re: governments and religion

[MarginOfError]

MOE, that's interesting. So your position appears to be that an elected official must try to advance the will of the majority (supermajority?) of his constituents on any given issue regardless of his own personal preference on that issue? Or am I reading too much into your statement?

This is where my "If you were able to put together some body of evidence that explained and justified your position in objective terms," comes into play. As a legislator, if you feel the supermajority is advocating an errant position, it is your task to educate them as to why. As an example, if 90% of your constituency favors a bill that will bring $1 million dollars into the district to build a new bridge, you might vote against it and show the estimated $1 billion price tag on building the bridge. If the only way to make up the $999 million difference were to tax your constituency at higher levels, clearly voting against this bill might be the right course to take. But again, it's about educating the people. If you were to vote against the bill simply on the grounds that your religion teaches that crossing bodies of water is against God's will, I'd say you've failed in your office.

And, do the people have the right to take measures to preserve what they see as the existing "collective morality" in the face of a rising social movement to modify that collective morality? If so, what are the limits to that right?

People most certainly do have that right. But those measures are still subject to judicial review.

Since the same sex marriage debate is the clearest example in recent history, I'll make reference to it, but I'll make it clear right now that I'm really not interested in engaging in a constitutional debate on the matter in this forum.

Fifteen years ago, passing state constitutional amendments was viewed as a measure worth taking to preserve the existing collective morality in the face of the rising social movement. It was an advantageous measure because, in my understanding, it was thought that the state constitutional amendment required a higher requirement for reversal and was largely immune to judicial review. With supermajorities of the time advocating for preservation of the collective morality, it's really no surprise that law makers were willing to draft such amendments.

Fast forward to today, I'd argue that a legislator was acting poorly if he or she chose to co-opt such an amendment when public opinion is a dead 50/50 split and where similar amendments are being struck down. Even if the legislator wishes that such an amendment would stand, I think it goes against their duty of office to draft it when they understand that it won't stand. And it falls on the legislator to educate the constituency about that.

[MarginOfError]

How does this differ from a candidate who, after a lifetime of pondering upon his beliefs that may have been influenced by such sources as religion, forms policy decisions and doesn't admit that there was a chance a religion influenced him?

Is it all well and good to have strong opinions on various social policies, just as long as no spiritual path helped form them?

I'm more concerned with the attitude of "I believe X, therefore X should be law." If, on the other hand, the candidate can show me why X is of greater benefit to to overall society than not-X, then I'm willing to listen.

But saying, "I'm going to put extreme restrictions on abortion because of Psalms." doesn't fly with me.

[MarginOfError]

Why? Politicians campaign largely on their policy positions. Why should Pro-life voters care why I am pro-life?

I don't care why you are pro-life. I care why you think the entire society should be uniformly pro-life (and please, hecklers, let's leave the context of pro-life for this discussion as the political position).

Why should those who see gambling as detrimental to the community be concerned that my anti-gambling position is religiously motivated? Maybe there is a group out that that wants to promote sports-tourism, and they see casinos as competition. They'll likely support me, whether they agree with my theology or not.

Again, I don't really care why you are anti-gambling. I care why you think that same position should be extended over all individuals in our society.

So, why would you vote against me because of where I got my views? That almost seems discriminatory.

I've already extolled the right of the individual to discriminate while voting. so neener neener neener!

[Traveler]

What we can't forget is that Religion is the foundation of Morality for most people. They can't be separated.

So, unless you take morality out of law, taking religion out of law is as like taking air out of balloons.

Morality is the only possibility for making a law. In essence all that law is - is the power of one segment of society to force their morality on all other segments of society that does not accept the morality in question.

