Does religion have a place in public debate?

[Max_S]

@QuickSilver

Let’s try something new for a change. Convince me, without resorting to majority rules arguments, why non-secular public policy positions are better for society as whole than secular ones. After all, it’s your OP.

I think it was you who earlier said religious people would be able to defend their position using secular rationale. You are certainly wrong. A great number of political debates would virtually disappear without the religious component: abortion, homosexuality, contraception, possibly even healthcare. I think you would celebrate a victory on all of these fronts. You must acknowledge that many people cannot support their own political opinions without the use of religion, especially on the conservative side (religion is seen as a traditional force these days, and conservatism is all about tradition).

If you can make that acknowledgement, realize that a ban of religious arguments in public policy debate is a ban on people’s ability to shape their own government according to their beliefs. Just because they can’t talk about religion in city hall doesn’t mean people suddenly think abortions are OK. It means the representatives are forced to choose between officially baseless obstructionism or to go against the will of their constituents. Let us consider the former - the government is still dysfunctional on sensitive issues, but now it is more opaque as to why. Now consider the latter - a significant number of citizens have been effectively disenfranchised.

Assuming the latter situation, I say the burden of proof is on you who would disenfranchise the people. The principles of democracy insist that this cannot be the default outcome.

That being said, I can and have provided a justification for religion in public policy debate based on kraterocracy and majority rule as the arbiters of morality. I have also disputed the separation of church and state as interpreted by Lemon, and justified the inclusion of religion using the rest of our present constitutional principles. I have also brought up the possibility of a religiously motivated constitutional amendment. Rejecting these and asking me to convince you is like asking me to speak without opening my mouth. The best I can do is offer the following insufficient perspective:

Having presented my arguments you say it is better to eradicate physical suffering than to rely on some nonphysical realm which there is no evidence of. I ask you to consider a world where the majority of people believe in nonphysical suffering, in souls or afterlives or judgements at the hand of God. You do not believe in such things but consider a world where most people do. You are aware of the power of the brain to cause physical affects in response to imagined stimuli; see for example the sugar pill placebo. You and I can both attest to human stubbornness. So I ask you to consider a world where most people are religious and the denial of their religious agenda causes real harm to those people - frustration, despair, they feel unrepresented and repressed, and may resort to violent extremism or more likely underhanded disobedience and obstructionism in the face of perceived injustice. What then of your cost-benefit analysis? These people can’t be convinced of the error in their ways, and by barring religion from public policy debate you are inflicting real suffering upon the religious people.

This doesn’t mean the costs outweigh the benefits. It may very well be that you believe each new generation will be a little less religious; that time will heal the wounds inflicted by your policy. And you certainly think there are costs associated with religion, for example the availability of condoms and AIDS epidemiology.

~Max

[Max_S]

@k9bfriender

A system based on religious belief is based on nothing but the word of an authority. An authority who cannot be questioned or petitioned. It was a “moral” act that Abraham almost killed his son, it was a “moral” act when the israelites were commanded to invade and slaughter their enemies. The Spanish inquisition, the crusades, witch trials and burnings, these were all considered to be moral, as they were done in the name of religion.

I think some of this is a misunderstanding of religion (except Calvanism). Abraham pleaded with God to spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Moses and God had a little back and forth on Mount Sinai, with God agreeing that His own proposal will bring shame to His name. Some Psalms are direct questions to God (22:1, 77:7, 88:14). The sacrifice of Isaac was never moral under any mainstream interpretation of the Aqedat - only his binding. The destruction and genocide in Canaan and possibly the Crusades was ostensibly justified, but the atrocities of the Spanish inquisition (as mentioned previously in this thread) was not. Witch trials, though administered by the church, were to my knowledge more the result of superstition and moral panic than a top-down approach - you won’t find a papal decree admitting that Satan can give you superpowers, and many theologians rejected that premise.

