Really? Every single one? Even those with respect to slavery, apostasy, genocide…
Or would you pick and choose only the ones you like and force them on those who don’t pick the same ones as you? I mean, provided the numbers are in your favor.
Of course it has a place. And I say this as an atheist opposed to dogmatic rule who wholeheartedly supports the separation of church and state.
Everyone has a moral basis for their political beliefs. I see no reason the teachings of Kant or Marx (or for that matter Mom and Dad) should be held as any more valid than the teachings of St. Paul or Confucius or your friendly neighborhood Priest. As a practical matter, arguing that “the Koran says so” isn’t likely to be compelling to non-Muslims in a debate, but it’s a perfectly valid source of morality, and Muslims and other religious practitioners should get a say in our government just as much as citizens who obtain their moral stances entirely from secular sources.
I don’t see any reason to draw lines here. I mean, some people get their morals from Teletubbies. Some from the Satanic Bible. I may not agree with the Bhagavad Gita, but that doesn’t mean I think people who follow it should be shut out of the political sphere.
No one is saying that the religious should be shut out of the political sphere, just what they do not use their religion to justify their positions.
If you cannot make the secular case for a policy, then you cannot make the case for a policy. Throwing in “because god said so” just means that you are not willing to debate the merits of your proposals, and expect them to be accepted as though they were “the word of god”.
I don’t think anyone is saying that being religious excludes you from the political process or public debate. Nor that religious beliefs don’t inform people’s politics. What some have said is that religious doctrine should be excluded from public policy.
ETA: What k9b said.
Religious freedom is only possible under a secular government.
Unfortunately believers inject their dogma into the political/policy debate. Religious beliefs are often deeply held but ill informed. There is no religious argument against abortion. Exodus 21:22-25 leaves it to the judiciary.
Elimination of religion from the political/public policy debate would be a giant leap forward - for religious and non-religious alike.
But what does “excluded from public policy” mean, if not some form of shutting people out of debates or politics? If I don’t like abortion for secular reasons, and my buddy doesn’t like it because his priest said so, can we not team up to further our shared political goals? Can we not both vote for candidates who agree with us, and support legislation to that end? Should we not join the same political party if we both find our beliefs align with its platform? If we both think something is morally wrong, why does it matter where those morals ultimately come from?
Every single one. It is my understanding that mainstream religions cover all the bases and encompass all truths.
~Max
It means that you need to base your reasoning on secular arguments, not on religious.
If you can make your argument from a secular perspective, even if you are inspired by religion to do so, go for it.
If you have to fall back on “because that’s what it says in the bible”, or “that’s what I believe” then it has no place.
I do not follow. It sounds like you need to shift the debate to whether a particular argument is in fact “the word of god” and whether “the word of god” is infallible. Mind you that assuming the conclusion is always a fallacy.
~Max
So, since the holy book that informs your religion says that you are to stone adulterers, is that actually a public policy taht you would impose?
All citizens should participate in the debate. What must be eliminated is religious bias in the resulting public policies.
So what is the major premise on which you base your abortion position? Your friends?
Mine is:
Clinical abortion is a safe medical procedure that is vital to the health of female citizens.
I guess, if that was my religion.
~Max
No, I do not believe that you do follow. No, I’m not shifting the debate at all, and it has nothing to do with the dichotomy that you propose, I am just saying that any valid argument about public policy needs to be rooted in secular reasoning.
If someone makes a secular argument, even if inspired by their religious beliefs, I will hear them out. As soon as they say, "because god said so, " then I know that their argument is worthless.
You can claim anything about what god has said and what you believe, and that should not be considered valid grounds for building an argument.
Let’s try an example. “God said that there should be no religion in public policy debates”. Now, refute that.
We are discussing the nature of public debate. What argument would you make against abortion? What argument would your friend make?
Logically you are missing a premise and conclusion. Let me fill those in for you.
[ul][li]What God says is that there should be no religion in public policy debates.[/li][li]What God says must be so.[/li][li]Therefore it must be so that there should be no religion in public policy debates.[/ul][/li]I object to both premises. God did not say there should be no religion in public policy debates, and what God says need not be so.
~Max
"Let’s try an example. “God said that there should be no religion in public policy debates”. Now, refute that."
Matthew 7:6 - “Do not give dogs what is sacred”
I think you may be missing the extent to which arguments made on religious principles can be meaningless to the non-religious. The response you get may an unwillingness to debate a “principle” that comes across to the unbeliever as total nonsense.
I’ve got no way to debate a claim that non-procreative sex is “sinful”, for instance, other than to say “sinful’s a religious term and your idea of what’s sinful shouldn’t be imposed on others.” I can’t debate whether it’s “sinful” or not because I don’t, except metaphorically, believe in the concept.
I can discuss the possible meaning of a Bible verse, and may find it interesting to do so; but I don’t think that what the verse means, even if that could be settled, is relevant to the debate. So we could debate a given verse all week and even if you convinced me as to the original meaning of the verse I still wouldn’t think it had anything to say about how or if we should be writing laws on the subject.
Why phrase it that way, then?
[ul][li]God is something that does not exist[/li][li]Something that does not exist can not say there should be no religion in public policy debates[/li][li]Therefore God can not say there should be no religion in public policy debates[/ul][/li]
[ul][li]God is something that does not exist[/li][li]Something that does not exist cannot say anything[/li][li]Therefore God cannot say anything[/ul][/li]
~Max
Objecting to those premises is a sin, and you will be tormented by fires for eternity for questioning the word of God.
(not really, just continuing on with the religionists side of the argument).
Point is, you can make up and justify anything “because God said so”, therefore, it is pointless to use it as a basis for debate.
What makes objecting to those premises a sin?
How can I question something which does not exist?
It is not pointless as a basis for debate. Would you prefer to show your logic behind that statement?
~Max