For example it would be a worthless endeavor to pass a law changing the value of pi or the gravitational constant.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

As a legislator, if you feel the supermajority is advocating an errant position, it is your task to educate them as to why. As an example, if 90% of your constituency favors a bill that will bring $1 million dollars into the district to build a new bridge, you might vote against it and show the estimated $1 billion price tag on building the bridge. If the only way to make up the $999 million difference were to tax your constituency at higher levels, clearly voting against this bill might be the right course to take. But again, it's about educating the people. If you were to vote against the bill simply on the grounds that your religion teaches that crossing bodies of water is against God's will, I'd say you've failed in your office.

But this, in my view, comes back to my original question to you: In the course of "educating" your constituents, aren't you trying to persuade them what is "good" and what is "bad" based on your own moral perceptions? One constituent thinks that the bridge will bring economic prosperity--they make a moral judgment that prosperity is "good". Another constituent argues that money is the root of all evil--they make a moral judgment that prosperity is not a "good". Who is the legislator to decide, once morality is barred from the calculus?

Or is it that morality can play an indirect role (through the education of the electorate so that the legislator obtains his mandate) but not a direct role (by the legislator's voting directly on his conscience)?

Edited February 6, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

But this, in my view, comes back to my original question to you: In the course of "educating" your constituents, aren't you trying to persuade them what is "good" and what is "bad" based on your own moral perceptions? One constituent thinks that the bridge will bring economic prosperity--they make a moral judgment that prosperity is "good". Another constituent argues that money is the root of all evil--they make a moral judgment that prosperity is not a "good". Who is the legislator to decide, once morality is barred from the calculus?

Or is it that morality can play an indirect role (through the education of the electorate so that the legislator obtains his mandate) but not a direct role (by the legislator's voting directly on his conscience)?

The "indirect role" explanation may be the best thing we come to.

Like I said earlier, "I'm going to restrict abortions because Psalms" is bad.

But "I'm going to restrict abortions because 7 independent, peer-reviewed studies have found that women who have abortions develop life ending lesions on their left pinkies, become addicted to Twinkies, and succumb to obesity and osteoporosis which puts a financial strain three times larger than the costs of caring for the unwanted children in orphanages for their first 18 years of life" might actually persuade me.

[Swiper]

What we can't forget is that Religion is the foundation of Morality for most people. They can't be separated.

I believe that man is naturally a moral man. It is in our genes to get along and cooperate with other human beings. We do not need religion to have morality.

[Just_A_Guy]

The "indirect role" explanation may be the best thing we come to.

Like I said earlier, "I'm going to restrict abortions because Psalms" is bad.

But "I'm going to restrict abortions because 7 independent, peer-reviewed studies have found that women who have abortions develop life ending lesions on their left pinkies, become addicted to Twinkies, and succumb to obesity and osteoporosis which puts a financial strain three times larger than the costs of caring for the unwanted children in orphanages for their first 18 years of life" might actually persuade me.

Perhaps; though I would argue that one may have a different set of morality that says that ending life is good (to prevent overpopulation), that lesions on left pinkies are great (evil left-handers!), that Twinkie addiction isn't a problem (I'm CEO of Hostess), and that obesity, osteoporosis, poverty, and orphaned children are all wonderful (adversity makes you stronger!).

Sure, I'm being a little facetious here; but the point I'm trying to make is that every "objective" argument still has a little moral judgment at its core. So if I say I'm OK with a legislator voting based on "objective evidence" but not "religion", then it seems to me that ultimately what I'm really saying is "I'm OK if a legislator bases his votes on morals that I agree with, but I'm not OK if he basis his votes on morals that I disagree with".

[Backroads]

I believe that man is naturally a moral man. It is in our genes to get along and cooperate with other human beings. We do not need religion to have morality.

I don't disagree with you, but finer points of morality and ethics can differ from group to group--in many cases formed by the specifics of a religion or philosophy.

[Backroads]

I'm more concerned with the attitude of "I believe X, therefore X should be law." If, on the other hand, the candidate can show me why X is of greater benefit to to overall society than not-X, then I'm willing to listen.

But saying, "I'm going to put extreme restrictions on abortion because of Psalms." doesn't fly with me.

