quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I think the irony of this clause is that it has, in recent times, the principle behind it has been interpreted to mean something very similar to what it seems designed to prevent. It has been interpreted, I think, to more or less establish secularism as our national pseudoreligion.
Although it may not be correct to call secularism either a religion or set of religions, we can call it something similar that I am going to label "pseudoreligion" for the sake of this argument. As a pseudoreligion, it is similar to a religion in that it entails assumptions that define the way we go about making decisions about what is ethical, what should be valued, and how we should live our lives. It is also similar in that it entails assumptions that define the way we should look at the world, describe it, learn about it, and work within it. In short, although a secularism does not entail any ideas about spirituality or the supernatural, it DOES entail unproven claims about the same domains that religion does, can conflict and contradict religions in these domains, and act in a way that is generally similar to a religion.
Consider, then, the following common views on how government and religion should be separated:
- People claim that government actions must be based upon secular values and secular arguments. Or, in other words, the government cannot regulate something (like homosexuality) because Christian beliefs entail it being wrong, but it CAN regulate something purely on the grounds that secular beliefs entail it being wrong (as in the case of rape.)
- Many believe the government cannot teach Muslim or Mormon or Hindu views as the recognized truth in schools, but can teach secular views as fact.
- Many agreee that the government cannot include Christian symbolism like the Ten Commandments in public courtrooms or schools or other public places, but that the government is definitely allowed to bring whatever secular artifacts it wants.
And so on - you get the idea
If you look at these things, you can see how non-Christian religious groups would be oppressed in some way if we replaced "secular" with "Christian." For instance, imagine if we only allowed our government to base laws on Christian values and arguments, or if we only allowed Christian views to be taught in schools to the exclusion of others, or only allowed the Christian statues in our courtrooms. All of these things are exactly what it seems the First Amendment are designed to prevent, and yet we do all of them with secularism.
So why, if secularism covers the same territory as religion, do we allow this? Do the secularist assumptions not cover the same territory as religion, as far as our government goes? Is it any more fundamentally justifed?
One view is that secularism is a fair and neutral ground, so it's okay for government to use it. This is false - as some people accept the assumptiosn of secularism and some don't, so it's not neutral at all.
Another view is that secularism is rationally justified, while religion is not. This is largely false too, as we can't ultimately can't justify the basic assumptions of secularism (stuff like "actions aren't wrong unless they cause suffering to someone" or "there must be a 'rational' basis for calling something wrong") any better than we can justify the basic religious assumptions (like "what the Bible says is wrong is wrong.) Of course, those who believe in the basic tenets of secularism THINK it's justified and THINK everyone should believe it, but to have our government assume this is unfair to the minority that do not believe it.
A third view is that secularism is not a majority view, so it cannot be oppressive in the way Christianity would. This is false too, though, because many people who agree with Christianity ALSO agree with secularism (unlike with atheism, they are very much not mutually exclusive.) Secularism is MORE of a majority view than Christianity is, I suspect.
My argument is that we should NOT adopt secularism as a fundamental assumption of government, to the exclusion of all others. We should accept views based on God's word into pbulic discourse just as much as we accept views based on fundamental humanist assumptions. We should not exclude supernatural explanations of evidence from schools, and we should not teach that one explanation is necessarily right while the other is not when there is great disagreement over the matter. We should include public expressions of the influence religion has on our culture and thinking just as much as we include expressions of the influence of secularism, secular teachings, and secular scholars. The government should not endorse one set of ideas to the exculsion of others, whether that set is supernatural or not, or whether it is widely accepted or a minority view. All it needs to refrain from doing is claiming one group is right, or aligning itself exclusively to one group. That is the idea of church-state separation - not the exclusion of non-secular values, ideas, and views from the public realm.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's amusing that you completely discount the traditional arguments for the superiority of secular law. Let me restate them for you, since they are in fact rather compelling -- despite your dismissals.
1) Secular law is non-discriminatory. It elevates no specific group above any other group based solely upon group membership.
2) Secular law is non-arbitrary (and, indeed, rational). It is based on concrete evidence of harm and malfeasance, in the same way that secular history and/or secular science tend to be based on actual principles rather than simple fictions.
3) There is no default "secular philosophy," and no universal secular creed. Moreover, under secular law, those who DO subscribe to alternative creeds are free to do so.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
good point Tom.
Its fun to find enemies. It makes our fight seem so much bigger and nobler if there is a demon we are fighting.
There is none here. There is no "Secular Clergy" that wants to crush the Christian way of life.
There is no "Secular Pseudoreligion" that the liberals are pushing.
There is also no standard universal "Relgion" or "Christianity". Instead we have some churches that are conservative and some that are moderate, and a few that are even liberal, but most are a mixture of these terms on a mixture of things.
So when you say that your religious point of view is being blocked by Secularists, you are mistaken. It is being blocked by people who don't agree with your interpretation of doctrine, or your religion at all. They are trying to stop you from making your religion the law of the land.
You say, "According to my faith am my beliefs, Homosexuality is a sin."
Fine. I suggest that if you want to maintain good standing in your church, you don't commit any homosexual acts.
Not beleiving Jesus Christ is our savior, the only son of God, is a sin according to many Christian churches. Yet you would not expect a voting booth require us to say that before we are allowed to vote, would you?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Well said, Xap!
If we are to have a government by and for the people, then it must also reflect the beliefs its constituents have.
I do believe in separation of Church and State in that the State has no business establishing an approved state religion. But it also cannot simply shun people's opinions because they are developed from a religious belief.
Secularism may not be a religion, per se, but it is a belief system with its own dogma and basis for rules/beliefs.
It is no better or worse than any others, but simply is something a portion of the population adheres to. It should be afforded the same respect as other belief systems, but no more so than any other.
As a person who holds their religious beliefs close to the core of their being, I do feel that secularism has overstepped its bounds and has begun aggresively proselitizing its own belief system.
As an American, I feel I have the right to reject such things as I choose. I also have the right to look at things presented to me that have grown from a different belief system and accept them as well.
The current movement towards secularism does seem to have a rather draconian edge to it that seeks to quash anything stemming from a religious mindset. To follow such a path exclusively would be foolhardy and incredibly narrow-minded.
But it also boils down to an incredibly difficult situation in our society right now. The growing belief that no one can be deemed as "wrong." And that values are something that are as mutable as the very wind we form our voices from.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: 2) Secular law is non-arbitrary (and, indeed, rational). It is based on concrete evidence of harm and malfeasance, in the same way that secular history and/or secular science tend to be based on actual principles rather than simple fictions.
I’m no fan of laws inspired solely for religious reasons. However, this contention is just not true.
Any non-trivial debate about legal principles involves balancing competing rights and interests. Choosing to elevate one over the other without any higher evaluation criteria is, by definition, arbitrary.