~Max

[k9bfriender]

@Max_S

I think some of this is a misunderstanding of religion (except Calvanism). Abraham pleaded with God to spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Moses and God had a little back and forth on Mount Sinai, with God agreeing that His own proposal will bring shame to His name. Some Psalms are direct questions to God (22:1, 77:7, 88:14). The sacrifice of Isaac was never moral under any mainstream interpretation of the Aqedat - only his binding. The destruction and genocide in Canaan and possibly the Crusades was ostensibly justified, but the atrocities of the Spanish inquisition (as mentioned previously in this thread) was not. Witch trials, though administered by the church, were to my knowledge more the result of superstition and moral panic than a top-down approach - you won’t find a papal decree admitting that Satan can give you superpowers, and many theologians rejected that premise.

~Max

Unfortunately, those who “misunderstand” their religion can still use it to justify committing violence or worse against those they disagree with. It could even be said that they misunderstand their religion intentionally, but they are still using it as the authority to do what it is that they want to do.

You don’t need a “papal decree admitting that Satan can give you superpowers”, the bible explicitly states, “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.”

[Max_S]

@k9bfriender

Unfortunately, those who “misunderstand” their religion can still use it to justify committing violence or worse against those they disagree with. It could even be said that they misunderstand their religion intentionally, but they are still using it as the authority to do what it is that they want to do.

Admitted, but also irrelevant.

@k9bfriender

You don’t need a “papal decree admitting that Satan can give you superpowers”, the bible explicitly states, “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.”

Nevertheless, witchcraft was officially prosecuted by the church as heresy and led to few deaths. The witch trials (eg: ducking) you are probably thinking of were administered by secular courts.

~Max

[GIGObuster]

@Max_S

Admitted, but also irrelevant.
Nevertheless, witchcraft was officially prosecuted by the church as heresy and led to few deaths. The witch trials (eg: ducking) you are probably thinking of were administered by secular courts.

~Max

If you are talking about the number of accused being killed among the Catholics, that low number is mostly accurate, but not on the protestant side.

Why did Germany burn so many witches? The brutal force of economic competition

Between 1400 to 1782, when Switzerland tried and executed Europe’s last supposed witch, between 40,000 and 60,000 people were put to death for witchcraft, according to historical consensus. The epicenter of the witch hunts was Europe’s German-speaking heartland, an area that makes up Germany, Switzerland, and northeastern France.

[Max_S]

@GIGObuster

If you are talking about the number of accused being killed among the Catholics, that low number is mostly accurate, but not on the protestant side.

Why Europe was overrun by witch hunts in early modern history

The economic theory is interesting, but I think the decentralized nature of secular German courts (administered by authority of the Lutheran/Calvinist princes) makes it difficult to describe that phenomena as causation rather than correlation. It is not as if the Protestants acted as a single entity or had any master plan. Certainly religion had a role in witch hunts, as it did in crusades and inquisitions. I think religion was the vehicle rather than the cause.

~Max

[Max_S]

@k9bfriender

A system based on religious belief is based on nothing but the word of an authority. An authority who cannot be questioned or petitioned. It was a “moral” act that Abraham almost killed his son, it was a “moral” act when the israelites were commanded to invade and slaughter their enemies. The Spanish inquisition, the crusades, witch trials and burnings, these were all considered to be moral, as they were done in the name of religion.

What are you trying to say, k9bfriender? Some religions have caused immorality, or some parts of some religions have caused immorality, or even a misinterpretation of some parts of some religions have caused immorality? I will accept those stipulations. What is the rest of the argument?

@k9bfriender

When you base your morals on religion, you fit them to what you already want to do and use religion to justify them.

I think you have it backwards, but either way I fail to see the point you are making.

@k9bfriender

When morals need to be based on secular ideals, then they actually need a justification.

This is what I am disputing with Velocity. ETA: What is your opinion on my [POST=21740157]post #521[/POST]?

