That’s what SCOTUS is for. I’m not going to start another debate about it because I think it’s a moot point. The point is that it is still inappropriate and stupid and grotesque and anti-American for one religious group to try to legislatively prevent people who don’t subsribe to that religion (or even those who DO subscribe) from engaging in behaviors which it doesn’t like…especially when those behaviors cannot be shown to pose any danger to society. Legislatively opposing same-sex marriage is no different than trying to ban dancing or jerking off. Are those civil rights?
Both are impermissible. To imply otherwise suggests that people aren’t really getting the whole notion of “personal responsibility” that everyone keeps touting.
If your cause for voting a certain way is based on your religion, then you have violated the concept of the separation of church and state. You have attempted to impose your religion on all other people, regardless of whether they are practitioners of your religion. That’s a bad thing.
If your cause for voting a certain way is based on your moral code, which may or may not have been shaped by your religion, then you’re a responsible citizen. That’s a good thing.
What you need to realize is that what’s right for you isn’t necessarily right for everyone. There is no one true religion for all people. There is a lot of overlap between religions and sects and philosophies and moral codes – religion is a method to systematically codify a moral code.
Personally, my vote on those two issues is exactly what you were predicting when you threw out that argument: I support same-sex marriage, and I’m against the death penalty. Both are decisions based on morality, but neither is limited solely to religious belief.
It’s my morality code, which was largely shaped by my religous belief, plus the notion of civil rights and equity and freedom and, yes, personal responsibility. The responsibility to vote according to my conscience, plus the responsibility to recognize that my personal moral code and my religion should determine how I behave, not necessarily everyone else in my community.
I still don’t get it. If a person has a fuzzy moral code sorta based on what they learned on Sesame Street, their vote is every bit as valid as someone else who has a fuzzy moral code sorta based on what they learned at Sunday School. Many people who vote don’t have rigorous philosophies, but rather have intuitive senses of what’s right and what’s wrong, and those intuitive senses may be based on all sorts of things.
While I’m a big proponent of maximal personal freedom (less so of maximal private property rights), I’m not going to tell someone that the foundation of their opposition to me is invalid. I might tell them they’re wrong, but not that their method is wrong.
Daniel
So if a same-sex marriage case reaches the Supreme Court, and they do not find in favor of it… you’ll agree it’s not a civil right?
And I don’t agree that marriage is in the same ballpark as dancing or masturbation. The latter two activities are private, requiring no government involvement. The former requires a governmental sanction.
Well if you don’t get it, then I don’t get it either, because what you said is basically the exact same thing I was getting at.
There is an objective, universal morality. There are basic truths of how people should behave, and those basic truths apply to everyone. You don’t lie, cheat, or steal, you don’t kill people, you treat other people with respect. That’s not a religious thing; that’s a human thing. Some of the most upstanding people I know, the people who I can really look at and say, “now they get it,” are atheists – not just reactionaries raised in a religious environment and railing against it, but people who were never exposed to a religious environment.
And it turns out that I agree with them more often than not. Is that because my religion is actually “right” and they just don’t know it? Is it because those universal truths are right and my religion is just a weak attempt to appropriate them as “God’s Will?” Or is it because religion is, as I tried to say, nothing more than an attempt to systematically define what these universal truths, a path (not The Path) towards doing The Right Thing?
But when voting is concerned, I’m entitled to tell them they’re doing it wrong. The rules are clear – religion and politics are to be kept separate. People have written that down on fancy paper, with big s’s that look like f’s. We’ve heard several times the argument: if you don’t agree with the principles of the Catholic church, then you’re not Catholic, and that’s valid. It goes the other way, too – if you don’t agree with the principles of the American voting system, including imposing a religious belief on non-believers, or using religious belief to justify a vote for which there is no rational secular justification, then you’re not American.
No. I’ll just think the Court got it wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.
So what? So does hetero marriage.
Maybe the issue should be posed a different way. Why should there be a special government sanction - including the conferment of special priveleges- for only one kind of relationship? How is it not theocratic and discriminatory for the government to offer special rewards to those who fuck in accordance to a specific religious code and exclude those who don’t?
Would it be ok to offer tax breaks and special priveleges to those who keep kosher?
In a sense, yes; and it’s a perfect example of how so many people just do not get the idea of understanding another person’s presuppositions.
The Catholic church is vastly, almost infinitely more concerned with people’s spiritual health than their physical. If they save a thousand people from disease, but all of those people still end up spending an eternity in seperation from God, in their eyes, the achievement is only a very limited success.
Which does not mean that saving bodies isn’t done – but the thousands of Catholic hospitals are do not exist for their own sake, but as part of a broader spiritual mission.
To a Catholic, nearly everything human beings do has a moral dimension. Trying to persuade them to see it your way while rolling your eyes at the concept of “sin” is like spitting into the wind.
I asked how to determine which of us was correct about the existence of a civil right. You answered that that’s what SCOTUS is for. But even if SCOTUS rules against you on the issue, you won’t acknowledge the correctness of the ruling, so evidently that’s NOT what SCOTUS is for.
Again: as between your view and mine, how do we determine which one of us is correct?
The least they can do is refrain from impeding those who DO care about human life. It would also be nice if they quit lying. If they’re unwilling to help, they can at least shut up and get out of the way.