For example, the Civil Rights laws place societal interest in the equal treatment of citizens by private individuals over the property rights of other individuals. I think it does so correctly, but it’s specious to pretend that secular law contains any justification for doing so.
There are lots of less controversial examples, as well. Look at the dispute over gun ownership. Generally, both sides make pragmatic arguments about whether or not gun ownership causes or prevents harm to individuals. But one side also makes the argument that ownership of weapons is a right to be protected, even if the pragmatic arguments favor the other side of the argument. What secular principle helps you pick between the other secular principles at issue here?
I generally favor laws only in cases where non-individual harm is involved. But I don’t pretend that this principle provides any reasoning for pick which harms should be regulated at the expense of individual rights.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Choosing to elevate one over the other without any higher evaluation criteria is, by definition, arbitrary."
*nod* Which is why certain regulations are not as well-written as others, and should specifically enumerate their reasons. However, the fact that not all secular laws are well-written is not a reasonable challenge to the rationality of secular law.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Tom, they may be compelling to a secularist like yourself, and most people in America are secularists (in that they have been raised to believe in the fundamental secular principles), but when you get down to comparing secularism to alternatives, they don't really prove secularism is better any more than arguments for any religion/pseudoreligion do. And we shouldn't be basing the secularism of our government on the fact that the majority thinks it's right - that's exactly what the separation of church and state is hoping to avoid. I mean, I think Christianity is compelling - doesn't mean it should become the law.
1) Secular law is non-discriminatory. It elevates no specific group above any other group based solely upon group membership.
Of course it does - it elevates academics, and those educated in secular ways of thinking. It hurts those who base their views on tradition and authoritative sources like the Bible, which are defined as "arbitrary" by secularism (see below).
2) Secular law is non-arbitrary (and, indeed, rational). It is based on concrete evidence of harm and malfeasance, in the same way that secular history and/or secular science tend to be based on actual principles rather than simple fictions.
It is no less arbitrary than Christianity or any religion is (unless you already accept the secular definitions of arbitrary). What you call concrete evidence of harm and malfeasance, as a person who believes in secularism, is no different from the way violations of God's law are concrete evidence of harm and malfeasance to certain Christian individuals. Christians don't believe the stuff in the Bible is just arbitrary stuff you know.
3) There is no default "secular philosophy," and no universal secular creed. Moreover, under secular law, those who DO subscribe to alternative creeds are free to do so.
Yes, there is. Secular philosophy includes such tenets as "there must be an observable reason for things to be defined as wrong", "human beings matter but supernatural things do not," "right and wrong should be determined based on consequences in this world," and so on.
There is no universal secular creed, but there is also no universal Christian creed. And few Christian groups would believe people should be banned from believing otherwise.
[ March 01, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I would like to point out that in most cases it is fine to teach "supernatural" explanations of the origins of the universe and the creation of earth and its inhabitants. However this should be done in the humanities classes NOT in the science classes.
Scientific study is a philosophical construct that precludes the idea of "and then a miracle occurred".
[ March 01, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I recommend you listen to OSC's "Secular Humanist Revival Meeting."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:*nod* Which is why certain regulations are not as well-written as others, and should specifically enumerate their reasons. However, the fact that not all secular laws are well-written is not a reasonable challenge to the rationality of secular law.
I'm not challenging the rationality of secular law. I just want to acknowledge its inherent limitations and, ultimately, arbitrariness. Even the choice to emphasize individual rights over public order is not a foregone conclusion based solely on secular reasoning.
Similarly, I don't want religious reasoning excluded from making the normative decisions necessary to implement secular law, as long as the principle implicated is within the "valid" scope of secular law.
Defining the word "valid" in the sentence above is, of course, difficult. Even the traditional reaosning limiting secular law to those areas which affect more than the individual requires defining what a valid "effect" is for regulation. It's a fascinating philosophical discussion that requires the presence of large quantities of beer to truly appreciate.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Tres, I'll concede one point: secularism is, indeed, based on the principle that it's possible to judge the consequences of actions based on observational evidence in this world and this lifetime.
If you discount this premise, I submit that the entire friggin' world makes no sense at all, and must be really disconcerting to people who aren't willing to believe in cause and effect.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
There are certain viewpoints that feel to me like they are widely accepted by The Powers that Be and are "preached from on high" that I don't agree with. Political Correctness comes to mind. Many of them are subtle, but it can feel oppressive. The idea that because Christian White Males ruled the world a century or less ago we have to build everyone else up and surpress the CWM is particularly distasteful to me. The idea of trying to make up for past inequality with more inequality is wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree that it is "possible to judge the consequences of actions based on observational evidence in this world and this lifetime." However, deciding which consequences are most deisrable when two compete is not possible based solely on observational evidence in this world and this lifetime.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Beverly: Ah, see, what you're confusing here is "secularism" versus "militant liberalism."
There's a distinction here, however, and I think it's important to keep in mind that they're not the same thing. You can't fairly lump one together with the other any more than you can say that Catholics are anti-Semitic.
-----
Dag: I agree that there's always the danger of not thinking far enough ahead, or looking for substantial evidence.
[ March 01, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Tres, I'll concede one point: secularism is, indeed, based on the principle that it's possible to judge the consequences of actions based on observational evidence in this world and this lifetime.
If you discount this premise, I submit that the entire friggin' world makes no sense at all, and must be really disconcerting to people who aren't willing to believe in cause and effect.
It makes no sense as long as you hold to the belief that you cannot get truth from non-secular sources. There are many people that believe things that they know cannot be proven, and the world seems to make sense to them.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
But, Tom, I never called it Secularism. I merely inferred that all my life I have felt that their is a widely accepted ideaology amongst those in authority that I disagree with.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Porter and I read a book together (can't remember the title now) about what is real and human communication. The author's whole point was that there can be no absolute reality, that it is all based on perception. I thought it was funny that he was stating that as an absolute reality.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yeah, the book basically said "It is morally wrong to say that anybody is morally wrong to disagree with you, and it is morally wrong to think otherwise."
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
so the book was advocating moral relativism.
---
You know I had this long response to tom's first post and it all came down to the fact that the present laws in the USA diverge greatly from the ideas that tom listed. Which has absolutly nothing to do with the discussion.
[ March 01, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: luthe ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
An expectation that a law must have validity without religious connections seems to me to be an obvious thing because different religions have different priorities and different rules, yet the law must apply equally. Why should I obey a law decreed by a god I don't believe in?
Is it overused at times? Sure. Are religionists unfairly prosecuted or repressed because of it? Yes. But that shows us where the problems lie, not that we should throw the whole thing out.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* Another good point, of course, is that it's foolish to hold up the laws of the United States as classic examples of what the laws of a "secularist's" ideal society would look like, as they very clearly aren't. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Ah, Tres, the perceptual devil's advocate.
