Bullshit. We certainly don’t think we are smarter. We do think our morals and ethics have evolved - as a society. Sure there are underpaid workers. Even some slaves, but isn’t it ethically superior for these things to be illegal - in the West at least - and not supported by the government? Isn’t ethically superior for the government to not kill those not supporting the state religion? Isn’t it ethically superior to not put thieves to death?
However downtrodden third world workers are, I don’t hear the right clamoring for their “liberation” and in any case they can leave their companies and are not killed for learning how to read, which gives them at least some advantages over slaves in the glorious South.
Why is religion a reference guide to how people should behave? If so which parts count? If no one coveted their neighbor’s ass, where would capitalism be? Do you think that societies of the past when Christianity ruled were more just than our society today? Why should we pay any attention to what some clowns said god said unless you can present us with evidence of this god?
Best of luck to you there. By my thinking the concept of a religious argument must, practically by definition, rely in some way on Man’s relationship with God. If you strip away God and what God wants of his Children out of a religious argument, it becomes a secular argument.
If you stop and think for a minute, I bet you can name several societies that are controlled by their religious foundings. Take another minute and you’ll realize that the entire abortion debate in the US is founded on religious beliefs and the resulting attempts to deny and control specific human rights. Are you under the mistaken impression that religion will just stop there if they achieve this goal?
But “shouldn’t be given a special position” isn’t the same as “has no place in public debate”. I disagree with religious arguments as well. I just don’t see what makes them different from any other arguments I disagree with.
I disagree with instituting communism, for example, but it doesn’t matter to me whether my opponents want communism because of what Marx said, or because of what Jesus said. I don’t see why the latter argument should be singled out for “having no place” while the former is just a run of the mill disagreement. And if I base my disagreement with communism on what Ayn Rand said, or what Pat Robertson said, what difference should that make to my opponents?
If “Does religion have a place in public debate?” means “do you agree with arguments based on religion?” then no, I usually don’t. But that doesn’t seem to be what the OP is asking.
You don’t seem to understand that when someone brings a religious justification to a public policy debate, they don’t accept that their religious reasoning is invalid.
Why is homosexuality a sin? Because the bible says so. Why is abortion a sin? Because the bible says so. (actually it doesn’t).
The point is that anyone can justify any position by invoking a religious reason, therefore, religious reasoning has not place.
Sure, someone can stand up and say, “This is what god told me!”, and they are free to do so. However, that should not be used to actually form policy.
You are correct that public policy is polluted with ideas based on bronze age writings as justification. This is not a good thing. No one said anything about throwing out deabter, just throwing out their arguments if based on superstition rather than reason.
If one gets their morality from a book, from an unquestionable and ambiguous source, then one can justify anything. Slavery was justified on religious grounds, genocide has been justified on religious grounds. Racism and homophobia and general bigotry is justified on religious grounds. Anything you want to justify, whether it be feeding the homeless, or stoning adulterers, can be justified with religion.
Most people do not form their personal morals based on religion, most people justify their personal morals with religion.
See, for instance, this example of someone who thinks that being religious gives the power to read minds.
Right, like when we have debates about whether FGM is an atrocity or God’s will. If throwing acid in the face of women for trying to educate themselves is a hate crime or God’s will. If killing your daughter because she was raped is a heinous act or God’s will.
Does it influence you to vote against homosexual rights? Is it only because of your Christian culture that you do not murder and steal? If the bible tells you to commit an act of violence against your neighbor, do you take that influence into account? If you had never heard of the bible or Christianity, would you steal the things you want from your neighbor, and kill him if he tries to stop you?
If it influences you to be a better person, great. People have a hard time justifying being a good person, and if they find inspiration in the pages of the bible to be a better person, then good for them.
Religion was useful back in the day when it was very hard to explain to someone why they shouldn’t be allowed to murder their neighbor.
Community: “Don’t murder your neighbor.”
Member of Community: “But I want to. He has stuff I want to take, and a woman I want.”
C: “Well, don’t take his stuff either, and don’t take his wife.”
MoC: “Why not?”
C: “Well, you wouldn’t want to have your neighbor murder you, take your stuff, and take your wife, would you?”
MoC: “My neighbor is puny, I’d like to see him try.”