~Max

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

I think it was you who earlier said religious people would be able to defend their position using secular rationale. You are certainly wrong. A great number of political debates would virtually disappear without the religious component: abortion, homosexuality, contraception, possibly even healthcare. I think you would celebrate a victory on all of these fronts. You must acknowledge that many people cannot support their own political opinions without the use of religion, especially on the conservative side (religion is seen as a traditional force these days, and conservatism is all about tradition).

I might be persuaded by this appeal if not for those pesky religious liberals/progressives who for some ridiculous reason can manage to separate their dogmatic beliefs from public policy.

@Max_S

If you can make that acknowledgement, realize that a ban of religious arguments in public policy debate is a ban on people’s ability to shape their own government according to their beliefs. Just because they can’t talk about religion in city hall doesn’t mean people suddenly think abortions are OK. It means the representatives are forced to choose between officially baseless obstructionism or to go against the will of their constituents. Let us consider the former - the government is still dysfunctional on sensitive issues, but now it is more opaque as to why. Now consider the latter - a significant number of citizens have been effectively disenfranchised.

I might further be persuaded by this appeal if not for the fact that there are plenty of western democracies that have managed to extricate themselves from problems associated with religious public policies by operating as if they are a secular state.

@Max_S

Assuming the latter situation, I say the burden of proof is on you who would disenfranchise the people. The principles of democracy insist that this cannot be the default outcome.

Are French Catholics disenfranchised? Too far? Are French Canadian Catholics disenfranchised? Would you like to play the American exceptionalism card?

@Max_S

That being said, I can and have provided a justification for religion in public policy debate based on kraterocracy and majority rule as the arbiters of morality. I have also disputed the separation of church and state as interpreted by Lemon, and justified the inclusion of religion using the rest of our present constitutional principles. I have also brought up the possibility of a religiously motivated constitutional amendment. Rejecting these and asking me to convince you is like asking me to speak without opening my mouth. The best I can do is offer the following insufficient perspective:

Having presented my arguments you say it is better to eradicate physical suffering than to rely on some nonphysical realm which there is no evidence of. I ask you to consider a world where the majority of people believe in nonphysical suffering, in souls or afterlives or judgements at the hand of God. You do not believe in such things but consider a world where most people do. You are aware of the power of the brain to cause physical affects in response to imagined stimuli; see for example the sugar pill placebo. You and I can both attest to human stubbornness. So I ask you to consider a world where most people are religious and the denial of their religious agenda causes real harm to those people - frustration, despair, they feel unrepresented and repressed, and may resort to violent extremism or more likely underhanded disobedience and obstructionism in the face of perceived injustice. What then of your cost-benefit analysis? These people can’t be convinced of the error in their ways, and by barring religion from public policy debate you are inflicting real suffering upon the religious people.

You are right - It is woefully insufficient. Because it conveniently ignores democratic societies where separation of church and state has worked and continues to work quite well. United States is lagging in this regard. It should do better and I am reasonably confident that it would do no damage to anybody’s freedoms and liberties if the blue nosed busy bodies on the religious right were disabused of the notion that their moral value system supersedes the secular one.

As to the issue/risk of potential for violence; The conservative/religious right ought not be permitted to forget that they did just that to those who opposed them throughout history, when they knew they could get away with it. I believe very few will act in the way you fear. I will not submit to being extorted and feeling threatened by the prospect that some religious zealot might blow himself up in a busy market to cow people into letting him have his way. Fuck him and all those who currently do just that. I have zero sympathy for the immoral cowards.

@Max_S

This doesn’t mean the costs outweigh the benefits. It may very well be that you believe each new generation will be a little less religious; that time will heal the wounds inflicted by your policy. And you certainly think there are costs associated with religion, for example the availability of condoms and AIDS epidemiology.

~Max

I look forward to being able to say, “I told you so”, in chorus with my fellow secularists/humanists, much to the dismay of the remaining adherents of the parties of god.