I agree that secularism is analogous to a religion in the sense that you claim. But secular norms are not analogous in this way to religious norms. The reason is that secular norms underlie religious belief systems as much as secular ones.
Here is what I think is basically an accurate picture of the polity: everyone believes the "secular" facts, i.e. the facts about the material world. These include facts about what is manifestly harmful to people. From these facts about harm arise a set of secular norms -- ways in which we ought to act in order to prevent harm.
Everyone, including religious people, pretty much accepts these norms.
Then there are a great number of additional systems of belief: the religions. Most of these do not involve the denial of the material/secular facts. Instead they involve the belief in a number of other facts over and above the material facts. These lead to the acceptance of religious norms, which follow from the supposed religious facts, by the segment of the population which believes in a particular religion.
The upshot is that there is a set of secular norms which everyone in the community accepts, as well as many sets of religious norms, each of which is accepted by one particular faction. Can't you see why it might make some sense to base our government on the commonly agreed-to secular values and material facts, rather than any particular set of religious ones, when the secular norms are fully compatible with the practice of nearly all of the religions in question?
What results is a system in which everyone in the community obeys the secular norms, and additionally those who are religious keep to their religious norms. There is no need for everyone in the community to become a secularist in order for the community to obey secular norms.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This argument is based on the assumption that practically everybody in the polity (fun word!) beleives in the secularist doctrines. That simply isn't the case.
Take creationism for example. There are a lot of people that do not beleive in the secular truth of the creation of the species.
There are many cases where the secular view is completely opposed to religious views. Secularism is not a shared belief system. It is one of many competing belief systems.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My point, however, is that if secular humanism did not exist it would be necessary to invent it. When used properly, secularism should be what you get when you strip all the religious doctrines away.
What should we base our laws on, to apply equally to those from all religions?
What should we teach in schools, to be of equal use to those from all religions?
I believe our laws must be as inclusive as possible, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. I believe our schools should teach what has been observed, and let the families and the churches teach how that can be interpreted.
Secularism, properly applied, should mean "this is what we can see, and how we've decided is the best way to live with each other." The hows and the whys should be the province of religion.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Take creationism for example. There are a lot of people that do not beleive in the secular truth of the creation of the species.
Actually, I think this is the only example of somewhat widespread religious disagreement with established facts about the material world. As such, it merely shows that those who accept creationism are being inconsistent. In all other areas of life they are more than happy to accept the facts as discovered by mainstream science. So the general norm of believing science and acting as though it were true is quite widespread.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
It's useful to note that what are being called "secular norms" are not being adopted for the sake of being secular. We base our society on what we believe to be the minimal set of principles necessary to coexist. We then allow citizens the freedom to add whatever belief system they choose on top of it, up to the point where they may contradict. You can call the initial set of rights "secular," but their essence is actually compatibility, not ties to religion or lack thereof.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: quote:Take creationism for example. There are a lot of people that do not beleive in the secular truth of the creation of the species.
Actually, I think this is the only example of somewhat widespread religious disagreement with established facts about the material world.
I'll give you another one. Many people have believe that the earth is running out of room, and that if we don't curtail our population growth very soon, there will be widespread disaster.
Here's a quote from the Doctrine and Covenants, and book of scripture of the LDS faith: "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare". This says to many that we don't need to be concerned with overpopulation -- there is enough, and to spare.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Richard, you make an excellent point. Seclarism has served America throughout our entire history, and we do need some sort of middle ground. But part of the argument that has been made is that secularism has been increasing its reach into things that are not middle ground. I can't say if that's true or not, but many people feel that way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But the particular set of norms identified as "initial" are not the only set that could be chosen using that criteria. So it's no use pretending that that set of norms is substantiated by any fundamental normative principles that are objectively provable.
My view of the correct restriction on which moral principles should be given legal force derives from a principle that as much as possible should be left up to the individual conscience, which means limiting legal restrictions to areas which fundamentally effect how people interact. This principle is derived from my religious beliefs, though.
Dagonee
Edit: this was a response to Richard's post.
[ March 01, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Can't you see why it might make some sense to base our government on the commonly agreed-to secular values and material facts, rather than any particular set of religious ones, when the secular norms are fully compatible with the practice of nearly all of the religions in question?
The assumption that we should base decisions solely on agreed-upon values and not on contraversial values is flawed. For instance...
A: I think the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein was removed from power. B: I agree. A. I think we should invade Iraq to do that. B. I think preemptive strikes are wrong. A. Well, since we disagree on the validity of preemptive strikes, we must not factor that in to our decision. We must base our decision SOLELY on the assumption that the world would be better off without Saddam - since that is what we agree upon. Therefore, we should invade Iraq.
This is unfair to B. Why?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:But the particular set of norms identified as "initial" are not the only set that could be chosen using that criteria.
Didn't say they were. The fact that Jefferson and Madison took their cue from Enlightenment philosophers is irrelevant; it doesn't make us a Deist nation.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Come on. I doubt more than 1,000 people nationwide who have given that issue any sort of thought would accept that passage over the evidence of population growth and the simple mathematical fact that the doubling rate of a population leads to exponential growth.
You might believe that the evidence points another way, but anyone who would actually take that passage as having any relevance to the modern issue of population control is too irrational to productively take part in society. It's as if there were a scriptural passage stating "there is no such thing as a flightless bird," and those reading it denied the existence of kiwis and penguins.
Anyway, I'm not denying that there are fringe cases like this one. I'm merely denying that any significant fraction of the population would be nuts enough to actually deny any palpable scientific findings -- other than the strange special case of evolution, which a number of people seem to hate -- on the basis of scriptural writings alone. First, there aren't that many claims about observable phenomena made in the Bible. Second, most of the remaining passages (including the LDS one you mention, I'm sure) can be read charitably so as to make room for empirical inquiry.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Xaposert, you skipped a step.
A: I think the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein was removed from power. B: I agree. A. I think we should invade Iraq to do that. B. I think preemptive strikes are wrong. A. Why?
I couldn't respond unless I knew how the discussion progresses from that point. While they may both agree that Saddam Hussein should be removed, they may disagree on how that should be accomplished, what the timetable for that should be, the priority of such a move compared with other needful things, and how much involvement the U.S. and the U.N. should have.
You'd have been better off choosing a situation when religious principles are the ones being regulated, as in the case of abortion. The laws of abortion hinge on the legal definition of "human" and that's definitely a place where secularism and religion will conflict. But for the most part our laws must be based on mutual principles, and not any specific religious belief.
[ March 01, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The fact that Jefferson and Madison took their cue from Enlightenment philosophers is irrelevant; it doesn't make us a Deist nation.
