The "wall of separation" between church and state originally existed as a means to protect religious freedom and prevent the nations from ever establishing a state religion. Over time, though, it seems as if the concept has morphed into something else: today many people have the notion that religion is something that has no role in the political or public realm, that it should be kept by individuals in private.
While I'm sure that may sound good to atheists and agnostics, it should be troubling to the religious. For one thing, members of religions are typically asked to act morally in the world, in accordance with their respective religion. If they are citizens supporting a democracy that does bad things (things against their religious morals), then they may themselves be doing wrong by supporting that democracy. If a citizen's religious beliefs hold that abortion is extremely wrong, but the government is supporting abortion, it would be fair for that citizen to be considered in part responsible for supporting a government that supports abortion. Members of religions are also typically asked to show concern for the well-being of their neighbors. That means religion is usually not private - it influences how one is supposed to act towards others. For instance, if one's religion says the poor need to be helped, one couldn't support a government that rounds up the poor and kills them to eliminate the problem. So, for at least those reasons, the religious should feel compelled to demand a nation that is consistent with their moral beliefs. To sit back with private religious beliefs without applying them to public society, turning a blind eye to things you'd consider wrong, does not seem to be the rigth way to act.
But how do we reconcile that with the need to avoid conflict in a multicultural democracy that contains many many different religious beliefs? So far, it seems as if religion is not doing a very good job at balancing this. Instead, people have become polarized. On the one side are the folks I alluded to earlier, who seem to believe that there is no role of religion in public civil society, and that religious thinking shouldn't even come up in politics. The reaction to this is on the other far extreme, offering up "in your face" protests about how God "hates" anyone who does X, attemps to sneak religious law into the books thinly disguised as secular ideas, etc. Those attempts seem rather obviously unproductive. And both of these sides seem to feed on each other, with the influence of secularists and religious fundamentalists both growing in the past few decades, while religious moderates are squeezed out.
I've always felt the church is better at doing the church's job, and the government is better at doing the government's job. The law is an overly blunt tool for trying to influence how people act (or what they believe.) The religious right seems to think the way to change public society is by changing the law, but there are clearly other institutions that can fill that role, arguably better. Yet there are a few things that perhaps only the government can truly resolve - particularly wrongs that the government itself might be committing.
So my question to those who are religious is how should our society balance the demands placed upon us by religion to advocate good, while simultaneously living in a pluralistic society that avoids conflict between different religions and allows everyone to choose their own beliefs? How far should religion go? How far should politicians go to allow religion to influence their decisions? How far should religious citizens and religious leaders go to try and influence our public society with their beliefs?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Reduce the foot of government on our necks so that the what the government does doesn't really matter in our daily lives so long as we're not hurting each other.
As the government grows in size, it must protect the rights of minorities. And it must grow more secular to protect the rights of religious minorities and those minorities who are considered immoral by certain majority religions.
If you don't want the government to become more secular, Shrink it.
Don't want to give marriage rights to the gays? Get completely out of the marriage business.
Don't want to fund abortions? Stop funding medical procedures all together.
Don't like embryonic stem cell research? Stop funding research at all.
If the government gets involved with something, it has to respect everyone who pays for it. To do otherwise would be unjust. And religion gets in the way of justice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
From President Obama's June 2006 speech. It isn't perfect, but it would be a good start.
quote:While I'm sure that may sound good to atheists and agnostics
Indeed, it does.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I've found that the majority of the time I share a similar opinion about good and bad with society in general, regardless of religious beliefs. Only in a small number of debates do I dig into my own beliefs to help me form a perspective. I do pay attention to the doctrines of my church as they relate to what is going on in the world. However, my opinion is my own, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
I'm surprised sometimes by how "religion" is used to talk about quite a vast and varied array of thought and practice. The word gets condensed down to a narrow mindset and used as a cudgel by many, even here. As if it were a simple concept that could be summed up with a word. Like, "get rid of religion." It's a bit simple, IMO.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Reduce the foot of government on our necks so that the what the government does doesn't really matter in our daily lives so long as we're not hurting each other.
