Does religion have a place in public debate?

[Voyager]

@Max_S

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.

I’m quite aware of this argument. That’s why I said best answer.
There is nothing unscientific about coming up with a hypothesis for something when you don’t know the answer. This only slightly involves faith. There was a lot of scientific work, much of it by clergymen, testing the Biblical hypothesis. much of it got falsified, such as the age of the Earth.
And since we’re talking morality, there is also the problem that even if the evidence pointed to a creator god, it would have to be shown to be the same god that handed down our morality.

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).

Are you calling the assertion that there is no salvation except through Christ a premise? That seems rather odd. It is not the same as the God axiom, of course, but the God axiom does not lead logically to the Salvation axiom.

Even so, that is not at all the rationale behind the Spanish Inquisition, which never had formal jurisdiction over non-Christians (see spoiler).

I didn’t expect that.

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.

yawn
Once again, I’m not at all interested in whether you think this is the right thing to do, or even why you don’t, but whether their axiom of salvation is a valid one for a discussion of this area. Supermajorities? In that society, the King and church were the supermajority.
If you say that we cannot deny their axiom, their actions were justified under it. We have a different axiom under which their actions are not justified. But how do we resolve this without examining the axioms? The implementation of ethics might happen based on a vote, but not the ethical systems themselves. SSM did not suddenly go from being unethical to ethical based on a vote, for example.

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”.

I’m not considering the prevalence of religious experiences, but the prevalence of revelations that have validity outside of one’s brain. Do you think that alien abduction experiences were real as opposed to representing internal brain events? Pretty much the same thing.
I could have a dream that Jesus told me that Beeblebaum would win in the third. Very powerful, especially if I don’t look at the race results to see if he was right. I could have lots of dreams about horses winning, and it would be very powerful if I remembered the hits and forgot the misses.
If I wanted to bet on Beeblebaum, I don’t need any further confirmation. If I tell you that you should bet on Beeblebaum you are justified in asking for my ahem track record. And if lots of people had dreams to bet on Beeblebaum, and he won, then we’d have something worth examining. Maybe.
To reiterate, that lots of people are having revelations about horses means nothing much. Correct ones would.

Of course, to enforce a Jewish law on the rest of America, without a vote, would be unconstitutional.

~Max

But Christian laws were enforced for decades. (Blue laws.) I agree with you, depending on the make up of the Supreme Court.
Of course the Orthodox lobby for things that affect them. I was talking about things that enforced their views on others. It’s the difference between a religion objecting to marriage laws forcing them to conduct same sex marriages and lobbying for marriage laws preventing anyone from conducting same sex marriages. I’m perfectly fine with the first policy.
I was brought up in a Conservative shul, and what I learned was that the Talmud was an indication that it is not trivial to read the Bible and know God’s word. It is the debate. Two Jews, three opinions.
Now we were Reform side of Conservative - men and women got to sit together.
Of course the Rabbinate in Israel is a bit more strict, but you can see how many people accept it.

[thorny_locust]

@thorny_locust

– whoops, Max S posted while I was typing. Will read that long post later.

And having done so, I don’t know where to start.

Max, you seem to me to be wrestling with the question of whether there is any such thing as right and wrong. I’m tempted to quote Terry Pratchett. But if you’re starting from the position that maybe there isn’t: then it also can be neither right or wrong for religion to have a place in public debate, whether or not there’s a two-thirds majority saying so. It can’t be either right or wrong to require a two-thirds majority, either. Et very etcetera.

[ISiddiqui]

@thorny_locust

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.

Imagine if you will that the Democrats win back the House and Senate in 2020 as well as the Presidency and fill 2 Supreme Court spots. As you may know, the Supreme Court ruled a few years back (in the Heller decision) that there is an individual right to own a gun. What if that Democratic Congress passed a bill banning handguns - with the idea that the new SCOTUS may reverse its previous precedent, without, going through the amendment procedure to revise the 2nd Amendment.

Would that be not upholding the Constitution?

What if the current Supreme Court upholds anti-abortion laws? Would those laws be not upholding the Constitution until they were?

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?

I would argue that calling for the banning of religious arguments in public policy debates is animated by a sentiment that is negative to religion. I would even say that those individuals would love to see religion be stamped out in the future. So I see that as the ultimate motivation behind calling for those speech restrictions. Is anyone that is calling for these restrictions members of a minority faith? Or are they all atheist? So I have to question if this concern for minority faiths is actually valid. If anything, an anti-LGBTQ law would go against my own religious faith (ie, I would wager I would have more to fear from ‘stamping out minority religious practices’), but I fear the consequences for all religious faiths in the long run from such speech restrictions.