I didn't say it did. But our system of government is based on a set of first principles that are not objectively provable, which in puts them on the same footing as any other set of first principles, including religious.
I happen to think it's a good set of principles in general, because it allows different sets of first principles to coexist in a relatively peaceful way and have meaningful input into political decisions.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Could be anything, it shouldn't matter.. how about this-
B. Because they are just wrong by nature.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:This is unfair to B. Why?
Because the example is so minimally pared-down that it bears no resemblance to the sort of ethical decision-making that actually goes on in government.
For one thing, we are talking about which norms should be used as the basis for law, not which individual actions should be taken by our representatives. "Saddam Hussein should be removed from power" is not a norm. It's an individual judgement which is surely based on a norm.
Also, the way you've cast your example the agreed-upon value implies the value that A holds but B disagrees with. If that's true, then B is being inconsistent. Otherwise A's argument "The world would be better without Hussein, therefore remove him from power" would be invalid.
So in your example, either A is in error or B is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You might believe that the evidence points another way, but anyone who would actually take that passage as having any relevance to the modern issue of population control is too irrational to productively take part in society.
I'm going to have to assume that you didn't realize how arrogant that sounded. You are saying that because I believe that we will never run out of room or food on this earth, that I have apparently am not able to participate productively in society, all other evidence notwithstanding.
I didn't pull that out of a hat: I took something that I believe that I know contradicts the rational evidence. I am very aware of the principle of exponential growth. I just don't think that we'll ever get to the point of disaster.
As an engineer, I am no stranger to rational thought and analysis. It's just that I don't base all of my belief system on demonstrable evidence. I am a rational being, but not a purely rational being.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Could be anything, it shouldn't matter.. how about this-
B. Because they are just wrong by nature.
On the contrary, "why" should matter more than anything else. From your examples I'd rather not have our policies set by either A or B.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I'm going to have to assume that you didn't realize how arrogant that sounded.
You're right, I didn't. Sorry about the tone of the post. I assumed that since you said "many" believe that the passage implies the world will never become overpopulated, rather than "I believe this," you were not including yourself among the believers. If you had presented the view as your own that would've changed my opinion very little but my expression of it quite a lot.
quote:I didn't pull that out of a hat: I took something that I believe that I know contradicts the rational evidence. I am very aware of the principle of exponential growth. I just don't think that we'll ever get to the point of disaster.
And your only basis for this belief is spiritual?
I find this seriously perplexing. Why do you believe, as I presume you do, that scientific inquiry is accurate in other cases but not in this one? What sort of evidence could shake your belief that the world is not and will never be overpopulated? Widespread starvation? Destruction of arable land, especially in the densest human-occupied regions such as China and India? Some of these signs are already apparent.
This is completely different, I think, from believing in God or angels or some such on scriptural basis. These are beliefs that cannot obviously be falsified by any possible evidence. But your disbelief in overpopulation must be falsifiable. There is an obvious way that the material world would change if it became overpopulated. What if those changes were to happen? Would you abandon your belief then? At what point do you begin to trust evidence as regards this question, and why?
quote:As an engineer, I am no stranger to rational thought and analysis. It's just that I don't base all of my belief system on demonstrable evidence. I am a rational being, but not a purely rational being.
I've been convinced by what I know of decision theory that (insofar as beliefs are concerned) one cannot be a rational being without being purely rational. You can't consistently have a rational method for forming beliefs about one topic and an irrational method for forming beliefs about another topic. If you do, I will be able to draw you into a "Dutch book," or a wager which you will lose no matter the outcome.
Of course, other mental states besides beliefs, such as emotions, are not bound by constraints of rationality in this way, so it is still possible to be "irrational" in that sense.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Details Destineer.... but if you like, here's an example about norms and laws:
A: I think certain religious groups are more likely than others to cause terrible terrorist attacks on American soil. B: I agree. This seems to be true. A: I also think we should try to avoid terrorist attacks on our soil. B: I agree with that too. A: So, I think we should ban all those religious groups more likely to cause terrorism. B: Well, I think people have a right to practice whatever religion they want, freely and openly. So, we can't use that method. A: Well... I think they don't. And since we disagree on the existence of that right, it shouldn't be factored into our government's decisions. So, we are going to ban any religious group associated with terrorism - that will be our new norm.
So is this fair or unfair towards B? Why or why not?
Edit: And if A wants to know WHY B thinks there's no right, B just says because he or she sees no evidence why there would be such a right.
[ March 01, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
We believe that God is wiser than man is. If God says something, it is true. Man uses science and logic to try and understand the world. Even when observations are correct, wrong conclusions may be reached if some information is missing. How many times has one theory of the universe had to be discarded when new information is presented? How many times yet will it happen?
On the subject of overpopulation, I trust what I believe God has said. I believe that despite crowded conditions in parts of the world, God knows a way for all His children to live and be well supported on this planet, or that God knows that through other phenomenon, the world will never reach so high a population as scientific evidence suggests.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: And your only basis for this belief is spiritual?
You seem to be saying that I should be allowed to believe in whatever I want, as long as it does't crose *this* line or *this* line. Religion should confine itself to the goings on of the afterlife, and stay out of it's believer's current lives.
Religious beliefs are not something that you can compartmentalize into one part of your life, or into one part of the universe. It's like what you said about being a rational being -- if you don't believe in a religion that affects every aspect of your life, then it's not much of a religion. I don't believe in a religion that stays "safe" by never saying anything that can be refuted.
I believe in a universe where God is smarter than man, and where God sometimes tells man things that he couldn't have figured out on his own.
What would happen if I were proved to be wrong? Good question. I'd have to look at it all over again.
The most obvious weak link in my chain is my interpretation of what I believe to be divinely inspired scripture. Does that verse really mean what I think it means? Does it mean that we *cannot* run out of space/food, or that we won't because we'll be smart enough to not let that happen?
Now, I don't think that it's something unworththy to be examined carefully. But in examining this issue, I will naturally take the above verse into consideration. Why? Believe I believe that it comes from the most intelligent Being in the universe, and even if I don't understand it yet, there is truth there.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Tres, let me parse out what your hypothetical people A and B are saying to show you why there's a problem here:
Either A's argument is unsound or B is contradicting himself by believing V1 and V2 but not V3. Looking at the specific example you give, I would judge the former.
The main problem with both your examples is that you take the agreed-upon values to imply one of the disputed values. If that were true, it would be easy to show that one of the speakers is wrong. If it were false, there could be no basis for A to compel B to follow the disputed value.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
OSC-fan, I'll be blunt: you should listen to these conversations for a while before participating in them. Atheism is not a religion, as we've previously discussed several times on this board, and neither do the vast majority of atheists consider it one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, secularism and atheism are not the same thing. Secularism basically says "I believe in what I can see". Atheism says I "I believe that there is no God, even though I know that it can never be proven"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, more properly stated, atheism is "I do not think there is a god because I see no evidence to suggest that god exists."