As the government grows in size, it must protect the rights of minorities. And it must grow more secular to protect the rights of religious minorities and those minorities who are considered immoral by certain majority religions.
If you don't want the government to become more secular, Shrink it.
Don't want to give marriage rights to the gays? Get completely out of the marriage business.
Don't want to fund abortions? Stop funding medical procedures all together.
Don't like embryonic stem cell research? Stop funding research at all.
If the government gets involved with something, it has to respect everyone who pays for it. To do otherwise would be unjust. And religion gets in the way of justice.
QFT.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I suspect that wouldn't be nearly enough for the extreme group that Tresopax also describes. Those people don't just have a problem with state funding of things like abortion and stem cell research, they have a fundamental problem with their very existence. Moving it to the private sector isn't going to sate their demands for complete restriction, it'll just be one victory in what they view as a long war.
Near as I can tell, the separation of church and state was originally constructed to protect religion far more than it was to protect the state from religion, but we blurred the line at some point in the last half century or so. Historically though I think we've had mixed results in handling religion. Protestants used anti-Catholic sentiments to do a lot of evils in the the first century and a half of our nationhood. Religion was used to justify extermination of the American Indians and for Bolo War.
I think America started to experience a slow retreat from religion, or at least from strict adherence to religion in the last 50 years, and that's what has caused the current war. As they retreat, they see the entrenched forces of religion on the other side, and from their point of view, they want to live their lives as they see fit, and see a vocal minority attempting to enshrine doctrine as law in ruling their lives. The problem of blurred lines comes when legislating morality means legislating doctrine. None of us have a problem with "thou shalt not murder," but when you get into gay rights and abortion, it's not so cut and dry.
I think when push comes to shove, religious people should vote their conscience, vote for whatever they think feels right, and truest to their religion, no matter how wrong it make seem to the secular among us, but they have to live with the results. It's what ensures that when you do get your way, the rest of us won't rise up and snatch it away from you. It might be that we're on a slow crawl to becoming even more secular, but I honestly believe that if the hard core fundamentalist Christians toned it way the hell down, they'd get somewhat further in their goals, and the anti-religion rhetoric would be a lot more muted. I think the drives to whitewash ourselves of anything religious are melodramatic in the extreme. There's nothing wrong with religion in public life, obviously, since we still place unofficial religion tests on most of our elected officials. But the louder, more unmovable among the religious are creating and have created a diametric opposite that most secularists feel they have to oppose strongly.
What we need is disarmament on both sides. It would allow us to find common ground, and would stop every single tiny issue from becoming a huge hullabaloo.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Over time, though, it seems as if the concept has morphed into something else: today many people have the notion that religion is something that has no role in the political or public realm, that it should be kept by individuals in private.
Do you think someone who didn't loudly proclaim their religious faith would be elected to the Presidency today?
I don't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Don't want to fund abortions? Stop funding medical procedures all together.
Don't like embryonic stem cell research? Stop funding research at all.
Absolute nonsense. Forcefully removing someone's kidney to sell it is also a medical procedure, and dipping people in various temperature in oil to see when, exactly, they die is also research.
There is absolutely an obligation to distinguish moral and immoral medicine and research. Refusing to do any because some people want to use science for evil assumes that adults are incapable of making distinctions.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Absolute nonsense. Forcefully removing someone's kidney to sell it is also a medical procedure, and dipping people in various temperature in oil to see when, exactly, they die is also research.
The difference, that you may not see, is there there are plenty of non-religious and secular reasons against those acts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't be patronizing.
That isn't what she said. She said that if any research is not allowed, the government shouldn't fund any research at all.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Don't be patronizing.
I wasn't.
And the point of the original post is that religious people must agree to implicitly support things that they find immoral if the government remains secular.
Pixie's response was that you should get the government to stop all funding to scientific things, because despite your religious opinion that these things are immoral, the secular arguments are against you.
