I’m not asking why such laws exist - that is obvious. I’m asking for justification. And it being important to a segment of the population is justification enough to let them live their own life their own way, but not justification to impinge on the lives of others. If you think it is, then the number of people in the population is unimportant in justification for it, just in how likely they are to get it implemented.
With the black arm band example you start to veer back to something closer to providing religious freedoms. There’s plenty of irrationality that can invade law (especially when the majority in a country share a common religious background and can support legislation based on that common morality.) Your case against religious freedom in fact demonstrates an example - the Federal RFRA. The black arm bands fails the first test provided under religious freedom legislation - a compelling government interest to restrict the practice.
A great example I brought up in a different RFRA, long since scrolled off the radar, of the second test under RFRA type legislation in application
The original law was rational but not the only rational way to meet the public safety on teh roads goal.That goal could be met in a way that was less burdensome on religious believers while still being entirely rational. It’s not hard to imagine that the legislators didn’t consider minimizing the burden on Amish when they wrote/passed the law. Without some method of redress we create a system where the majority religious tradition in the US, Christianity, can impose undue burdens on others either through ignorance or active disrespect of other traditions.
I see your original argument being largely along the lines of rational laws by default meeting the compelling government interest case. Sometimes the law isn’t rational though. Sometimes it’s rational but not the only rational way. I think it’s good to have some legal framework to address irrational laws and laws that are unnecessarily burdensome. How to do it is different than arguing that any given way of providing that framework is optimal.
Well, those of us not straight, white men from Christian backgrounds generally don’t like discrimination against minorities and find more reason to object to a company refusing to hire Jews than refusing to hire say fans of the Boston Celtics and would start laughing when we hear people complain about why Jews, Muslims, or Catholics be given special privileges.
I think the overall point remains true - there will unavoidably be situations where the rights of two individuals are incompatible.
[Quote=Budget Player Cadet]
I think the vast majority of the tax code can be rationally justified. So can Obamacare.
[/QUOTE]
You think. The tax code is four million words long. That’s equal to about twenty George R.R. Martin novels. Have you ever seen a rational justification for those words, or do you just have blind faith that they could be justified?
And of course your constant use of the words"rational" and “rationally” begs the question of who gets to decide what’s rational and what isn’t.
Kant assumes things he doesn’t prove. Everyone does. And Kantian ethics permits retroactive abortion up to age 13.
Regardless, what I’m saying is that secular reason (that is, logic based on accepted social values and objective standards of morality) is the only basis for enacting laws. You would surely not argue that religious dogma is superior or equivalently valid? If so you’re arguing for theocracy and against the voice of reason. The strawman examples cited – Nazism and Marxism as implemented in the 20th century – had many laws that would not pass the test of reason and were simply the delusions of dictators and madmen, not much different than the ravings of theocrats throughout history.
I want to see a credible cite for that.
It’s not considered to be good enough for other, related matters, such as racial discrimination, so I dispute that it’d be good enough to stop religious discrimination.
Sorry, if you can’t prove it (your standard, not mine), then it’s off to prison for you. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
And it may be based on reason, but it’s just as subjective as any religious belief.
I’ve bolded the troublesome phrase. Surely you can see a problem with this - the right to exercise your religion in the absence of a law forbidding it means that you have no right to exercise your religion. I mean, what else would be infringing on the right, besides a law?
Imagine interpreting other rights this way - you have the right to freely publish your opinions, unless the law forbids it. You have the right to a trial by jury, unless the law forbids it. You have the right to be secure from having your property confiscated without due process, unless the law forbids it. In what sense, then, do you have those rights at all?
Rational basis is a very low standard. A law banning the black armbands, in the absence of the protections you’re arguing against, would pass muster. That is why those protections exist.
If the law is narrowly tailored, and is rationally related to a compelling government interest, then banning sacramental heroin is just fine. The RFRA, and the free exercise clause, are not licenses to be exempt from any and all laws, and they never have been.
Via your method. If you delete the free-exercise clause, on what basis could you oppose, say, a mandatory-evangelical-church-attendance law? If you repeal the RFRA, who you think will suffer most - mainstream Christians, or everyone else?
Rather than judge the merits of individual beliefs, simply apply the legal doctrine: narrowly tailored laws related to a compelling government interest are fine. Does prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations qualify? I say: sure. How about requiring lifesaving medical treatment for minors? Sure! Problem solved!
That cite says there were 1,200 Catholic churches, circa 1917. I’m sure there were a lot more Orthodox one, but closing 1198 of 1200 Catholic churches illustrates my point well enough.
Agreed. In Canada some provinces allow Sikhs to wear their turban instead of a motorcycle helmet. Some provinces don’t. If you can make the case that your god will protect your head when you fall off the motorcycle, then by all means do so. I’m sure everyone would appreciate him testifying in court on how he will do so. Otherwise, you have to wear a helmet.