What I call evangelical atheism -- which certainly does exist, but which is a very small subset of the larger philosophy -- is "I believe there is no God, regardless of the evidence or lack thereof."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Is atheism and secularism the same thing?
Clearly not, at least the way the terms have been used in this thread. Atheism is the view that God does not exist. Secularism is the view that God should have no bearing on what sort of government we form.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I would say that most people, including the vast majority of believers, would say that you cannot prove the existence of God to a non-believer.
But then, there's the agnostics. They say that it is impossible to ever know if there is or if there isn't a God.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:But then, there's the agnostics. They say that it is impossible to ever know if there is or if there isn't a God.
Or that they simply don't know yet, but the possibility for change is still open.
[ March 01, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Thanks again OSC-Fan for pointing out the problem in the arguments.
Some of the conservative religious in our midst have trouble distinguishing between religion and non-religion. Why? Because they dedicate thier whole life to religion and have trouble fathoming how anyone can not do the same.
So that Atheusm must be, in reality, a religion. So that Secular logic must be, in reality, a religion.
They do not comprehend how someone can live without a church, a minister and set of written words to guide them in every aspect of their life.
I salute them and their faith.
However, not everyone who seeks God does so through the church, or the bible. Not everyone who is believes in evolution is un-Christian. Christians do believe and teach that the world is running out of room, that the environment needs to be protected, and that God created the universe through the process of evolution.
There is a call on this thread to do away with Secularism and replace it.
I ask with what?
We cannot turn our country over to the non-secularists, for the simple reason that there is no unified group of non-secularists. There are a wide range of religions that exist in this country.
Are you suggesting that we turn this country over to a specific religion? How about Christianity? We can let the Christians rule, after all, their fringe members claim that this is a Historically Christian Country. But which Christian church should it be? Pat Robertson has a lot of people on his TV Show. But the Catholic Church seems to have a strong, and growing, presence here. Maybe we should vote on it. Whoever has the most votes gets to rule this democracy. And if they want to push their own limited sects beliefs, they have earned the right.
Of course, they may not recognize the Mormon's as "true Christians" but I'm sure they won't treat you any worse than the Muslims, Jews, and Wiccans.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, no... this is the argument: A: V1 B: V1 A: V2 B: V2 A: V1 & V2 -> V3 B: Sure, that looks true, until you realize V4. V4 & V1 & V2 -> not V3. Therefore not V3. A: I disagree with V4, therefore V4 can't be considered here. Therefore V1 & V2 -> V3. Therefore V3.
In ethics there are things that appear to be right under one set of conditions, but that become wrong when an additional condition (V4) is added. For instance, if two guys are strapped to a railroad track and are about to be hit by a train, it SEEMS like you should switch the train to a different track. But if some premise V4 tells you that there are 10 people on the other track, it reverses this conclusion. Furthermore, if we ignore V4, we will end up killing the 10 people and doing wrong, even though we did what seemed right based on the more limited assumptions.
This is the problem with only considering agreed-upon factors. When you say "V1 & V2 -> V3" you necessarily also are assuming that there are no other factors that would negate that claim - you are assuming there is no V4. It's a hidden assumption!
So, to take a more practical example: If you say that gay marriage doesn't cause any suffering for anyone, therefore it is okay, there is a hidden assumption that there are no other things that would negate that conclusion - things like "God exists and we should obey him and he says no gay marriages". Thus, even though we don't explicitly mention God in the issue, we are making hidden assumptions that either He doesn't exist or He allows gay marriage - which is unfair and unequal to people who believe otherwise.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:There is a call on this thread to do away with Secularism and replace it.
I ask with what?
With nothing.
Isn't that what the Constitution calls for - no establishment of a government position on religion? Why would secularism have to be replaced with something?
[ March 01, 2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Tres, the problem with your "logic" is that it's not logical.
If A and B agree on three things, and it logically follows that those three things MUST lead to a fourth thing, it is irrational for A and B to disagree on the fourth thing.
The only way logic can explain the above is to state that those three things do NOT necessarily lead to a foregone conclusion.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Well, no... this is the argument: A: V1 B: V1 A: V2 B: V2 A: V1 & V2 -> V3 B: Sure, that looks true, until you realize V4. V4 & V1 & V2 -> not V3. Therefore not V3. A: I disagree with V4, therefore V4 can't be considered here. Therefore V1 & V2 -> V3. Therefore V3.
I see what you are trying to say, but B's last statement is inconsistent with A's second to last statement, so one of those two has to be wrong. In fact, if B's last statement should be true, it looks to me like in line 5, A should've said
V1 & V2 & not-V4 -> V3
and thus his argument for V3 is invalid.
While this is a problem with the specifics of your example, I see now that it's not a problem for the overall point you're trying to make. What you're saying is that any moral judgement involves many of these "not-V4" type premises, and that some of these, such as "there is no God who disapproves of homosexual marriage," are pseudo-religious.
Interesting.
My first inclination is to appeal to the social contract. If believers of many disparate religions are to come together in a society with nonbelievers, they're going to need some laws. That's the problem with your reply to Dan. You can't replace secular laws with nothing. Then you'd have no laws.
There is also a certain practical ease to dealing only with secular questions when you're making laws. Material harms can be debated, and you can convince someone that he's wrong about whether ousting Hussein will really do any good. Spiritual harms, on the other hand, tend to lead to impasse. And as Dan has pointed out, if you accept the spiritual norms of one group as your laws you have alienated everyone else in the society.
Besides the fact that religious norms which do not connect up or coincide with secular norms can in most cases easily be observed by believers regardless of what nonbelievers are doing in the meantime.
Also, in your most recent example of the train I note that the unknown factors which affect the decision in this case are not themselves values -- they are matters of fact. You call them "considerations." I feel like this is symptomatic of some hole in your reasoning, but I'll have to get back to you on it because I have homework to do now.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So, to take a more practical example: If you say that using medicine and other healing arts eases pain and suffering and saves lives, therefore it is okay, there is a hidden assumption that there are no other things that would negate that conclusion - things like "God exists and we have no right to interfere with his chosen plan". Thus, even though we don't explicitly mention God in the issue, we are making hidden assumptions that either He doesn't exist or He permits our use of medicine - which is unfair and unequal to Christian Scientists.
[ March 01, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Exactly what I was thinking Chris!
quote: If believers of many disparate religions are to come together in a society with nonbelievers, they're going to need some laws. That's the problem with your reply to Dan. You can't replace secular laws with nothing. Then you'd have no laws.
It's not that we need to replace our laws. It's just that we need to get rid of the idea that their justification must be based in secular logic. And when I say we should replace it with nothing, I mean we should not establish any particular way in which we should evaluate possible laws. We should just let people evaluate them based on whatever they see fit, secular or religious.