And you responded with some things that have plenty of secular arguments against them. Which don't really apply to the argument being made.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Reduce the foot of government on our necks so that the what the government does doesn't really matter in our daily lives so long as we're not hurting each other.
I agree with this, to an extent. Although I also think that this would require non-government institutions (like churches) and individuals to step up and do more. For instance, the government might not be the best institution to fight problems like teen pregnancy, but something needs to fill that role in our culture if not our government.
quote:Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
I don't think it is reasonable to expect universal agreement on the assumptions a law is based on, though. For instance (since it's Earth Day!) I don't think we should expect environmental activists to wait until everyone universally agrees on the validity of global warming before moving to get the government to act.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: For instance, the government might not be the best institution to fight problems like teen pregnancy, but something needs to fill that role in our culture if not our government.
Apologies for turning the conversation in a different direction, but do you think that religious institutions would be best to fight a problem like teen pregnancy? Given the massive failure of 'abstinence only' programs?
Not that some churches wouldn't be great at helping certain societal issues. I'm sure some would. But teen pregnancy just struck me as an interesting choice on your part.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Don't be patronizing.
I wasn't.
And the point of the original post is that religious people must agree to implicitly support things that they find immoral if the government remains secular.
Pixie's response was that you should get the government to stop all funding to scientific things, because despite your religious opinion that these things are immoral, the secular arguments are against you.
And you responded with some things that have plenty of secular arguments against them. Which don't really apply to the argument being made.
I think katharina's point has merit. There are plenty of medical procedures that, say, 90% of the country don't object to, so I don't why it is necessary to stop these in order to stop the controversial procedures being performed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So your point is that unless only certain peolpe get to have the power to hold the entire health system and all scientific research hostage unless it conforms to their views of what should and shouldn't be done.
Can you see that you are advocating a gigantic power grab and disenfranchising a huge number of people? You are saying that only certain ways of forming an opinion are valid, and if you are a member of a church, your opinion doesn't count anymore.
Blech. How repulsive.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You are saying that only certain ways of forming an opinion are valid, and if you are a member of a church, your opinion doesn't count anymore.
Blech. How repulsive.
No, I am saying that in a secular country you can (or should) only make laws with a secular basis.
I'm sorry if that upsets you. But the only fair way to deal with religion in the government is for the government to ignore it.
Perhaps that means that the government shouldn't be funding as many things as it does. I wouldn't object to that.
But the government can't pick and choose based on religions because there's always going to be another 20 religions with different opinions.
The only reason you want religious opinions to be taken strongly into account is because your religion (in the general sense) happens to be in the majority. I would guess that you might feel different if, say, the majority of people in the country were Hindu.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'd be inclined to think there's a dynamic at work here between parents, churches, the government, schools, and the media, among other cultural institutions. I'm really not sure how that dynamic would need to change to effectively fight a social issue like teen pregnancy, but I'd think it would need to be more complicated than just having the church do it. I do think abstinence is the best option, but I don't think conveying that message can be done simply through religious institutions alone.
I also don't think its safe to assume that simply dropping the government out of the equation would result in the other groups filling that void. It's possible the void would simply remain unfilled.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In a republic, you make laws based on collective votes. A voter can cast his or her vote on whatever basis he or she pleases.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
tres: In that case, the government needs to remain secular and your entire first post is void.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The only reason you want religious opinions to be taken strongly into account is because your religion (in the general sense) happens to be in the majority. I would guess that you might feel different if, say, the majority of people in the country were Hindu.
Amazing. You discerned my motivations and thought processes through the Internet.
Do you even realize how patronizing that is? Do you understand that by disenfranching a certain group of people, you are declaring that you no longer wish a democracty? You wish to create a country that is no longer even close to run by collective decisions and instead institute the rule of the majority by a small group of your choosing.
I trust democracy. I'm not saying this because I'm Mormon (which, btw, is NOT the majority) but because I believe in democracy and I don't believe in declaring certain groups of people too infantile to have a say in their own country.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic. We must abide our values (The Constitution) as well as the popular vote.