[Voyager]

@Max_S

Very well, what is the system of secular morals which is inherently better than a system founded on religious beliefs, and what makes it better? I assert that no system of ethics can escape a major unfalsifiable axiom, namely the definition of what is ethical.

You’re still not getting it. What is ethical is the output of the argument, not the input. Now some religiously based ethical (moral) systems axiomize what is ethical by stating that God says these things are ethical and therefore they are. We don’t have to worry about this position because of the problem of “God who?”

The axiom you gave, “all human life is of value”, is itself a so-called assertion and unfalsifiable. You can craft an argument to support that statement, but I assert at least one of the premises will in turn be unfalsifiable - a pronouncement of ethics without evidence as to what is ethical.

To a certain extent it is unfalsifiable - but notice the axiom does not say how valuable. You can say that life is infinitely valuable and be an extreme pacifist. You can say that it is valuable but must be weighed against other lives, which allows for self defense.
And I was comparing this with an alternative, which is that life of our tribe is valuable and life of others is not. That reading is supported by the Bible where killing those who get in the way is condoned, no ordered, by God.
The details of value get worked out by seeing where ethical arguments lead. Which is what we do all the time.

What I am seeing is a contradiction: you will laugh at a religious argument because the axioms are not demonstrably true, but I say all ethical systems, including your own, contain axioms which are not demonstrably true. So this smell test of yours doesn’t hold under scrutiny.

My axiom is a statement of value. Religious arguments are partially a statement of fact. God is good is not necessarily falsifiable. That a specifically defined God exists might be. The tri-omni god can be falsified.

This is a poor example because it is not a contradiction to say there should be a chance for every sex act to produce a child who is wanted and planned for. Such a position would be quite welcome to Catholicism.

Sorry, that makes no sense. If someone does not want or plan for a child, and each sex act has some probability of producing one, then the only way to fulfill this requirement would be to abstain or practice sex with no chance of procreation. If a child is wanted, then you obviously do want a sex act to have the chance of producing one.

The difference between you and Catholicism might be something else, for example you may think it is unreasonable to expect people to abstain from sex when they don’t want children. The Catholic rebuttal is that people should want children:
“It is one of the fundamental requirements of the right moral order that the use of conjugal rights corresponds to the sincere internal acceptance of the office and the duties of motherhood. On this condition the woman walks in the path traced by the Creator towards the end that He has assigned to her creature, making it, with the exercise of that function, a participant in his goodness, his wisdom and his omnipotence, according to the announcement of the Angel: Concipies in utero et paries: you will conceive in your bosom and give birth’” (citing Luke 1:31; translation courtesy of Google; Pius XII, 1951).

I’m not all that interested in the justification. Many Christians have no problem with birth control. The axiom here could either be which parts of the Bible they pay attention to or Church findings on this issue. I don’t know whether the statement of Pius you quote is considered infallible or not, but it is a moral argument to some extent which we can say that if we don’t believe in a Creator the woman walks in the path traced by, we can pretty much ignore the argument. My point exactly.
As for St. Augustine, he clearly states that those who bear unwanted children inflict cruelty on them which we have many counterexamples to.
I trust you don’t want to argue for the ethical correctness of what St. Augustine wrote.
On Usenet some very rabid Catholic said that sex using any form of birth control is not as enjoyable as sex without - not just for him but for anyone. He got lots of testimony against this statement. That shows where arguing from false axioms gets you.

We could go very deep into the theological aspects of the Catholic religion, but I am not terribly familiar with it myself and am not a Catholic. Just assume for the sake of argument that the Catholics reach their position logically from explicit axioms: 1) What God says is moral is in fact moral, and 2) God says X is moral. Catholicism itself may or may not be so logical, but surely you cannot show that all religious arguments are necessarily fallacious. It is my impression that you agree with me on that last point.