And this is not to say that I think we should start enforcing religion by law. No - the government should stay neutral in matters of religion, itself. All I am changing is suggesting that we do not try to end the influence of religion on other matters that the government is entitled to legislate.
Example 1: Passing a law requiring school children to "Praise Jesus the Savior" in class, for secular reasons (such as because we determine it's healthy to do, or something like that.)
This is still wrong, in my view, because it is forcing a religion on people, even if it is done for secular, nonreligious reasons.
Example 2: Passing a law banning gay marriage for religious reasons.
This, I think, is not necessarily wrong. Even though it is based on religious logic, it is something within the government's sphere of influence.
Secularism, I think, would say we should not have either of these. My view is that the first is a violation of church and state, so we should not have it, but the second should be fine.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Our legal system isn't set up to assign "reasons" to laws. If citizens vote for a law based on religious convictions, that's fine, but not at all comparable to the way you phrased it. Secularism merely says that laws cannot depend on external beliefs for their justification.
[ March 01, 2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
quote:Example 1: Passing a law requiring school children to "Praise Jesus the Savior" in class, for secular reasons (such as because we determine it's healthy to do, or something like that.)
This is still wrong, in my view, because it is forcing a religion on people, even if it is done for secular, nonreligious reasons.
Because it’s a hypothetical example , I’ll leave alone the idea that there is any way, in any realm of possibility, that forcing school children to praise the savior Jesus could be justified for secular reasons. But I don’t see any difference in forcing school children to follow a certain religion’s doctrine on praising the Lord during school hours and forcing homosexuals to follow a certain religion’s doctrine on gay marriage.
quote:Example 2: Passing a law banning gay marriage for religious reasons.
This, I think, is not necessarily wrong. Even though it is based on religious logic, it is something within the government's sphere of influence.
All laws are within the government's sphere of influence. If the government passed the law in your first example, that would then be in the government’s sphere of influence. You’re using circular logic. You’re saying, “It shouldn’t be wrong for the government to pass laws about marriage based on religious beliefs because the government can pass laws about marriage.”
quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The reason for the concept of separation of church and state is so that the government will not be in a position of enforcing religious beliefs and ideology on citizens who do not follow the tenets of that religion. The constitution clearly says, ”no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This goes beyond saying, “The government will never force you to praise Jesus.” It also has to include saying, ”The government will never force you to live by laws that are solely derived from ANY religion’s doctrine.”
Secularism would say, “Before the government can pass a law banning gay marriage, we must first see concrete evidence that gay marriage is harmful to others."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Exactly what I was thinking Chris!
Actually, I took Chris's example to be a reductio ad absurdum of your view. Or do you think it would be consistent with the Constitution for a hypothetical Christian Scientist majority to ban hospitals?
More tomorrow.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think it would definitely be consistent with the Constitution to ban hospitals.
That's exactly my point - that separation of church and state does not and should not prevent people and the government they control from doing otherwise allowable things for religious reasons.
quote:All laws are within the government's sphere of influence.
Not so - the Constitution restricts our government's capacity to pass laws in some areas. The first amendment restricts the government from forcing people to do things like praise Jesus, go to church, believe certain religious views,etc - regardless of the reason.
quote:The constitution clearly says, ”no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This goes beyond saying, “The government will never force you to praise Jesus.” It also has to include saying, ”The government will never force you to live by laws that are solely derived from ANY religion’s doctrine.”
No, it doesn't. It only restricts the government's ability to force a given religion on the people. It says the government cannot say one religion is right or wrong, or make people follow one religion over another.
A law banning gay marriage doesn't force religion on people any more than a law banning murder does, because neither of these are religion - they are other activities that religion simply has views about, views that might effect our judgement of them. But when you say you can't marry a member of the same sex, it doesn't imply you must start acting or believing like a Christian, or that Christianity is right. Nor is it something that's going to try to pressure or convince people to favor Christianity over anything else. Thus it is in no way forcing religion on anyone.
However, the notion that religious people can't base their support of certain issues on religion IS an establishment of secularism as a national pseudoreligion, and IS forcing secularism on them. As I illustrated earlier, even though secularism does not explicitly say so, it necessarily implies other religions are wrong - and that only material concerns should matter to us. It is the practical equivalent to the government calling all religions wrong, despite the fact that it does not come out and say it.
quote:Secularism merely says that laws cannot depend on external beliefs for their justification.
No - it says laws cannot depend on RELIGIOUS external beliefs. It appears perfectly fine with equally unproven secular external beliefs - things like "people should have equal rights" or "we should help the downtrodden."
[ March 02, 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well put, Xaposert.
The constitution says nothing about where our motivations for laws come from. In Utah, it is against the law to buy alchohol in a grocery store on Sunday. Why? I have no doubt that it is mostly because of the large Mormon population out here. It is within the realm of what the state can pass laws on, i.e., the control of alchohol sales, but the motivation comes from people's religious beliefs.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Of course, tres, while you say we can act as you have outlined (which I still don't completely buy, though I suspect it actually works closer to your way today than a true pure secularism that you decry), it doesn't follow that we should.
After all, one of the reasons the Christian Scientists aren't waging guerrilla warfare (aside from the denomination's general pascifist leanings), is that they can opt out easily and freely. They just can avoid hospitals.
Coming from C.S. country (eastern MA), I learned about them at a young age, from parents and teachers, as it came up, and it was dealt with by saying "some folks believe like this..." No overt judgment was made.
-- SILLY ON I think we should replace all the hospitals with amusement parks, since it is well documented that over the course of this republic, more people have died in hospitals than amusement parks.
Plus I like roller coasters. And cotton candy.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Mr. Head
I agree, there are all sorts of laws like that here in MA too (go Puritans!). Because of the separation of legislative from judicial, the only way it would change is if people decided to do it, or someone appealed it on Constitutional grounds through the courts.
As it stands, there hasn't been a desire to do either, so it remains.
On a related note, a friend from college went to public schools in an upstate NY town, and until some time in middle/high school, they had RELIGION classes. Specifically Christian religion. It was only until an atheist family objected that they stopped.
Nothing ever gets changed cleanly, there are always holdovers. That doesn't mean that we should continue to operate this way.
-Bok
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Of course, tres, while you say we can act as you have outlined (which I still don't completely buy, though I suspect it actually works closer to your way today than a true pure secularism that you decry), it doesn't follow that we should.
Well, I think we should if we wish to be equal and not suppress religion opinion, for the reasons I mentioned above.
This is not to say we need to start pushing religious values more than we do. I'm not saying Christian Scientists are making a mistake by not pushing to get hospitals banned. (I mean, I believe premartial sex is wrong, but I'd be opposed to a ban.) I'm just saying those who DO wish to push their religious values more, should be able to if they wish.