Okay, I'm all right with this.

BUt, let's say Politician does believe in placing extreme restrictions on X because of what Psalms or the Quaran or the Wiccan Rede says. That is to say, his religious pursuasion has created his belief.

And let's say he can dish out all these reports and possibilities of outcome on why X should be restricted as well. He can make a very logical argument in his favor.

Is Politician still wrong for promoting a policy that does in fact relate to his religious beliefs?

(In reference to my aforementioned conversation with an odd girl, she said that his religious beliefs made all invalid as he was, at the heart of the matter, promoting his religion.)

[prisonchaplain]

I don't care why you are pro-life. I care why you think the entire society should be uniformly pro-life (and please, hecklers, let's leave the context of pro-life for this discussion as the political position).

I'm going to push your thinking on this. The very definition of the pro-life position is that everyone should comply with our notion that once conception takes place the life should be protected (perhaps with the exception of if that life was conceived through force, incest, or if the pregnancy threatened the mother's life). So you are asking me what? Why I think that? Why society should comply with my opinion? My argument is that MY reason is irrelevant. I might hold to this opinion because the Bible tells me so. Another politician might do so because she just thinks that a fetus is a human and should be protected. Yet another politico might hate promiscuous teens, and believe forcing them to carry babies to term will teach them a lesson. Come to think of it, why would "the Bible tells me so" be less legitimate than the last reason (which we'll argue is secular)?

Again, I don't really care why you are anti-gambling. I care why you think that same position should be extended over all individuals in our society.

And I ask again why it is less legitimate for me to say, "'Cause the Bible says gambling is ungodly," then for a politican beholden to the sports-tourism lobby to figure that closing casinos will drive business their way?

[mrmarklin]

I get nervous when governments categorize religions.

4. Germany forbids home-schooling--especially for religious reasons.

.

Fixed.

This goes back to the 1800s when the Jesuits were being political in Germany during Bismarck's time.

[Traveler]

I believe that man is naturally a moral man. It is in our genes to get along and cooperate with other human beings. We do not need religion to have morality.

I would tend to disagree; history seem to prove that man, in general, tends to lack morals. There can be "honor among thieves" and generally we will treat kith and kin according to morals but abandon the same morals for economic, religious, political and a wide variety of other purposes.

I would point out that current western society has no morals what-so-ever and the only social restraints are established by law. If you like I can site a great many examples - but I hope that specific examples would not be necessary.

Granted that religion (including traditional Christianity) has a sad history of moral inconsistencies. So much so that I have concluded as bad as morals have failed in such symbolic representations as the "Good Samaritan" -- to paraphrase Winston Churchill (concerning democracy) -- That religion is the worse institution engaged in by man - that is excepting all others.

Example: I know of nothing in history that compares to the religion-less Holocaustic genocide purges of Stalin that some estimate to be in excess of 100,000,000 men, women and children.

In essence religion has so been purged for our education that many do not know the role of religion in establishing civilizations and order of law in the vast written history of mankind.

I believe it is because of your ignorance of history that you have assumed that religion is a worthless element in the evolution of society. I see no evidence that human society would have evolved beyond the society of monkeys or any other beasts without some reliance on religion.

The Traveler

Edited February 8, 2014 by Traveler

[Finrock]

This was true when President George Washington advised the country a few hundred years ago and it is true today:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle (Source; Emphasis added).

-Finrock

Edited February 8, 2014 by Finrock
Misc.

[Swiper]

I would tend to disagree; history seem to prove that man, in general, tends to lack morals. "

I disagree with your disagreement. I do believe that man is naturally a moral man and wants to do good. Of course there always exceptions and those exceptions can be found among both religious and non-religious groups.

I would point out that current western society has no morals what-so-ever and the only social restraints are established by law. If you like I can site a great many examples - but I hope that specific examples would not be necessary.

Please do.