And the axiom that “God says X is moral” implies another axiom that God exists. You can substitute any type of God in your two statements and get the same result, right? You can substitute Yoda. Now given the axioms we can say that religious arguments follow, are not fallacious, but we don’t have to give them the correctness of the axioms, which is what this thread is all about.

By your own standards, why are secular ethics better than religious ethics? I’m trying to understand you, and right now I have two theories going, both of which I find unconvincing.

I’m not saying that all secular ethics are better. You can have a secular ethical system that rests on just as flimsy ground as a religious one. I think you might say that there are Communist ethical systems that rest on faith in Marx every bit as much as religious ones rest on faith in God. They aren’t better.
What is better is the explicit statement of the axioms and evidence for statements of fact in the axioms. An ethical system based on the axiom “rock life has value” would have problems since you can’t show that rocks are alive.

[ul][li]Secular reasoning is backed up by evidence / is falsifiable[/li][LIST][li]Not if you ask “why is this ethical”[/ul][/li][li]Just because[/li][ul][li]This can be said of both sides[/ul][/LIST][/li]
~Max

And to repeat, what is ethical is the result of ethical reasoning, not “just because.”
To contrast, if God exists and all God commands is moral, mass murder is moral since God commands it. Want to go there?

[QuickSilver]

@Voyager

And to repeat, what is ethical is the result of ethical reasoning, not “just because.”
To contrast, if God exists and all God commands is moral, mass murder is moral since God commands it. Want to go there?

Been there - done that:

@William Lane Craig

I’ve often heard popularizers raise this issue as a refutation of the moral argument for God’s existence. But that’s plainly incorrect. The claim that God could not have issued such a command doesn’t falsify or undercut either of the two premises in the moral argument as I have defended it:

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

[Voyager]

@QuickSilver

Been there - done that:

I didn’t want to go into the well known problem of god-based absolute morality. This is that if there is an objective absolute morality independent of God, then God just transmits it to us and is unnecessary. If on the other hand objective absolute morality is just what God says, then morality from God is no different from morality from a Mafia don - what I say goes. Don’t like it - like your toes?

Craig is assuming the existence of objective moral values, a fact not in evidence.
Or, to put it in other words, what would God do if he was at the switch of a streetcar …

[Max_S]

@QuickSilver

I might be persuaded by this appeal if not for those pesky religious liberals/progressives who for some ridiculous reason can manage to separate their dogmatic beliefs from public policy.

If you think all religious people can do the same, you have committed the fallacy of association.

[ul][li]Religious liberals/progressives are religious people[/li][li]Religious liberals/progressives can separate their dogmatic beliefs from public policy[/li][li]Therefore, all religious people can separate their dogmatic beliefs from public policy[/ul][/li]

@QuickSilver

I might further be persuaded by this appeal if not for the fact that there are plenty of western democracies that have managed to extricate themselves from problems associated with religious public policies by operating as if they are a secular state.

It is not so cut and dry as you make it sound. Each country has its own colorful history with religion, and there are unique nuances in the religious policy of every “western democracy”, including our own.

Countries like Sweden and Denmark were historically Lutheran, and Lutherans have the distinction of promoting secular authority (the whole “two kingdoms” doctrine). So it is no surprise that those countries are just fine with secularism - for the vast majority of people there, secularism and religion are entirely compatible. I’m not talking about those kinds of religion which teach to keep religion out of public debate.

Our country has a rich Protestant history, but often with veins of reformed (Calvinist) and not Lutheran thought. This is an area I’m not terribly familiar with but I have a book on the subject in my reading list, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms by David VanDrunen.

As another example, France, arguably the second most secular country in the world (after Sweden), achieved that status at a terrible price - first the violent suppression of Huguenots by the Catholics, then the violent suppression of the Catholics.

@QuickSilver

Are French Catholics disenfranchised?