Truthfully, I would much prefer the secular America to Pat Robertson's America. Ironically, I think it would even be more consistent with Christian values. But those who disagree with me should be able to have their say, even if they disagree with me for purely religious reasons, and they shouldn't be rejected with a simple "religious views don't count as reasons to support a law."
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm amazed that atheism could be considered something other than a religion. What is it then? It takes an extreme amount of faith to hear testimonies from everyone around you and yet continue on in the belief that there is not a God. It takes faith to believe that everyone who has religious epiphany of some sort is wrong. It takes faith to believe that everything will always work according to what you see.
It takes unbelievable faith to look at all the people all over the world and say, "I'm right, you're wrong" on just about any topic. Almost everyone does this, but what is the basis for their belief? My arrogance is based on a belief in God, and is therefore arrogance in him. But an atheist's arrogance is based on himself, and what HE thinks. It takes alot of faith in yourself to maintain this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Two points, PSI, which we've covered on other threads on this topic:
1) Faith is not synonymous with religion. Religion is a structure built around shared faith, but requires more than mere belief in something.
2) It takes less "faith" than you might think to hear hundreds of thousands of mutually contradictory testimonies from people who seem no more enlightened or happy or principled than you are and conclude that they haven't actually experienced a higher power.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I takes faith to build a belief in atheism based on this. Now, choosing agnosticism (sp) would make more sense.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I understand where everyone is at with this.
Its not that you want Secularism out of the law, replaced by religion. Its that you want it out of the debate about laws. To say, "My reason is right because it isn't based on faith" is a bad argument.
The advantage that Secular debate has over Religious debate is that Secular arguments can have answers. You should be able to prove whether Law A or Law B is better in the long run, given a finite tangible goal. People on both sides can bring in theory and fact, statistic and anything else that both sides can agree is proof.
Religious arguments simply go, "I believe A." followed by someone's rebuttal of "I believe B." After that point, there isn't much use in talking about it.
As a result, the secular arguments get more thread time, more press, and make more noise.
(Except for those who just keep repeating "I believe A" over and over again in ever louder voices. Screaming does not create converts.)
Belle has made some of the most impassioned pleas against gay marriage, by simply stating, "I believe its wrong. You cannot force me to change my core beliefs."
There is only one counter to that argument. It is mine. "I believe its right. You cannot force me to change my core beliefs." Those core beliefs are religious and not secular.
What I find sad that many deeply religious people create secular sounding arguments to back up their faith based ones. This is probably due to the fact that they fear the world only respects secular arguments. This might even be why you started this thread, suggesting we should respect those arguments.
I will support you on this. If you believe, with your faith, in an argument, please express yourself as such. I, if not more will respect you and that argument.
We, being of different faiths, may not agree with it. We will respect it but still argue against it.
Its when you try to bolster up your faith based beliefs with secular arguments, and they are far weaker than your faith, that you are ridiculed and your cause suffers.
In other words:
Joe: I believe A Jill: I belive ~A Stalemate so Joe adds-- Joe: I belive A because of C. Jill: Proves ~C or If C then ~A.
Suddenly A is no longer seen as good a choice.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Fascinating , considering the huge numbers of christians and hindus who do it implicitly to each other by their very existence
edit: in reply to PSI's "how could you see all the people who believe something contradictory and not be acting on faith".
Actually, come to think of it, this point is completely synchronous with hers, as christians and muslims are acting on faith. But that makes me amused, so I shall leave it.
[ March 02, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Tres, I've come to the conclusion that your interpretation of the Constitution is probably correct. But something's being constitutional doesn't make it wise. I maintain that if religious people want to live peaceably in a society with unbelievers and members of other faiths, they should try not to base laws purely on religious beliefs that others don't share.
Anyway, your view that we have established secularism as a pseudoreligion is pretty far-off from the reality of American government. There are Buchanans and Robertsons and the like exerting massive influence on elections, and no one is stopping them on constitutional grounds. So your utopia is very much alive.
In fact, it'd be nice if we could see the no-establishment clause uniformly enforced in this country. Get rid of the Christian chaplains in Congress and the "In God We Trust" on the money and so on. These are piddly little details, but I do find them insulting.
quote:(I mean, I believe premartial sex is wrong, but I'd be opposed to a ban.)
Have you always believed that? I seem to remember you thinking the opposite at some point in the past, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Secular resoning is a very useful tool, and I think that it has an important part to play in the crafting and evaluating of our laws.
What I object to is the the attitude "your opinion derives from a non-secular source, therefore it is invalid." I don't want to see secularism removed. I just want it removed as the only acceptable source of truth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I just want it removed as the only acceptable source of truth."
But as it's the only acceptable source of shared truth available to the country, why SHOULDN'T it be the only acceptable source of truth? If you can't come up with a decent secular rationale for something -- in other words, if you can't actually demonstrate a real-world effect of your legislation -- why SHOULD it be enshrined in law?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The advantage that Secular debate has over Religious debate is that Secular arguments can have answers. You should be able to prove whether Law A or Law B is better in the long run, given a finite tangible goal.
One of the big problems with this, though, is that even in secular arguments it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove the goal we are after is the correct goal. You can't prove "we should minimize the suffering of the poor" any more than you can prove "we should fight homosexuality." You can reason about both some, but ultimately both of these goals cannot be justified like "F=MA" might be proven.
And even in religious debates, finite and observable evidence is often used. It may take different forms, such as Bible verses, but it still alows for debate beyond "I am right and you are wrong."
quote:What I find sad that many deeply religious people create secular sounding arguments to back up their faith based ones. This is probably due to the fact that they fear the world only respects secular arguments. This might even be why you started this thread, suggesting we should respect those arguments.
I agree completely. I am very much opposed to making up a fake argument because your true argument won't work. ("We just need to invade Iraq to get the WMDs!")
quote:I maintain that if religious people want to live peaceably in a society with unbelievers and members of other faiths, they should try not to base laws purely on religious beliefs that others don't share.
That's a fair claim - although you must realize that some religious individuals are going to feel certain religious issues are so important that it merits risking this peace.
quote:If you can't come up with a decent secular rationale for something -- in other words, if you can't actually demonstrate a real-world effect of your legislation -- why SHOULD it be enshrined in law?
Well, perhaps it has an effect you cannot demonstrate - at least to the standards that secularism would demand. Maybe there's something besides an observable, objective, empirical effect that would make a law worthwhile - many people do believe in such effects.
I mean, we could just as easily say "If you can't show where the Bible justifies something - if you can't actually demonstrate God's approval of it - why should it be enshrined in law?" And the answer would be, because maybe there's something besides Biblical justification that could make a law worthwile.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing is, secular law is indeed the lowest common denominator, as EVERYONE believes in demonstrable effects.