If everything was a popularity contest, both you and I would have been voted off Hatrack long ago.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: In a republic, you make laws based on collective votes. A voter can cast his or her vote on whatever basis he or she pleases.
Certainly a voter can. But we're not talking about voters. We're talking about government policy and the way the government is set up.
The majority of people in the country could take a vote and decide we're a Christian nation. That's fine and dandy. But the way the government is set up, that majority opinion won't (and shouldn't) change it. Or if it does, we will cease being the country that we are.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
I don't think it is reasonable to expect universal agreement on the assumptions a law is based on, though. For instance (since it's Earth Day!) I don't think we should expect environmental activists to wait until everyone universally agrees on the validity of global warming before moving to get the government to act.
I don't see where Obama was either calling for or expecting universal agreement.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I do think abstinence is the best option, but I don't think conveying that message can be done simply through religious institutions alone.
It's only the best idea if you're concerned with morality or chastity. If your actual goal is to reduce teen pregnancy, then it's the worst option.
Abstinence only programs don't stem the tide of teen pregnancies, however, programs that are a hybrid of abstinence and a well informed sex education program have been proven to both reduce teen pregnancy and reduce overall sexual acts by teens. There's a program in South Carolina, I can't remember where exactly, that has a dedicated sex ed worker for the district, and they've had some dramatic results using such a method.
This is a case where religious morality gets in the way of the supposed intended final result. Religious institutions want to reduce teen pregnancy sure, but they have to do it within a sphere of morality that also reduces sexual contact, and this flies in the face of what is realistic given the segment of the population in question. That's the problem with black and white thinking that western religious institutions often, though not always, subscribe to.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: dedicated sex ed worker
I read this as "dedicated sex worker" and I thought "How nice, the schools are supplying hard working prostitutes now."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Amazing. You discerned my motivations and thought processes through the Internet.
Yes. Because no one can ever glean anything out of anything you say or ever have written.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No, I am saying that in a secular country you can (or should) only make laws with a secular basis.
I'm sorry if that upsets you. But the only fair way to deal with religion in the government is for the government to ignore it.
But this is untrue - the fair way to deal with religion is to deal with it the same way you deal with other conflicting belief systems (for instance, the disagreement on global warming). Usually that means voting on it, but within the limits and rights provided by the Constitution.
You can't expect religious people to ignore their beliefs, when their beliefs say a given issue is extremely important, just because their justification is religious. Why would the majority of Americans who are religious agree to that? We obviously can't be a country based on a single religion either though, so the solution is to figure out how to strike that balance in between.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*rolls eyes* Considering you are flat out wrong, you should rethink your thought processes. Your trust in your own discernment is seriously misplaced.
Ever hear of "Of the people, by the people, and for the people"?
If you think that the people should have no say in how the government makes rules or spends money, then you should be calling for the dissolution of Congress right now and clamoring for the formation of a committee where the members have been carefully checked to make sure they never went to church anywhere. Even better, they must say nasty things about religious people to prove they are not secretly open-minded or, horrors, actually respectful of fellow citizen's right to voice to an opinion.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: I do think abstinence is the best option, but I don't think conveying that message can be done simply through religious institutions alone.
It's only the best idea if you're concerned with morality or chastity.
I liked the way Tres said "abstinence" and not "abstinence only education", in this way making an empirically false comment look like it's almost tautologically true (i.e. few can argue that a teenager who abstains is more likely to get pregnant than one who doesn't).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tres: The balance is, they can believe whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.
Otherwise, what happens if, down the line, we become a predominately Muslim country? Would the people pushing so hard to have their faith encoded into law appreciate living in dhimmitude? Paying tax for not being a Muslim? Killing off the atheists and queers? (well, they might like that part...) Having to obey Sharia modesty laws?
Keep the laws secular!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Ever hear of "Of the people, by the people, and for the people"?
Yes. ALL the people. Not just the religious.