C: “Well, if you do so, then we will not approve of that, and we will try to stop you, or punish you for committing these acts.”
MoC: “Even if you caught me, I’d like to see you try.”
C: “Fine, God said not to, and god is all powerful, and all knowing, and will send you to hell for eternal punishment for these acts.”
So, to some extent, I am happy that religion scares some people who are unable to understand a secular argument against murder and theft and assault into not committing these acts, but I would far rather people not commit these acts because they are able to understand the secular argument, as being based on a holy book is pretty flimsy, as there are number of atrocities that are also based on that same holy book.
Religious citizens should not be excluded from social debate. To participate they need only present premises that are secular. That’s not as elitist as it sounds. To participate they must speak the common language of the debate which is secular English. After all, religious premises are not just invalid in the secular environment. Religious premises are invalid with respect to each other.
In my opinion every argument has equal standing to participate, and the mere fact that an argument includes a “religious” premise does not invalidate the argument. It may very well be that this “religious” premise is not disputed in debate, that would be determined by the particular debaters. Even if the debate is nondenominational, and the premise is disputed, a religious argument that only persuades those of the same religion might convince enough of the public so as to pass a law. At that point, unless said law violates the constitution (state or federal), I must yield to the will of society.
Also in my opinion, it is not my right nor yours to disqualify religious arguments from publicly run debate, as in to cut the debater’s time when they say “because it is in the Bible”. Of course, you have the freedom to do so in private debate, and most debates are private, and some (such as this board) are privately run with public access, which is a public debate with private rules. Even so I don’t think it is the right thing to disqualify an argument because it involves religious premises. You shouldn’t even disqualify invalid arguments from debate - otherwise there would be no debate. You can point out that the argument is invalid, but unless your opponent agrees it should be up to the audience to decide, or if the moderator feels one side is arguing in bad faith (won’t agree to disagree or back up their premises), the moderator can step in.
Of course, I agree that it the world today is “ethically superior” compared to history, but only if we use today’s ethics. Or do you believe there is some universal sense of ethics?
And there are theories that ancient people, before the neolithic revolution, somehow had a highly ethical society (I do not subscribe to that notion).
Religion is a reference guide to how people should behave because people make it a guide. The parts people decide to follow count. If no one coveted their neighbor’s property, capitalism as we know it could not exist. I do not think that Christian societies of old were more just than our society today. And you should definitely pay attention to people who say “God said”, because like it or not, they are your equals and you share living space and their opinions affect you.
Even if a religious argument is invalid, it doesn’t make sense to throw out the argument because it is religious, or to assume that your opponent is arguing in bad faith because they presented a religious argument. You may think people base their religion on their personal morals but you must admit that at least some people think they base their personal morals on religion. Therefore when a person backs up a moral argument* with a religious premise, it is sometimes inappropriate to accuse them of arguing in bad faith.
Ideally the only reason to disqualify an argument is if that argument is made in bad faith. After all, every conclusion must have its premises and eventually you must assume a number of fundamental or “religious” premises. If you and your opponent disagree on a fundamental premise, all you can do is try and convince each other to drop the premise by showing that it leads to a contradiction with other premises you both agree upon. If there is no such contradiction, no authority in the world can settle your dispute. Either that or you agree to disagree and let the audience decide, or one of you starts arguing in bad faith. And at that point, the moderator should intervene and disqualify the argument made in bad faith. That’s what I consider to be an ideal debate. Real debates often have constraints on time or scope, etc. But meta-debates, such as aggregate public discourse, need not have such constraints.
Well, yeh, if you find yourself living in a theocracy, then you have to yield to that will.
You don’t seem to be understanding the nature of this debate at all. The point is, if you can only justify your position by “it says so in the bible”, or “God told me so,” or “That’s what my faith says”, then your premise is flawed and should not be used in consideration.
No one has said that a religious person cannot participate. No one has said that they cannot use religious premises. We are just saying that if you use a religious premise, then our argument is invalid and should not be given weight in a secular society.
And is there anyone at all that has said that we should? You are arguing against strawmen here.
Are you considering “Leviticus 20:13” as a good cite to back up their premise that homoseuxality should be illegal? If not, then you contradict yourself, as you say that a moderator should step in because they refuse to back up their premises. If so, then you are saying that we should be a theocracy.
