What if you held the same belief about red-haired people because you attended the same church? Would you argue against the law based on the fact that it unfairly discriminates, or would you agree with your fellow anti-gingers?
And what if you were in a position of power, like a congressman in a representative democracy, representing lots of constituents that were also anti-gingers?
Would you then think it fair and right to pass laws based on your religious belief system despite the fact that many of the people you also happen to represent are red-heads?
Can you now see how arguments from religious convictions are a problem in public policy debate?
Hold on - why can’t a religious premise be invalid? And what does it mean for a premise to be invalid, again?
From my education in formal logic, arguments are invalid; premises are either true or false - which really means “accepted as true” or “not accepted as true”.
The nature of a religious premise is that people only accept it as true if they’re part of the religion that sources the premise. Which means that every religious argument is automatically unsound to everyone not of the religion. This is not so good for debate - it forces the debate to immediately turn to a debate over the validity of the premise. Well, that or one side or the other forces the issue through fiat or force of arms or something.
Of course in practice the religious people are aware that nobody else is going to buy their arguments, because religious doesn’t automatically equal stupid. The arguments they pull out instead do tend to be invalid, though.
Basic logic and posterior analytics are not religious concepts.
possibly dualism or theism; - irrelevant to Political/social debate
free will; - again irrelevant to public debate and you cannot even define it
the existence and nature of consciousness; - pure science - not religious
a moral system; - religious dogma - has no place in public debate
probably more. - I have yet to see the first one.
Please provide an example of how any of these topics could provide premises for public debate in a way that does not violate separation of church and state.
Exactly - the example I gave was from Reverend Willard Stalcup in the election for Morgan County Alabama to allow liquor sales:
Anyone who would vote wet is lower than a egg suckin hound.
Is the premise true?
Is the argument valid?
That’s your own definition. The primary definition, one that most people are going to be working off of, is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.”
If you want to define religion as something else, something that is compatible with public policy, that’s fine, but then, you have only sidestepped the question with semantics, not actually addressed it.
And you are open to other definitions, so long as they do not invalidate your argument? What does that even mean? Does the actual dictionary definition imply that a religious premise is invalid, in your opinion?
I have deep and sincere beliefs. For instance, I have a deep and sincere belief that I don’t want to be killed. Based on that premise, I can justify saying that no one would be killed. Now, can I prove or justify that premise, can I back it up? No. But does that make it religious? Also, NO.
Exactly the sort of thing that I am talking about. These blue laws are being overturned quite a bit in areas that have less religious influence as there are no actual secular reasons for them. They are based on religious premises.
Other than that was when you proved that religion belief has no place in forming public policy, but that wasn’t good enough for you.
What exactly is it that you are trying to determine here? You are just going in circles and asking the same questions over an over and not being satisfied with the answers.
Another irrelevant talking point would be the rules I choose for my household. In my home, I am the King. I make the rules and there is no appeal. What I say goes. Period. Here are just two of my unbreakable commandments:
**Rule #1: Any homosexual sex that happens in my home shall be punishable by death for all parties involved.
Rule #2: Thou shall not mix peanut butter and jelly. Any who do so will be caged in the basement not less that 60 years.**
If I suggest that governmental policy really should be run the same way I run my household how much credence should be my argument be given? My personal rules are just as crucial Catholic Church’s rules in terms of their bearing on public policy.
I read this as you saying the entire argument of “Does God Exist? (Show Your Work!)” needs to take place in its entirety any time religion is invoked in a public debate. That’s not good time management.
All that religion is is a codified view on our relationship with transcendence. I would posit that all government and society is based on our relationship to transcendence so to exclude a particular view just because it’s more firmly codified and more specific in its views seems foolish at best.
Hmmm. I wonder if we could find a country whose laws largely reflect the Ten Commandments…where killing and stealing are prohibited by law for example…
It is not about agreeing or disagreeing with them, it is whether the way the arguments are constructed is valid. You can agree or disagree with secular arguments, and in doing so you can examine the premises and the chain of reasoning. You can’t do that with religious arguments.
If someone said, we should have universal healthcare because Jesus told me all people deserve the right to be well, I might agree about universal healthcare but still think this is a valueless argument for it.
And if a Communist supports Communism because Marx said it and I believe it, he is just as dumb as someone supporting it because Jesus said it.
I’m certainly not saying we should silence anyone, but in our current environment it is tough for anyone but rabid atheists to answer a religious argument with “so what.” Which is what everyone should do.
I want to step back into the context. The Declaration of Independence is formally addressed to King George. This is the guy ultimately responsible for taxation without representation, global colonialism, the Church of England (in the New World!), and oppression in general. The religious theory of the guy Jefferson is addressing is the Divine Right of Kings. He gets to do whatever he wants, to anybody, no matter what, and do you know why?
Because God says so!So to say that men are equal and endowed with inalienable rights is completely counter to the Monarchial system. He is saying that We the People are not, by nature, subjects, but have every bit as much Divine Right as George, and so screw you, you can’t tell us what to do. Positing this non-denominational Creator (it isn’t even God. As Mueller would say, “If we had determined that the source of endowment of inalienable rights is God, we would have so stated.”) and defining the nature of Man in such a way is really a casting off of religion. The Continental civilization isn’t going to impose a State Religion because to do so would infringe on the nature of Man itself.
I think it is more than a refutation of the Monarchial system. That was tied up with the Ancien Regime, associated all the way back to the Roman emperors. At the end of the Empire, the emperors thought authority over the very consciences of their subjects was simply more virgin territory waiting for conquest. They imposed a new state religion with great prejudice towards the old, and the result was to further destabilize things to the point that the entire Western Empire fell.
In the system Jefferson is anticipating, it should be impossible for the government to assume such overwhelming power. The government is not to be the source of rights, but only the guardian of them. It very well may have been an historically auspicious time for a revolution- Rome switched religions, then fell; the British Empire split from the Pope, then America went AWOL. I’m not sure if I’m looking at a case of cause and effect in that last sentence, but the gist of history seems to suggest “freedom of religion.”
It isn’t some atheist regime. There’s a Creator, but, well, there is clearly a Universe, and presumably it came from somewhere, and Man and History being what they are suggest Man ought to be free, so why not say it is meant to be? As opposed to the emperors telling you what to think on pain of death, or the King taking your money in exchange for jack shit. Nope, everyone can decide for themselves how to approach something so heady, is free to persuade others to see it their way, and at least ostensibly has a say in their own governance.
Of course I don’t believe in universal ethics, but we can have ethical principles that let us judge that specific things are more ethical than others.
And acknowledge areas which are debatable. Is eating meat ethical or not? I do it, but I can see the argument against it. Some god coming down on one side or the other has nothing to do with it.
Oh I pay attention to them all right, in the sense that I pay attention to someone who seems to be following me down a dark alley. But I think it is our duty to challenge people making religious arguments to either justify them without reference to deities or to provide evidence that deities both exist and agree with them. If you say you are not religious, you should take on this challenge also.
Babylon before the 10 Commandments existed, perhaps?
Check out the 10 commandments, and you’ll see our laws don’t largely depend on them. Having no god before Yahweh is not a crime. Adultery is not a crime. Coveting is definitely not a crime. Not honoring one’s father and mother is not a crime.
Try again.