (depending on which kingdom). As before, it was nearly impossible to leave: Aragón controlled the eastern third of the peninsula but the designated port was on the northwest corner, in Castile.
Not surprisingly, most Muslims stayed behind and were converted to Catholicism. The newly “converted” population became known as Moriscos and were subject to Catholic laws, including inquisition.
If the question is whether a nation has the right to kill or expel subsets of its own population for religious reasons, I fail to distinguish this from the general case. Could a nation have the right to kill or expel subsets of its own population? If I were to believe in universal morality, the answer could be a clear yes or no (depending on my system of universal morality). If I were to believe in the supremacy of democracy in determining what is ultimately moral, that is, morality is defined by the majority, the answer would be yes. A positive answer is in fact necessary to justify capital punishment. If I were to generalize the “nation” into “the whole of humanity”, a positive answer is required to justify war. But this might be problematic, I am reminded of Niemöller who said:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
[INDENT]Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.[/INDENT]
But then I look deeper. I have clear evidence that descriptive moral relativism is true - some people do not agree on issues of morality. Therefore to assert universal morality would be rather narcissistic of me. After all, the issue respondents to this thread seem to have with religiously justified laws is that they push someone else’s morality upon society. So I tend to avoid that position unless the law is passed according to rules agreed upon by a supermajority.
Can a democratic society morally deprive subsets of its citizenry of rights? We already do, with felons and draftees. Felons are deprived of liberty, while draftees are potentially deprived of life. But what justification do we have for doing so? If not universal morality, and not might makes right, then what?
So as before, I am incredibly uncomfortable with my own position. I would consider the axiom to be invalid, but their use of it to be valid if done with the democratic consent of society.
Not all, just the ones agreed upon by a plurality of society according to rules agreed upon by a supermajority. Not equality of outcome, equality of opportunity to the maximum feasible extent.
But what about people who have revelations that don’t give evidence for anybody except themselves? Who said the revelations need to be consistent? It might be a personal matter, and they might reject monistic physicalism. Not that most people understand those terms, but that Pew report I linked earlier gives statistics on a 2009 poll. Doing a bit of math I find about 51% of 3,545 respondents said yes, they have “had a ‘religious’ or mystical experience, that is, a moment of sudden religious insight or awakening”.
Of course, to enforce a Jewish law on the rest of America, without a vote, would be unconstitutional. To enforce a law that passed the vote but contradicts the constitution would be unconstitutional, unless the law was a constitutional amendment. That’s why they lobby instead, and I don’t mean this in a pejorative way, Jewish societies literally ask Jewish people to support political stances just like any other religion. New York state has a significant orthodox community and I remember reading a longform article about the effects of an orthodox community in municipal politics (I can’t seem to find the article now) - they move in with large families and out-vote the secular people. They don’t go to public schools, their private schools probably don’t teach things like science or English, they only go to kosher restaurants, they don’t buy normal groceries, clothes, or other products, they don’t support abortion, or contraception, or homosexuality, or marijuana, or tattoos, they circumcise their children, they do support Israel, they do reinforce gender roles, they don’t like paying taxes for things they don’t use.
None of this surprises me, and I might think their policies are immoral, but unless/until it violates the constitution I don’t think it’s wrong for them, and it would be wrong for me to resort to extralegal methods to prevent such things. Similarly, if the nation was dominated by orthodox Jews, I think I would feel the same way if they started amending the constitution. Unfair? Absolutely. Universally wrong? I tend to think not.
You got me, although a good number (most?) of conservative Jews also accept the Talmud as authoritative. Also, a secular Jew is not a follower of the Jewish religion, it is someone with Jewish heritage - two different uses of the term “Jew”, just like secular Mormons aren’t usually counted when asking how many Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is authoritative.
From a 2009 Atlantic interview with Erica Brown, an Orthodox Jew: “Judaism upholds certain ethical values grounded in the book of Deuteronomy – “And you shall do what is just and good in the eyes of God” – that some Jews choose to ignore. In other words, there are Jews and there is Judaism, and they are not the same thing.”
They would not be violating their oath by arguing for an amendment. As you say, there’s an amendment process in the Constitution.
But they’re not doing that. They’re arguing that their specific religious beliefs should be imposed on the rest of us by ignoring the First Amendment, without bothering with the process necessary to change it. That is not upholding the Constitution.
Nobody, nobody, nobody in this thread is trying to stamp out religion. We are trying to prevent beliefs specific to certain interpretations of certain religions from being imposed on people of other religious beliefs as well as on nonbelievers. If anything, this protects religion. Why are you trying to stamp out religious practices different from whatever’s being argued loudest in the public square?
– whoops, Max S posted while I was typing. Will read that long post later.