Well, no religious belief is rational. At least there is a better chance of making a rational decision if the starting point isn’t always based upon fantasy.
No cites, just an argument. Kant said that people have moral dignity because people create morality; we’re legislators in the realm of ends. But pre-teens (per me and Piaget) aren’t capable of that kind of abstract philosophical thought; hence, retroactive abortion up to age 13.
So, as I suspected, you just made it up.
Everything Immanuel Kant ever wrote or believed is diametrically opposed to that preposterous nonsense. The humanity argument, or “formula”, from the Categorical Imperative, for one. Which posits that as humans we have “the capacities to engage in self-directed rational behavior and to adopt and pursue our own ends”, or the “autonomy formula” which introduces the concept of free will. Or any of several other corollaries of the Categorical Imperative. All of which require your preposterous conclusion to presume that children are not human beings, and are not sentient. And further, it requires one to presume that society – regarded under Kantian philosophy as a “kingdom of ends” – a systematic union of different rational beings under common laws – would be best served by such barbaric means. Your abhorrent strawman perversion of what Kant actually advocated is about as far from the moral grounding of his Categorical Imperative as it’s possible to get.
I made it up but I think it follows from what Kant said. My conclusion only requires that children aren’t capable of abstract philosophical thought. If you don’t like that, though, how about his assertion that lying is always wrong, without exception. The classic counterexample is when a murderer asks you where his intended victim is, and you know he’s hiding in your house.
I don’t deny Kant was a great philosopher. I’m just saying he didn’t make ethics a science. No one has.
That’s not true either, and it sounds like another misinterpretation of Kant. Kant distinguishes between “perfect” and “imperfect” duties that are subject to different tests. A “perfect duty” allows no exceptions and results from failing the test of whether the universality of some principle (as a “universal law of nature”) would result in a world in which such principle was inherently meaningless (the “contradiction of conception” test). For instance if everyone always lied and always broke promises then the very concepts of “honesty” and “keeping your word” would be meaningless. An “imperfect duty” results from passing this test and moving forward to the test of whether one might rationally will that such an action be universal in a particular set of circumstances – the imperfect duty is conditional and is justified by its moral objective.
This should be viewed in exactly the same light as a claim by a religious person “…yes, but if you cant find a religious/moral justification for what you value, it has no place being part of public policy.”
You see, public policy should reflect the views of the public. Many are religious. You, apparantly, would disenfranchise them.
Congratulations, you’ve completely bastardized the concept of “secular morality” (and by the way, you ought to go read some NSDAP literature, there are some distinctly non-secular views espoused therein) to mean “anything anyone can justify to themselves without the help of religion”.
Serving is different. They don’t represent my business. Also, I love the insinuations here.
And I already agreed with this.
…Makes sense. Okay, so there are some problems with my ideas.
Because such a law would not even begin to have a rational basis.
Their nonsense, yes. Or would you suggest that an avowed Christian Scientist should be making public health policy?
Who should, then?
Yes. I don’t know if you’re being serious. but although this approach isn’t without its problems, it at least limits the government rather than expanding its powers. The chief problems with it, IMO:[ul][li]Every @#$%ing law on the books would get challenged at some point. :)[*]I still think some rights do require greater scrutiny and protection, when rights conflict (e.g., the right to religious freedom, free expression of political views, the right to assemble, etc.)[/ul]I think where some of the secular guys’ arguments jump the rails is their (to them) self-evident belief that there is some purely logical approach that exists out there in all its objective splendor. All belief systems are ultimately based on axioms (let’s leave math and the like out of this, though it’s true even for that). You may believe that “the greatest good for the greatest number” is axiomatic. I may believe that “personal liberties trump all else; let each free man make his own way.” Both have problems in their execution, but even leaving that aside, we could both proceed from our axioms logically and come up with drastically different results. Who is right? The majority? Isn’t that basically what we have now?[/li]
I would agree with a system that says the government should mind its own business unless it is exercising an enumerated power in an arena where the government has a compelling interest, if it does so in a way that respects individual rights by tailoring laws to impact such liberties in the least intrusive way. The legislature thinks all people everywhere should have “free” contraception? Okay, I suppose that’s a possible outcome in a democratic society (ignoring for the moment whether our government has that enumerated power). Do they get to force individual people or firms to foot the bill? I say no, not if that compromises those peoples’ religious beliefs. Why? Because there are other more narrowly tailored ways to accomplish the same thing, so the government should have to respect the most fundamental of all right: my right to be left alone.
So I find myself in an interesting spot.
Wolfpup, it is entirely against the rules to accuse another poster of lying. This includes telling someone ‘you made that up’.
On the other hand, the poster you accuse says he did make that up.
Oy.
No warnings, just a note for all that such accusations are really not allowed in Great Debates and can earn warnings in the future. Let’s all be civil, here.