" make sure they never went to church anywhere"
Do you suppose that if you keep hitting this point, people will actually think that I've said it? As opposed to you having made it up, of course.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Exactly. All the people. Not just the non-religous.
If only...there were some way...to give all adults a vote...and then collectively decide these things...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Exactly. All the people. Not just the non-religous.
Agreed.
That's why the laws should be kept secular.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wrong. And what the heck? There is no connection between the two ideas.
That's why the laws should be made by representatives that have been voted for by the people.
I can't believe Americans are arguing for an end to democracy.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If only...there were some way...to give all adults a vote...and then collectively decide these things...
They do. Within the limits of our secular Constitution. That pesky little document that keeps (for an extreme example) the majority from voting a minority into slavery.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I liked the way Tres said "abstinence" and not "abstinence only education", in this way making an empirically false comment look like it's almost tautologically true (i.e. few can argue that a teenager who abstains is more likely to get pregnant than one who doesn't).
"Abstinence" is what I meant - not "abstinence only education". I think teenagers would be wise to abstain.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: And back when the majority wanted segregation, was it wrong for the supreme court to strike it down and say "That violates our principles?"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Our" principles, as laid out in the constitution. Which was also voted on, and which can be changed by another vote(s).
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I can't believe Americans are arguing for an end to democracy.
Because we're not. We're arguing against the tyranny of the majority.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are. You want to change the basis on which laws are made and you want to do without putting it to a vote.
Where, exactly, does democracy enter into your scenario?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pix, what you seem to fail to remember is that abolitionism was largely a religious movement. It began and flourished in churches. If were up to the seculars, slavery would still be going. Or at least would have gone on a great deal longer.
How said it would be to destroy and gut the Constitution for a short-sighted goal of shutting up all those pesky religious people who insist on voting.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You are. You want to change the basis on which laws are made and you want to do without putting it to a vote.
No. I want the basis on which laws are made to stay the way the Founding Fathers set it up. Without religious interference.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: Yes, they can be changed, by a very large super majority going through an agonizing, time consuming process to make damn sure they want to change the foundation of our country.
It's so rare we've only done it 17 times since the bill of rights.
4 of them were brought about after a war and the losers weren't allowed to vote on them.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pix, what you seem to fail to remember is that abolitionism was largely a religious movement. It began and flourished in churches. If were up to the seculars, slavery would still be going.
What percentage of the population would you say were 'seculars' during slavery?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pix, what you seem to fail to remember is that abolitionism was largely a religious movement.
What you seem to fail to remember is that abolitionism, whether religious or not, grew up in response to another religious movement...slavery.
They just used this little old book that told them who they could enslave and how to treat those slaves. Called The Bible. You may have read it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How about you point to the section of the Constitution that forbids people with religious reasons for their opinions from voting.
If you can't, it's because you are making that part up.
Apparently your discernment superpower also goes backwards in time.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: "Abstinence" is what I meant - not "abstinence only education". I think teenagers would be wise to abstain.
So do I. However, given that many of them won't, are you in favor of them being taught other methods of contraception?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: How about you point to the section of the Constitution that forbids people with religious reasons for their opinions from voting.
If you can't, it's because you are making that part up.
Apparently your discernment superpower also goes backwards in time.
How about you point to any of my writing where I say that we should forbid people with religious reasons from voting.
When you can't, you'll realize it's because you're constructing a straw man.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You want to change the basis on which laws are made. In order to do that, you need to change the Constitution. In order to do that, you need to put it to a vote.
But you don't want to.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: How about you point to the section of the Constitution that forbids people with religious reasons for their opinions from voting.
If you can't, it's because you are making that part up.
Apparently your discernment superpower also goes backwards in time.
There isn't one. But pass a law that has no secular reason and don't be surprised if it gets struck down by an "activist judge" for violating the constitution.
There IS a bit in the Arkansas Constitution that keeps atheists from holding office or testifying on a jury. I love my home state... *sigh* http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm
But don't worry.. if there ever comes a time when atheists and agnostics are the majority, I'm sure we'll treat y'all just as sweetly as you've treated us.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You want to change the basis on which laws are made. In order to do that, you need to change the Constitution. In order to do that, you need to put it to a vote.