[QuickSilver]

@ISiddiqui

I would argue that calling for the banning of religious arguments in public policy debates is animated by a sentiment that is negative to religion. I would even say that those individuals would love to see religion be stamped out in the future. So I see that as the ultimate motivation behind calling for those speech restrictions. Is anyone that is calling for these restrictions members of a minority faith? Or are they all atheist? So I have to question if this concern for minority faiths is actually valid. If anything, an anti-LGBTQ law would go against my own religious faith (ie, I would wager I would have more to fear from ‘stamping out minority religious practices’), but I fear the consequences for all religious faiths in the long run from such speech restrictions.

This argument seems to be begging for a, “Get off the cross, we could use the wood”, dismissal.

I have no authority to speak for anyone but myself but I’ve said time and again that the soul reason for my position to restrict religious arguments from public legislative policy discussions in settings where laws are made, is because it’s a bad argument, period. Not the only bad argument that can be made, but a specific class/type of bad argument due to it’s entire premise.

If you insist on seeing that as animus towards religion as a whole, then I suggest you examine the need to insert religion into a process that does not require it, can be shown to be worse off for it, and would/could do just as well (better, I argue) without it.

[ISiddiqui]

@QuickSilver

This argument seems to be begging for a, “Get off the cross, we could use the wood”, dismissal.

I have no authority to speak for anyone but myself but I’ve said time and again that the soul reason for my position to restrict religious arguments from public legislative policy discussions in settings where laws are made, is because it’s a bad argument, period. Not the only bad argument that can be made, but a specific class/type of bad argument due to it’s entire premise.

If you insist on seeing that as animus towards religion as a whole, then I suggest you examine the need to insert religion into a process that does not require it, can be shown to be worse off for it, and would/could do just as well (better, I argue) without it.

I was actually thinking of you when I wrote that. Allow me to you quote yourself from this very thread:

@QuickSilver

I believe in human emancipation from oppression of religious dogma. Seems to me, this is the general arc of human history.

Therefore all this stuff about irrational debate or protection of minority faiths appears to be, well… post-rationalizations to your basic jist quoted quite succinctly there. So pardon me if I don’t take your irrational argument claims all that seriously.

Furthermore, your last sentence can be easily altered to substitute communism for religion and flow just as well to a right winger. Which tends to show how silly it is - why wouldn’t you want to include a person’s basic philosophical underpinning into a public policy debate? Why wouldn’t you want to know why a person believes the way they do when speaking for or against a law?

[QuickSilver]

I’m not sure what you think you’re saying here. When I say, “I believe in human emancipation from religious dogma”, I’m not saying I believe in forcible conversion. I’m saying it’s a process that appears to be heading in that direction of it’s own accord. It may stall. It may reverse course. It may never reach full realization. Unlike totalitarianism and theocracy, a wish expressed is not a will imposed.

[ISiddiqui]

@QuickSilver

I’m not sure what you think you’re saying here. When I say, “I believe in human emancipation from religious dogma”, I’m not saying I believe in forcible conversion. I’m saying it’s a process that appears to be heading in that direction of it’s own accord. It may stall. It may reverse course. It may never reach full realization. Unlike totalitarianism and theocracy, a wish expressed is not a will imposed.

It is as if there is a middle ground between forcible conversion and just letting it go out on its own. Banning religion in public policy debate while not doing the same for other potentially irrational philosophies seems to be quite the ‘helpful’ legal nudge (and I would be shocked if you did not consider that).

[thorny_locust]

@ISiddiqui

Imagine if you will that the Democrats win back the House and Senate in 2020 as well as the Presidency and fill 2 Supreme Court spots. As you may know, the Supreme Court ruled a few years back (in the Heller decision) that there is an individual right to own a gun. What if that Democratic Congress passed a bill banning handguns - with the idea that the new SCOTUS may reverse its previous precedent, without, going through the amendment procedure to revise the 2nd Amendment.

Would that be not upholding the Constitution?

I don’t think they ought to do that, either.

The Court’s decision in Columbia v Heller specifically stated that some regulations on gun ownership and use are allowable. I think what Congress should do is to write the strictest regulations they think they can within the scope of that decision. If such regulations are then challenged, and eventually come back to the SCOTUS, the new SCOTUS may indeed revise its previous decisions, or even reverse them, as has happened before. But I don’t think it’s up to Congress to just decide to ignore them.

Congress could also try revising the 2nd by means of a constitutional amendment. I think that getting that all the way into law would be highly unlikely; but I might be wrong, and it might, of course, depend on exactly what revision was proposed.

@ISiddiqui

What if the current Supreme Court upholds anti-abortion laws? Would those laws be not upholding the Constitution until they were?

Yup. The heart of the Constitution isn’t in any specific detail. It’s in the process.

The Court has changed its mind before. Racial segregation was constitutional, until it wasn’t. Anti-abortion laws were constitutional, at least by default, until they weren’t. They could change their minds back again.

The Constitution is not tablets written in stone. It’s a living document. The existence of an amendment process is proof that it was intended to be.