If you punch someone in the face, for example, he observes that he has been punched -- regardless of his religion.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
quote: No, it doesn't. It only restricts the government's ability to force a given religion on the people. It says the government cannot say one religion is right or wrong, or make people follow one religion over another.
A law banning gay marriage doesn't force religion on people any more than a law banning murder does, because neither of these are religion - they are other activities that religion simply has views about, views that might effect our judgement of them. But when you say you can't marry a member of the same sex, it doesn't imply you must start acting or believing like a Christian, or that Christianity is right. Nor is it something that's going to try to pressure or convince people to favor Christianity over anything else. Thus it is in no way forcing religion on anyone.
As I said, if there were concrete, observable evidence that gay marriages, like murders, are harmful to others, the secular government would be completely within the bounds of constitutional restrictions in passing a law banning it. In the absence of said evidence, the only justification for passing the law is that Judeo-Christian doctrine says that gay marriage is wrong. Thus, the law is enforcing Judeo – Christian doctrine. That IS forcing religion on someone. I am not trying to turn this into a gay marriage argument. I would make the same argument about school prayer, or the ten commandments hanging on the courtroom wall, or the pledge of alliegance. The same argument would apply to a law banning pre-marital sex, or rated R movies.
quote: However, the notion that religious people can't base their support of certain issues on religion IS an establishment of secularism as a national pseudoreligion, and IS forcing secularism on them. As I illustrated earlier, even though secularism does not explicitly say so, it necessarily implies other religions are wrong - and that only material concerns should matter to us. It is the practical equivalent to the government calling all religions wrong, despite the fact that it does not come out and say it.
Secularism does not imply that all religions are wrong. It clearly states that all religions are irrelevant and must remain irrelevant regarding laws which will be enforced on both believers and non-believers. The issue is not the government saying all religions are wrong, it’s the government saying religions, right or wrong, cannot even be a consideration when creating these laws. True Secularism, if it were ever achieved, would not be a pseudo- religion, it would be an absence of religion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, because of my faith and the reasons for it, I believe certain things are genuinely harmful that the average person doesn't. So I may have that as my motivation to want something legistlated. My reasons wouldn't be secularly based, but I think it is still valid as my opinion. If the majority felt a certain way based on non-secular reasoning, the majority gets the vote. That's how it works in my limited understanding, or how it ought to.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Wow, Tom. Based on how many of my posts are addressed to you, I guess I really like talking to you!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Beverly, I would argue that such things should not be legislated, but that you are welcome and encouraged to speak out against them as much as possible and try to sway public opinion.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
No, I think you're right, Beverly, despite my poor attempts at communication so far. Secularism says nothing about the motivations of individual voters; a principal virtue of a secular society is that nobody has the right to question whether you hold your position because of Islam or Mormonism or Voodoo, since none has a preferred status. (it is our mere hope that through proper education social libertarians will outnumber you )
None of this, however, means that a law itself can be upheld for religious reasons. An alcohol regulation whose draft opens "Owing to The Goddess's immutable will..." can be rightfully struck down in the courts.
For a conclusion I must return to the theme of my original post. We desire a secular society in order to be as inclusive as possible. The Fathers didn't create a Deist society or a Federalist society, despite holding a majority in each case. Alternative minimal principles may exist, but none have proven as successful as those which derive as much nature as possible from shared experience and especially rationality.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Chris, just so you know, I had no specific law or laws in mind when I said that. I only suggested that that could very well feel that way on something.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Beverly, I would argue that such things should not be legislated
That's find and good. Many people have opionions about what should and what should not be legislated. But nowhere in the constitution say that such things cannot be legislated. Calling it unconstitutional is simply not accurate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Richard -- while a law phrased in such a way would be inappropriate, it doesn't matter what the voter's reasons were for wanting alchohol regulation laws in the first place. Someone cannot say that if I cannot to your satisfaction prove that unregulated alchohol consumption is demonstrable harmful, then such a law is unconstitutional.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The thing is, secular law is indeed the lowest common denominator, as EVERYONE believes in demonstrable effects.
If you punch someone in the face, for example, he observes that he has been punched -- regardless of his religion.
Tom, even if demonstrable effects are the only common denominator, it still doesn't follow that it's the ONLY factor that matters. I already gave examples as to the problem of basing joint decisions only upon common denominators, and dismissing all factors not agreed upon.
What's more, most secular arguments are based on far less agreed-upon "demonstrable evidence" than the example you gave. Often it is things like "gay people don't harm society in any way" which is accepted by some as well demonstrated and is rejected as others as false. What's more, in many cases (including that one) the truth is virtually unprovable.
quote:Secularism does not imply that all religions are wrong. It clearly states that all religions are irrelevant and must remain irrelevant regarding laws which will be enforced on both believers and non-believers.
But if religions were correct then they would be relevant, so by calling them necessarily irrelevant you are also calling them wrong, even if you don't actually say it explicitly.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Given that many are mutually exclusive, which would you allow to influence politics in the manner you're suggesting?
Again, secular laws are a baseline. If nobody in the entire country believes that they comprise a valid morality, that's perfectly ok; only compatibility matters.
quote:Someone cannot say that if I cannot to your satisfaction prove that unregulated alchohol consumption is demonstrable harmful, then such a law is unconstitutional.
No, which is why we deliberately chose a very restrictive constitution, in order to create secular means for similar invalidations. Prohibition was unconstitutional (until the amendment, of course) because the federal government was not given the power to regulate private activities in that way, regardless of whether the teetotaler position was supported or opposed by different religions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well, if the supreme court agreed with you, they would strike down the legal drinking age laws.
But that's not the point. The point is that the constitution does not mandate that there be a valid secular argument behind a law. If the government has the right to pass laws concerning a thing, those laws don't have to be blessed by secularism any more than they have to be approved of by any God-centered religion.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Yes, exactly. You can describe modern Society or Law or Government as secular because they are not, as institutions, connected to religion; but "secularism" is not itself a driving force behind the legal system.
(drinking ages fall under a loophole in the transportation funding system...stupid nanny-driven nerf-society panderers...)
[ March 03, 2004, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, if the supreme court agreed with you, they would strike down the legal drinking age laws.
Nope. There's a whole amendment that says states can regulate drinking pretty much any way they want.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Given that many are mutually exclusive, which would you allow to influence politics in the manner you're suggesting?
I propose we deal with it the same way we deal with all other conflicting opinion in this country - people try to convince eachother, a vote takes place, and the majority wins. Thus all religions would influence politics in proportion to their acceptance among the general population, just as conservatism and liberalism influence politics in proportion to their acceptance within the population.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's sure how I understand it should be done when *I* read the constitution.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)