But you don't want to.
Wow. That's four wrong statements out of four. You're batting a thousand.
Did you not read what I wrote? I want to keep the way the laws are made, which is secularly, and protect it from those religious who wish to influence it to benefit themselves.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
katharina, how do you get from "secular basis" to rule by committee? Talk about mind reading (not to mention straw men).
I don't think anyone suggested an abolishment of democracy. Rather, I think they were talking about the idea that religions shouldn't have a seat in government, and to the extent that legislators and executive authorities rely on their religions to guide their acts, they tend to undermine this concept.
Obviously the impact to citizens - and the degree to which those who aren't of the same or similar religions should care - varies.
Some extreme (fictional, as far as I know) examples that I hope should be easy to dismiss as too overtly religious and without a secular basis, not to mention violating the Bill of Rights in some cases: - Illegal to work on the Sabbath - Illegal to eat pork - Illegal to teach your child that God doesn't exist - Women required to wear a burka
You wouldn't say that if say 67% of the populace (and their representatives) voted for such laws, that they should stand, would you?
Well, that's what people are talking about. Keep your religion out of the government, because otherwise you end up making rules that infringe on others' rights.
Is there a law WITHOUT a substantial secular basis that you'd care to advocate for, here, that isn't already covered by the Bill of Rights and other guaranteed freedoms? That might provoke some interesting discussion. (For instance, whether such laws would abridge the rights of those who don't share the religious motivation.)
[FWIW I think there's a substantial secular argument against abortion, so we can skip that if you'd like.]
(If there isn't such a law, then your objections would seem odd.)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Actually, come to think of it.. The Lynch Mob is the incarnation of democracy. A group of people who are all in agreement about What Must Be Done and have the power and motivation to impose their will on the minority they dislike.
Were the people who shot and killed Joseph Smith justified because they were the majority? Was it ok for communities from New England to the Midwest to uphold their Community Standards and run those nasty polygamists out of their midst with fire and rifles?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Just to give an example, laws requiring public schools to give time to Intelligent Design in the classroom have no secular basis - they are religiously motivated - and seem to violate the spirit of freedom of religion. I think that's the sort of thing we are talking about, here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But you aren't talking about prayer in school. You are talking about things like experimenting with embryos and killing unborn children. Those things aren't the same as forcing everyone to make the sign of the cross - they are non-religious areas where people have opinions informed by their religions.
If the proposal was limited to things like not mandating prayer in school, there'd be no problem. But you want to extend it to everything - all adults with opinions informed by their religions no longer get a voice in their government.
That's so wrong.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
I don't understand the idea that religious people have to use the law to enforce their particular beliefs. If you think something is a sin then don't do it. Tell your children that you think it's wrong and that they should not do it. Write a book or give speeches as to why you believe it should not be done and generally lead by example. Once you start forcing others to follow your religious beliefs you have gone to far. I speak of "sins" that don't directly infringe on others rights here. Things that do such as murder, theft, rape etc can be banned for obvious secular reasons
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Reduce the foot of government on our necks so that the what the government does doesn't really matter in our daily lives so long as we're not hurting each other.
I agree with this, to an extent. Although I also think that this would require non-government institutions (like churches) and individuals to step up and do more. For instance, the government might not be the best institution to fight problems like teen pregnancy, but something needs to fill that role in our culture if not our government.
quote:Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
I don't think it is reasonable to expect universal agreement on the assumptions a law is based on, though. For instance (since it's Earth Day!) I don't think we should expect environmental activists to wait until everyone universally agrees on the validity of global warming before moving to get the government to act.
If the enviromentalists who are trying to pass such legisation can back up their ideas with evidense then I don't see the problem. now is they want to pass the laws because mother gaia says they should then they have crossed the line.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kath, can you really not think of secular arguments against abortion? If you like, I can help you come up with some.