Granted that religion (including traditional Christianity) has a sad history of moral inconsistencies. So much so that I have concluded as bad as morals have failed in such symbolic representations as the "Good Samaritan" -- to paraphrase Winston Churchill (concerning democracy) -- That religion is the worse institution engaged in by man - that is excepting all others.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate

Example: I know of nothing in history that compares to the religion-less Holocaustic genocide purges of Stalin that some estimate to be in excess of 100,000,000 men, women and children.

"76% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

Stalin was a awful human being but the victims for his purges are estimated to be around 20 million people and not five times as many. BTW, do you want us to start counting the number of victims caused by Christianity throughout the years?

I believe it is because of your ignorance of history ...

You have no knowledge of my knowledge in history, so please refrain from assuming things about me because it makes you look like an ignorant jack***.

... assumed that religion is a worthless element in the evolution of society. I see no evidence that human society would have evolved beyond the society of monkeys or any other beasts without some reliance on religion.

I do not believe that religion is worthless element in the evolution of society, but I definitely believe that religion does not have monopoly on morality. If religion did not exist, humanity would still have moral values as it is necessary for a community to function.

[Finrock]

Good Evening Swiper. I hope you're having a good evening! :)

If religion did not exist, humanity would still have moral values as it is necessary for a community to function.

Tell me of a time when religion did not exist? I think your assertion necessarily presupposes that God does not exist, thus it is begging the question. In any event I don't think you can prove your assertion.

-Finrock

[Backroads]

do you want us to start counting the number of victims caused by Christianity throughout the years?

I've never cared for this argument. Blaming all those deaths solely on Christianity is an over-simplification of matters.

[Traveler]

I disagree with your disagreement. I do believe that man is naturally a moral man and wants to do good. Of course there always exceptions and those exceptions can be found among both religious and non-religious groups.

Really? Humans by nature are selfish. It takes discipline to overcome the natural selfish nature. The term "disciple" has the same root as the term discipline. I do not see any connection that someone would achieve un-selfishness without discipline based in the belief that there is something greater than the self - which is the essence of religion.

Please do.

Children aborted in numbers that exceed children born. Children currently being born that are more likely to be raised without both biological parents in the household than with both biological parents. Since there is no religion that teaches abortion and abandonment of children as moral - the reason must come from (and only come from) somewhere other than religion - which proves the necessity of religion as the engine of morals.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate

By definition good people are just people that align and discipline themselves according to morals taught in religion. Just because all boats that are affected by a rising tide of morals is not proof that any boats will lift themselves on their own.

"76% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

Stalin was a awful human being but the victims for his purges are estimated to be around 20 million people and not five times as many. BTW, do you want us to start counting the number of victims caused by Christianity throughout the years?

You have no knowledge of my knowledge in history, so please refrain from assuming things about me because it makes you look like an ignorant jack***.

Would you say that what I look like to you is an example of morals without religion? Would you consider the tenet of doing good to those that spitefully use you is a moral that is best acquired without religious devotion and belief?

I do not believe that religion is worthless element in the evolution of society, but I definitely believe that religion does not have monopoly on morality. If religion did not exist, humanity would still have moral values as it is necessary for a community to function.

Can you provide an example of a moral that was taught outside of any religion prior to being taught historically by a religion? Even if there is one - I do not believe that you can demonstrate that as the historical trend of society.

We do have a most interesting dilemma or paradox. That is the religious notion that man is created in the image of a moral universal g-d. So to believe man to be universally moral would have, of necessity religion as its origin.