The branches of government are supposed to respect the process, as well as the document and its interpretation as it stands at the time. It’s not up to Congress to do the interpretation part of the process; it’s up to the Court. Congress is not supposed to do the Court’s job.

@ISiddiqui

I would argue that calling for the banning of religious arguments in public policy debates is animated by a sentiment that is negative to religion. I would even say that those individuals would love to see religion be stamped out in the future. So I see that as the ultimate motivation behind calling for those speech restrictions. Is anyone that is calling for these restrictions members of a minority faith? Or are they all atheist? So I have to question if this concern for minority faiths is actually valid. If anything, an anti-LGBTQ law would go against my own religious faith (ie, I would wager I would have more to fear from ‘stamping out minority religious practices’), but I fear the consequences for all religious faiths in the long run from such speech restrictions.

Your mind-reading skills are seriously lacking.

My heritage is Jewish. I am acutely aware of what can happen when minority religious rights are not protected. Whatever my personal belief or lack of it, by far the best way I see to protect the rights of members of my immediate family is to protect the rights of all members of minority religions. There are so many sects in Christianity that from my point of view each of them is also a minority religion. What those who want their specific religious principles enshrined into law, even when they can find no secular reason to do so, seem to be missing is that if this is considered legal it will sooner or later almost certainly be their own particular principles that are being violated. You want safety to practice your religion? Then don’t establish a religion.

[QuickSilver]

@ISiddiqui

It is as if there is a middle ground between forcible conversion and just letting it go out on its own. Banning religion in public policy debate while not doing the same for other potentially irrational philosophies seems to be quite the ‘helpful’ legal nudge (and I would be shocked if you did not consider that).

I was born and spent my young life under a totalitarian regime while also being a marginalized minority for no other reason than being Jewish. I would not like to see that come to fruition in America anymore than I want to see theocratic arguments made in legislative policy decisions. See, I’m an equal opportunity “banner” when it comes to protecting secular socially democratic principles against “potentially irrational philosophies”. So maybe reconsider what you think you know about my motives and understanding on the subject.

[ISiddiqui]

I have continually asked about alt-right arguments, also irrational and shared by religious and atheist. All queries have gone unanswered. I have noted Marxist arguments. Voyager was the only one who responded, and we understood we agreed on that irrational philosophy and how to treat it in the public policy debate (starting with allowing it to be heard). Your silence has spoken volumes regarding your motives, IMO.

[QuickSilver]

@ISiddiqui

I have continually asked about alt-right arguments, also irrational and shared by religious and atheist. All queries have gone unanswered. I have noted Marxist arguments. Voyager was the only one who responded, and we understood we agreed on that irrational philosophy and how to treat it in the public policy debate (starting with allowing it to be heard). Your silence has spoken volumes regarding your motives, IMO.

a) The OP is about “religious” arguments.
b) Racist arguments tend to be relatively quickly, though not always sufficiently, condemned.
c) There is no extent danger of Marxists arguments being made in legislative processes in America because the merest suggestion of socialism sends people into panic.
d) Religious arguments are the only ones getting a free pass on a regular basis.

[ISiddiqui]

@QuickSilver

a) The OP is about “religious” arguments.
b) Racist arguments tend to be relatively quickly, though not always sufficiently, condemned.
c) There is no extent danger of Marxists arguments being made in legislative processes in America because the merest suggestion of socialism sends people into panic.
d) Religious arguments are the only ones getting a free pass on a regular basis.

a) As your stated objection was due to irrational philosophies, I was seeing how consistent your position was regarding others.

b) Not always true and definitely not been true in the history of this country

c) Do you consider this always to be the case forever and ever? Have not the younger generations embraced ‘socialism’ in far greater numbers than previous ones? Is your ban solely based on current situation without general applicability?

d) We have very different definitions of ‘free pass’. They tend to be loudly condemned. The Georgia heartbeat bill had plenty of opposition from the minority party - and for what it’s worth the vast majority legislators in favor of the bill said nothing about religion (usually speaking about fighting ‘for life’ in general).

[QuickSilver]

a) Asked and answered.

b) We can’t change laws retroactively.

c) Again, addressing OP and what I recognize as the main current issue. Happy to expand it to include racists and marxists if that would satisfy your objections.

d)

@USNews

Several Republican senators, most of them men, spoke in favor of the bill, while several Democratic senators, most of them women, argued against it.

Many Republican lawmakers in favor of the legislation outlined their position in religious terms.

“There are many scriptures that make it clear to me that God knew us and had a plan for us when we were still in our mother’s womb,” said Republican Sen. Greg Kirk. “The word abortion is not going to be found in the Bible.”

Democratic Sen. Valencia Seay took issue with that line of reasoning, saying lawmakers were letting their “personal religious beliefs dictate everyone else’s ability to have a choice.”