So, I should accept and give equal weight to someone saying that adulterers should be stoned because “Leviticus 20:10” as someone who makes an argument that murdering people for sexual infidelity is harmful to society as a whole?
Yes. I think the correct answer to this thread is to take this just one step further: religious premises are not debate premises at all. They are dogma, and therefore no evidence or reasoning can dissuade a believer away from them. A person who brings religious premises into a public policy debate is, strange as it sounds, automatically arguing in bad faith because they are not engaging in debate at all, but apologia instead.
The public sphere is no place to be enthralled to unquestionable bare assertions. Religion does not belong in public debate simply by definition.
Thudlow Boink’s statement reads to me as meaning ‘I don’t like that definition of “religious argument” but I can’t think of any other definition.’
That might well be honest and thoughtful as a description of TB’s own thought process; but why is it an example of why religious debate should be welcome in public forum?
I don’t see why it must be a theocracy for me to yield to the laws of society, so long as those laws do not violate the constitution. Or perhaps you think a law motivated by religion is necessarily unconstitutional? What if it is a constitutional amendment instead of a law?
A fundamental premise, one which is so basic that it cannot be backed up, is not actually flawed because you disagree with it. It is flawed to you, and to anyone else who disagrees with it. That just means you give the premise no weight, and you might not share any conclusions following such a premise. Any number of your fellow citizens might disagree with you, and unless you show a contradiction from their perspective, you cannot logically change their minds (even if you do find a contradiction, they might choose cognitive dissonance over your position).
I might agree with you, depending very much on what you mean by “a secular society”. I do not believe we live in “a secular society”, if the meaning of that word agrees with the sentence in which it appears. As I said before, it is my opinion that a great number of people in America and worldwide base their personal morals on religion. Personal morals inform public policy and so I would expect religious arguments to have a prominent place in public debate. That does not mean you have to agree with religious arguments.
But then why wouldn’t religion have a place in public debate? Why shouldn’t religion have a place in public debate?
Well, a conclusion can not follow from one premise. I certainly cannot deny that Leviticus 20:13 exists, and I can agree that Leviticus 20:13 says homosexuality should be illegal. It does not follow that homosexuality should actually be illegal. If my opponent refused to fill in the missing premise, the moderator can certainly step in and declare his argument invalid.
Let’s say my opponent does fill in the missing premise, and says public policy should be based on the bible. Then I will debate him on that. He might say the bible is the word of God, and public policy should be based on the word of God, and claim that these two premises are fundamental. At which point I can either agree to disagree and end the debate (or sub-debate), or I can try and find a contradiction between these and other statements he has endorsed.
To me it has a place when what is being debated is stuff about the relationship between the State and religious institutions. For example: should religious officers be able to register marriages with civil authorities, and if so, what would be needed in order for a religious officer to be able to act in this way? Or, should it be possible for a school that’s got a specific religious bent (from being owned by a religious order to being a theology college) or for its students to get any kind of financial help from the government?
“We must change the laws 'cos God says so” - no. Separation of Church and State, freedom of religion, etc.
It doesn’t even have a place when what people are defending is based on religion without them understanding it’s so: in Spain (in much of the EU) we’re having friction regarding stores opening on Sunday. At one point I caught a TV program where someone was interviewing a representative of the Communist Worker’s Union who was putting it in terms of “big surfaces will destroy little stores if we allow stores to open on Sunday, because big surfaces can afford to hire more people and small ones cannot” and a little old lady turned her into mincemeat pointing out that the prohibition originated in Christianity, that many of the stores that open on Sunday are owned by non-Christians which choose a different day to close down, and that some establishments (most notoriously restaurants and bars) have always been exempt from the “must close on Sunday” laws and usually just close on a different day. There is a huge difference between “all workers must get at least one day off every week” and “that day must be Sunday”, but the woman from the Union apparently doesn’t live in a place with a lot of Muslim, Sikh and Hindu immigrants (I do, so did the little old lady).
Is Thomas Jefferson arguing from religious premises when he writes “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”?
I asked my question because I’m trying to figure out what Try2B Comprehensive and others consider to be religious premises; and I don’t think your question is relevant to that particular point, though it is relevant to other points.