The Traveler

[Lakumi]

you say more babies are being aborted then are being born, but the population of earth is growing

but you can't force, or rather, shouldn't force, belief and religion on people

nothing good can ever come from that, and as history has shown, things tend to go bad way before they get any better

history has also shown religion ignoring the morals they teach to people-they are just as guilty of terrible things as the common one it claims are sinning

Edited February 9, 2014 by Lakumi

[prisonchaplain]

We can't force faith on people. However, we force compliance every day. Many think the speed limits are too low--that 5-10 mph extra is no big deal. True enough--til you get a ticket. Likewise, I believe abortion is killing. If I convince the vast majority of Americans to believe that, we will see further restrictions, limitations, and even some prohibition. You may believe that fetuses are just appendages, but you still will see access limited. On the other hand, back in the 1970s, Washingtonians who were pro-Life still had to pay taxes that supported free abortions. Our state government argued, at the time, that the poor should have equal access to them.

So, no, beliefs and faith cannot be forced. Compliance usually can be.

[Dravin]

you say more babies are being aborted then are being born, but the population of earth is growing

While I have no clue if Traveler's assertion is correct, that Earth's population is growing isn't a rebuttal. All it means is despite the portion of live births to abortions that the number of live births is above replacement rate.

[Blackmarch]

I get nervous when governments categorize religions.

1. Many of the former Soviet states gave favor to sects with a long history, and required "new religions" to register, go through a waiting period, etc.

Fmr. Soviet Republics Limit Religious Freedom - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

2. France has a government agency that monitors religious practice, and, in the past, has labeled many groups considered mainstream in the U.S. as "mind-control cults."

Cults in France

3. Of course, many countries have state-favored religions, and persecute others.

Malaysia « Christian & Church Persecution

4. Germany forbids home-schooling--even for religious reasons.

German homeschoolers face harassment, jail - Baptist Press 4/23/2013 5:22 PM

5. France forbids religious headwear in many public institutions.

France's headscarf war: 'It's an attack on freedom' | World news | The Guardian

6. Even in the United States, our government threatens religious institutions with tax penalties if their "prophetic voice" is deemed too political. Religious institutions sometimes must comply with public policy rather than their tenants, or face loss of tax exemption. And, of course, business and landowners may no longer exercise discretion in who they do business with, based on religious and moral standards.

Maybe folk think government should have this power. I suppose that historically, most have. It would be better for governments, courts, and tax agencies to keep a respectful distance from interfering with religious entities, in my always humble opinion.

there has to be middle line somewhere. too far on the church side and church's can easily abuse power. too far on the government side and you get wrongful discrimination and harassment thats legalized.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not so comfortable with this, but the IRS seems to have taken on the role of referee--trying to keep churches from getting too political. Again, though, I wonder if the IRS had tried this in the '60s would the Civil Rights movement have played out as it did?

[Lakumi]

We can't force faith on people. However, we force compliance every day. Many think the speed limits are too low--that 5-10 mph extra is no big deal. True enough--til you get a ticket. Likewise, I believe abortion is killing. If I convince the vast majority of Americans to believe that, we will see further restrictions, limitations, and even some prohibition. You may believe that fetuses are just appendages, but you still will see access limited. On the other hand, back in the 1970s, Washingtonians who were pro-Life still had to pay taxes that supported free abortions. Our state government argued, at the time, that the poor should have equal access to them.

So, no, beliefs and faith cannot be forced. Compliance usually can be.

so compliance on something non religious people disagree with they should just accept?

don't think that's gonna happen

this isn't like a speed limit or no shirt no shoes no service thing, this is a far more serious issue, often going hand in hand with rights and the like

I suppose it also doesn't help that the arguments that religious people give mean absolutely nothing to the non religious

[Backroads]

so compliance on something non religious people disagree with they should just accept?

If the majority of the population agrees with the policy requiring compliance, yes.

don't think that's gonna happen

Well, if a minority finds a law completely unfair to their minority status, they have every right to work to change it and I do believe no law should completely punish a minority.

this isn't like a speed limit or no shirt no shoes no service thing, this is a far more serious issue, often going hand in hand with rights and the like

I suppose it also doesn't help that the arguments that religious people give mean absolutely nothing to the non religious

What, abortion?

I don't want to turn this into an abortion debate, but just because Person A doesn't get Person B's argument does not necessarily make the argument invalid.