In my opinion right-wing Catholicism has been dead in France since the Revolution of 1789, or at least since 1905 when the Third Republic repealed the Concordat of 1801. A while back I read somewhere that only 10% of Catholics in France even attend weekly Mass. I can substantiate that number with a poll of 1,000 French adults (CSA, 2003, p. 92). The same poll also found that 62% of the population identified as Catholic (p. 87), and only 20% of those Catholics who attend church at least once a month totally disagree with the idea that sin does not mean much (p. 46). Avoidance of sin by way of Sodom and Gomorrah is the underlying theory behind imposing Christian morals on one’s community, so using these statistics we can calculate an upper bound on the number of Catholics who might possibly argue that their religious morals should be enshrined in law.

If France has some sixty-seven million people, and say two-thirds are Catholic, and only 2% (10%x20%=2%) of those could possibly be of the disposition that religious morals trump secular morals, that’s only what - four hundred thousand people? And it is likely that most of those people don’t reject the strong separation of church and state in that country. Let’s cut that down to a very generous two hundred thousand. We’re looking at a fraction of a percent of the population. So there aren’t really any right-wing French Catholics to disenfranchise.

Compare with America where my wild guess is that at least fifteen or twenty percent of the population puts their religious morals over secular ones.

(France does have a problem with right-wing Muslims though, as I am sure you are aware.)

L’Institut Consumer Science & Analytics (CSA). Les Français et leurs croyances [The French and their beliefs]. (March 2003). Le Monde. Retrieved July 18, 2019 from http://medias.lemonde.fr/medias/pdf_obj/sondage030416.pdf

@QuickSilver

Because it conveniently ignores democratic societies where separation of church and state has worked and continues to work quite well.

With the possible exception of France, I think your comparison is inappropriate, as the circumstances are materially different with the U.S. than any other country. But even France is different in that their civil war was also a war against religion in general.

@QuickSilver

As to the issue/risk of potential for violence; The conservative/religious right ought not be permitted to forget that they did just that to those who opposed them throughout history, when they knew they could get away with it.

It’s not just violence, I also mentioned “physical [e]ffects in response to imagined stimuli”, by which I mean physiological harm; also mental harms; also “underhanded disobedience and obstructionism”. Take a Catholic who believes he will spend an eternity in hell for encouraging people to have sex for non-procreation. You would force him to stock the bathroom with condoms, if the state authority wished it - the only possible objection is religious in nature, and the only possible legislative exception is religious in nature. You would force him to choose between fines/jail time and an eternity in hell, and he couldn’t even ask his representative to read his plea on the legislative floor. That’s the kind of stress, the harm that I am afraid of. Widespread violence - not so much.

That being said, the fact that religion can be (and has been) used to perpetuate violence is irrelevant. If you were thinking this makes secular ethics better than religious morals, you would have to argue that there exists a system of secular ethics that is less violent than every system of religious morals. If you could do that, I would have to justify violence or give up. Why? Because you wouldn’t disqualify religious arguments based on their violence, you would disqualify them because they are religious. Therefore every point you make in favor of banning religious arguments from public policy debate must apply to all religious arguments.

@QuickSilver

I will not submit to being extorted and feeling threatened by the prospect that some religious zealot might blow himself up in a busy market to cow people into letting him have his way. Fuck him and all those who currently do just that. I have zero sympathy for the immoral cowards.

Either you submit - by which I mean take it into consideration for your cost/benefit analysis - or you are deluding yourself. People are people and suffering is suffering. It’s not inherently insane for a repressed person to turn violent after exhausting every other possible option. Even so, does insanity make a person incapable of suffering? (That would make for an interesting thread). I think suicide bombing of innocents probably crosses the line, but other acts such as a digging in for a standoff might not. Their line of thought may be just as rational as yours, but stem from different premises.

@QuickSilver

I look forward to being able to say, “I told you so”, in chorus with my fellow secularists/humanists, much to the dismay of the remaining adherents of the parties of god.