It goes on…

[ISiddiqui]

Several did, most did not. You can listen to the entire debate here if you would like (as I did when it was going on live - interestingly a lot of the pro Senators spoke about science’s advances):

I’m sure though you’d say those Senators who talked solely on terms of advancing science were likely animated by religious faith they did not disclose in the public debate (is that any better?). And I’d argue that Democratic Senator Seay’s response indicates that religious arguments most definitely did not get a “free pass”.

(FWIW, many opponents also cited God and their faith in the public debate, the most famous speech was Senator Jen Jordan’s in which she did talk about God as well to support a pro-choice position: Jen Jordan’s dissent to HB 481, the ‘heartbeat’ bill )

[ISiddiqui]

I missed the edit window to post Senator Jordan’s most relevant faith part (she spent a lot of time going after the ‘science’ of the pro HB 481 side first) - from the above link:

“I have been on my knees time after time in prayer to my God about my losses. I have loved each and every single one of those potential lives, and my husband and I have grieved each passing.

“But no matter my faith, my beliefs, my losses – I have never, ever strayed from the basic principle that each woman must be able to make her decisions, in consultation with her God and her family.

“It is not for the government or the men of this chamber to insert itself in the most personal, private, and wrenching decisions that women make every single day.

“And that’s not some smiley, happy statement that has been focus-grouped. That is the reality of our lives. God chose women alone to be the fiduciaries of life. Not government, not this body. My experience wasn’t about abortion. But it is what’s at stake here.

[thorny_locust]

@ISiddiqui

I have continually asked about alt-right arguments, also irrational and shared by religious and atheist. All queries have gone unanswered. I have noted Marxist arguments. Voyager was the only one who responded, and we understood we agreed on that irrational philosophy and how to treat it in the public policy debate (starting with allowing it to be heard). Your silence has spoken volumes regarding your motives, IMO.

Say what?

I haven’t addressed alt-right arguments because we’re not, or at any rate I thought we weren’t, talking about alt-right arguments. That’s got absolutely nothing to do with my supposedly having nefarious and imaginary intentions in regards to religious people. Which I do not have.

Are you attempting to set up an argument along the lines of:
–Some secular arguments are bad arguments
– ???
– Therefore religious arguments are good and relevant arguments?

I can’t imagine what the middle term is supposed to be. For the record, yes, some secular arguments are bad arguments. Some atheists are bad people. Some religious people are good people. None of this has anything to do with the question of whether attempting to impose religious beliefs, by civil law, on people who don’t share them is a good idea.

[Velocity]

Although some conservatives are atheist and some liberals are Christian, by and large the liberal plank/platform is what you would expect of a political viewpoint that is atheist. If there is no God (or, if belief in God does not mean enacting political policies in accordance with belief in what such a God wants or promotes), then there is no reason ***not ***to have same-sex marriage, abortion, right-to-die euthanasia, etc. There is simply no logical reason not to under that assumption.

[ISiddiqui]

@thorny_locust

None of this has anything to do with the question of whether attempting to impose religious beliefs, by civil law, on people who don’t share them is a good idea.

Ah, but it does. Politics in general is attempting to impose beliefs, by civil law, on all people, including people who don’t share those beliefs. So the question is what makes religious beliefs different than other beliefs (in addition if someone else’s beliefs are going to have the effect of squashing a minority religion’s beliefs, can the follower of the minority religion speak up and talk about their faith in order to stop that - I’m thinking of where Belgium just banned kosher meat production)? I think everyone here can agree that alt-right beliefs are as abhorrent as any other belief system, so should people be banned from talking about it during public debate? If so where does the limitation on speech end?

[ISiddiqui]

@Velocity

Although some conservatives are atheist and some liberals are Christian, by and large the liberal plank/platform is what you would expect of a political viewpoint that is atheist.

It has been pointed out by some that modern liberalism is simply Liberal Mainline Protestantism at work.

It seems to me that a lot of people theses aren’t super familiar with mainline Protestantism… which is why so many (on the right and the left) had trouble believing President Obama was a Christian.

If there is no God (or, if belief in God does not mean enacting political policies in accordance with belief in what such a God wants or promotes), then there is no reason ***not ***to have same-sex marriage, abortion, right-to-die euthanasia, etc. There is simply no logical reason not to under that assumption.

You’ll have to take that up with George Will and Richard Spencer (though I think Spencer has no issues with abortion, IIRC).

[ISiddiqui]

I like to joke that the ELCA’s political diversity runs the gamut… from Bill Clinton to Bernie Sanders.

However, I have been told that in many areas the laity are more conservative than the leadership… but then how did the liberals get voted into leadership (I guess when it comes to pastors if the seminaries are just graduating liberal pastors your choices are limited, but that doesn’t explain congregational or synodical leaders)?