There is no such rule.
There is a rule against the establishment, by the government, of religion.
There is a rule against government-imposed religious tests for public office.
THERE IS NO RULE REQUIRING VOTERS TO IGNORE OR MINIMIZE RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE WHEN CASTING THEIR VOTE.
None. Zero. A voter basing his vote entirely and completely on, “This is what God wants me to do,” is not un-American. And you cannot point to one single scintilla of law or regulation that says otherwise.
What you said above is wrong. There is no such rule.
** SolGrundy ** pretty much nailed what I was trying to say but let me add a litle bit.
In my view there are two aspects to a religions teaching, the first is a philosophical moral code and the second is a moral code for the adherents of that particular religion. The first sense is akin to looking at the major religions and their main prophet. Jesus Christ for the Christians, Mohammad for the Muslims and (I believe) Abraham for the Jews would be the main examples. If you just looked at these people as philospohers a clear moral code about what is right and wrong emerges. For example the story of the Good Samaratin teaches that we should help those in need regardless of who they are. Relying on these teachings for your moral code is permissible and just as valid as my philosophy. So for example if a person used this justification for sending humanitarian aid to North Korea I would have no problem with that.
The second moral code of religion are those activities that the adherents must perform to be in good standing with that religion. These are things like not using condoms and going to church on days of obligation for Catholics and keeping Halal/Kosher for Muslims and Jews. This moral code is not an acceptable argument for justifying a law. If a person votes to ban homosexuality on the basis that it violates the laws of their religion in my view is not an acceptable justification. It is in essence imposing your religion through government on the citizentry. Certainly this is in violation of the spirit of the first amendment if not the actual letter of the law.
To sum up its ok to justify laws on the philosophic teachings of your religion but it is not ok to justify laws on the grounds that your religion says you will go to hell if you commit that act.
Bricker, it seems to me as if you’re asking a question at the heart of ethics, and I’m not sure there is an answer to it. Do you have a method for determining this?
The government is the best system we’ve been able to come up with, and it’s a pretty shoddy system, all things considered. If that’s your answer, then surely you acknowledge that it’s not got an unblemished track record for determining “which one of us is correct.” If that’s not your answer, I’d like to hear what is.
Daniel
We can’t determine it definitively. All we can do is try to persuade each other. The Court makes decisions which are legally binding and in practice it determines whether something is a civil right but I see some rights as having a more abstract, theoretical reality than what is necessarily recognized by the court.
Let me turn the question back on you. Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution (I think you can guess where I’m going with this)?
Basing your vote on what God tells you to do is completely at odds with the tradition of religious freedom in this country. You are imposing your religious beliefs through government on others which is the exact opposite ideal this country was founded on. Is there a law against it? Of course not there are no laws regarding acceptable reasons for the way a citizen votes but it is absolutely the wrong way to decide and it is certainly un-American.
I hope you appreciate the irony of this.
This is the perfect parody of anti-abortion sentiment often tossed about these boards, and if a pro-lifer were to actually say this about those on the other side, he would be pilloried.
Those who don’t agree should just get out of the way. Is that it, Diogenes?
I disagree. As I’ve said, many people have fuzzy ethical systems based on intuition, or what their parents told them, or what some high school teacher told them, or what their pastor told them. Voting according to what you think is right is the essence of political power: the reason that you think it’s right is irrelevant.
Now, if you said that promoting personal freedom (domestically, at least) is a central American value, I could get behind you: I think that many people who are trying to restrict freedoms are behaving in an unAmerican fashion. But voting according to your conscience, whether or not your conscience is informed by religion, is wholly within the American tradition.
Daniel
You know the answer. Bricker believes that anything a majority elects to do is okay as long as it isn’t expressly limited by the Constitution. There are no freedoms implied. No rights protected that aren’t enumerated. Amendment IX means nothing. The only thing that matters is process. And beyond that, unless a state constitution limits it’s powers, it has full pwer to do anything it wants, as long as the majority agree.
What are you talking about? Is my reading comprehension this bad? How, if those thousands of people are behaving within doctrine, are they being separated from God?
I’ll ask you, are condoms allowed within marriage to prevent the spread of disease?
Yes or no.
Do you believe that a person can contract AIDS in other means besides infidelity?
Yes or no.
If yes, then how am I rolling my eyes at the concept of sin, when all I am asking is why is this being treated solely as a matter of sin, when it is not? I ask that the Church obey it’s doctrine, all of it’s doctrine; am I out of line?
Explain it to me…cause I don’t get it.
Yes, there is.
I believe it was an unwise decision to add this right to the Constitution, as was done in Griswold, but I can hardly deny that it was done and is now the law of the land.
But let’s go back to how we got here.
I said:
You replied:
I then pointed out that your argument was based on the existence of a civl right which I denied. Since we’ve now settled the fact that a civil right - in practice - is defined by law (and this one isn’t); and we’ve settled that any other definition is yours alone, and not one I have to share… then it seems you can hardly base your argument on it. You’re arguing for a civil right that doesn’t exist, except perhaps in your mind as an “abstract, theoretical reality.”
I contend that you’re wrong.
There are also millions of people in this country who disagree with you. I would suggest, in fact, that a majority of the people in this country disagree with you on this point.
So how do we decide who is right?