As I said, it’s still insufficient, but I have both hands tied behind my back. What is your response to the slippery slope argument against consequentialism? What if you come to the conclusion that the scenario with the least human suffering over the next thousand years involves some level of genocide? What if you come to the conclusion that the least suffering involves (gasp!) religion and bliss? What if it takes both? Sola dosis facit venenum. Have you read Asimov’s “The Evitable Conflict”?

My response to the slippery slope argument against kraterocracy is that it becomes moot. If you disagree with the kraterocrats, you don’t have a choice in the matter and that’s the end of it - life sucks or life ceases (for you), their choice. The only win scenario from your perspective is for you to be a kraterocrat or for you to be aligned with the kraterocrats. That’s not heartening, but we already knew it wouldn’t be.

~Max

[QuickSilver]

[quote=“Max_S, post:552, topic:834709”]

If you think all religious people can do the same, you have committed the fallacy of association.

[ul][li]Religious liberals/progressives are religious people[/li][li]Religious liberals/progressives can separate their dogmatic beliefs from public policy[/li][li]Therefore, all religious people can separate their dogmatic beliefs from public policy[/ul][/li][/quote]

This is why we continue to talk past each other. You are so focused on semantics/grammatic of an argument that you miss the point.

Those that can’t (or refuse to) separate their belief systems from public policy are the problem. We’ve been arguing this point for pages and pages now and seem no further along than when we started. My position is consistent, practical and in evidence. Your position is for special pleading for those who just can’t seem to progress beyond their regressive dogmatic beliefs.

I consider what’s below simply more of your commentary addressed by my response above.

@Max_S

It is not so cut and dry as you make it sound. Each country has its own colorful history with religion, and there are unique nuances in the religious policy of every “western democracy”, including our own.

Countries like Sweden and Denmark were historically Lutheran, and Lutherans have the distinction of promoting secular authority (the whole “two kingdoms” doctrine). So it is no surprise that those countries are just fine with secularism - for the vast majority of people there, secularism and religion are entirely compatible. I’m not talking about those kinds of religion which teach to keep religion out of public debate.

Our country has a rich Protestant history, but often with veins of reformed (Calvinist) and not Lutheran thought. This is an area I’m not terribly familiar with but I have a book on the subject in my reading list, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms by David VanDrunen.

As another example, France, arguably the second most secular country in the world (after Sweden), achieved that status at a terrible price - first the violent suppression of Huguenots by the Catholics, then the violent suppression of the Catholics.
In my opinion right-wing Catholicism has been dead in France since the Revolution of 1789, or at least since 1905 when the Third Republic repealed the Concordat of 1801. A while back I read somewhere that only 10% of Catholics in France even attend weekly Mass. I can substantiate that number with a poll of 1,000 French adults (CSA, 2003, p. 92). The same poll also found that 62% of the population identified as Catholic (p. 87), and only 20% of those Catholics who attend church at least once a month totally disagree with the idea that sin does not mean much (p. 46). Avoidance of sin by way of Sodom and Gomorrah is the underlying theory behind imposing Christian morals on one’s community, so using these statistics we can calculate an upper bound on the number of Catholics who might possibly argue that their religious morals should be enshrined in law.

If France has some sixty-seven million people, and say two-thirds are Catholic, and only 2% (10%x20%=2%) of those could possibly be of the disposition that religious morals trump secular morals, that’s only what - four hundred thousand people? And it is likely that most of those people don’t reject the strong separation of church and state in that country. Let’s cut that down to a very generous two hundred thousand. We’re looking at a fraction of a percent of the population. So there aren’t really any right-wing French Catholics to disenfranchise.

Compare with America where my wild guess is that at least fifteen or twenty percent of the population puts their religious morals over secular ones.

(France does have a problem with right-wing Muslims though, as I am sure you are aware.)

L’Institut Consumer Science & Analytics (CSA). Les Français et leurs croyances [The French and their beliefs]. (March 2003). Le Monde. Retrieved July 18, 2019 from http://medias.lemonde.fr/medias/pdf_obj/sondage030416.pdf
With the possible exception of France, I think your comparison is inappropriate, as the circumstances are materially different with the U.S. than any other country. But even France is different in that their civil war was also a war against religion in general.

@Max_S

It’s not just violence, I also mentioned “physical [e]ffects in response to imagined stimuli”, by which I mean physiological harm; also mental harms; also “underhanded disobedience and obstructionism”. Take a Catholic who believes he will spend an eternity in hell for encouraging people to have sex for non-procreation. You would force him to stock the bathroom with condoms, if the state authority wished it - the only possible objection is religious in nature, and the only possible legislative exception is religious in nature. You would force him to choose between fines/jail time and an eternity in hell, and he couldn’t even ask his representative to read his plea on the legislative floor. That’s the kind of stress, the harm that I am afraid of. Widespread violence - not so much.

<bolding above mine>

Go ahead and be fearful of a situation you created. Just know this is a fear of your own creation, not in any way based in fact or any argument I have ever made.

@Max_S

That being said, the fact that religion can be (and has been) used to perpetuate violence is irrelevant. If you were thinking this makes secular ethics better than religious morals, you would have to argue that there exists a system of secular ethics that is less violent than every system of religious morals. If you could do that, I would have to justify violence or give up. Why? Because you wouldn’t disqualify religious arguments based on their violence, you would disqualify them because they are religious. Therefore every point you make in favor of banning religious arguments from public policy debate must apply to all religious arguments.

Secular systems are demonstrably better in the examples I already cited. That Lutherans lend themselves better to secular public policy than American Fundamentalists is not a persuasive argument to me in the least. That you would advocate for violence (as one alternative) because I advocate for true separation of church and state is a problem with your position, not mine. Furthermore, it illustrates that secularism is more ethical, at least in this respect.

@Max_S

Either you submit - by which I mean take it into consideration for your cost/benefit analysis - or you are deluding yourself. People are people and suffering is suffering. It’s not inherently insane for a repressed person to turn violent after exhausting every other possible option. Even so, does insanity make a person incapable of suffering? (That would make for an interesting thread). I think suicide bombing of innocents probably crosses the line, but other acts such as a digging in for a standoff might not. Their line of thought may be just as rational as yours, but stem from different premises.

Their line of thought is irrational from the start if they believe that violence is their only alternative. Nobody is restricting their right to worship as they like. However, they do not have an absolute right to restrict the rights of others who do not believe as they do.

@Max_S

As I said, it’s still insufficient, but I have both hands tied behind my back. What is your response to the slippery slope argument against consequentialism? What if you come to the conclusion that the scenario with the least human suffering over the next thousand years involves some level of genocide? What if you come to the conclusion that the least suffering involves (gasp!) religion and bliss? What if it takes both? Sola dosis facit venenum. Have you read Asimov’s “The Evitable Conflict”?

Again, you create an imaginary apocalyptic scenario and force me to provide you with an answer and justification to my position under that circumstance. As my good friend and farmer philosopher once said, “Not my pig; Not my farm; Not my problem.” You made this mess, you clean it up.

@Max_S

My response to the slippery slope argument against kraterocracy is that it becomes moot. If you disagree with the kraterocrats, you don’t have a choice in the matter and that’s the end of it - life sucks or life ceases (for you), their choice. The only win scenario from your perspective is for you to be a kraterocrat or for you to be aligned with the kraterocrats. That’s not heartening, but we already knew it wouldn’t be.

~Max

You keep using that word…

I’m not advocating for any such thing. I’m advocating for a more evidence based, equitable and equanimous way forward. I don’t argue for the eradication of all religion from the private or public sphere. I argue for personal freedom and a more just society based on secular public policies.