(I'm pro-choice, but generally against abortion. That is, having the choice is important, but make the right one.)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
katharina, again, I think there can be substantial secular reasons to vote against embryonic experiments (some of them, anyway, I don't know exactly what you mean here), and abortion. If there weren't any, I don't think Roe v Wade would have been a very difficult decision.
A requirement (one that hasn't yet been well defined by a proposal in this thread, unless I missed something) that laws have a secular basis wouldn't mean you couldn't vote for laws against abortion. It probably would mean that laws that couldn't be shown to have such a basis would be struck down.
What other examples do you have?
here's a kind of law that I think would get struck down in Utah: Some municipalities make it illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday. I can't imagine a secular basis for such a law. Is this the kind of thing it's essential for the majority to be able to enact?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am saying that within the limits of the Consitution, it doesn't matter if people vote the way they do because they pull the lever with their eyes closed.
I don't believe in disenfranchising adults because I don't agree with their recreational activities.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That litmus test for laws - "non-religious people have to agree with it" - does not currently exist in the Constitution.
If you manage to pass an amendment that puts it in, more power to you. Until then, you are trampling on the Constitution and advocating the disenfranchisement of citizens.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
You're making me laugh, katharina, because you haven't come up with any examples that actually demonstrate what you're afraid of. What kind of law are you afraid of being unable to pass?
I'm not trying to dismiss your concern out of hand, I'm trying to understand it so we can discuss it. If you're just going to repeat that you don't want people to be disenfranchised, you're missing the point. Nobody said "can't vote for" religiously based laws.
Whether to raise the taxes on pharmaceutical companies is unlikely to have a religious basis, but if there is one I'd like to hear about it.
Drinking age might have a religious basis, but I'm not aware of one. Is there one?
Give an example.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: people can vote however they like, but if the law they pass doesn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny it will get tossed.
And more and more, as we have grown into maturity as a society, we have tossed more and more discriminatory laws. Slavery - gone, Suffrage - gained, Segregation - gone, Miscegenation laws - gone, laws preventing atheists from holding office - gone, anti-sodomy laws - gone... Which side of these issues would you have been on in the decades they were fought?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:if the law they pass doesn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny it will get tossed.
That's what happens now. So you're good with the way it is now?
quote:Which side of these issues would you have been on in the decades they were fought?
What? Do you really feel the need to demonize me in your head in order to justify disenfranchising me?
I could list the stands of Mormons on all those issues, but I suspect that you don't have give a crap what the actual stands were and would, of course, make up something else in your head to justify stealing my vote.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: why do you think I'm trying to disenfranchise you? I just want you to use your brain and not your soul to do the thinking.
I would never pass a law that would prevent you from voting.
I would never pass a law that would prevent you from getting married either. To a Man and/or Woman (or women.)
It's pretty damn hard to be persecuted by a libertarian.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But you do want to throw out any vote I have unless you deem it made from non-religious reasoning.
Of course, you can't prove it either way, which means you'd throw out any vote that doesn't agree with what you think it should be. You'd justify it by saying that because I'm happily Mormon, of course it shouldn't be respected.
Voting rights isn't just symbolic. As long as it is within the limits of the Constitution, you can't toss out the results of votes because you don't like how it came out.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:if the law they pass doesn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny it will get tossed.
That's what happens now. So you're good with the way it is now?
quote:Which side of these issues would you have been on in the decades they were fought?
What? Do you really feel the need to demonize me in your head in order to justify disenfranchising me?
I could list the stands of Mormons on all those issues, but I suspect that you don't have give a crap what the actual stands were and would, of course, make up something else in your head to justify stealing my vote.
katharina you are the only person in this thread arguing to change how things are done. The rest have been arguing to keep the government secular.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The government is secular now. So, you're good with the way it is now?
What they are arguing is that all laws must have a justification that is not informed at all by any religious views and no votes may count if their were influenced by the voter's religious views. That is an entirely different thing, and that's what would change our government from a republic to something much uglier.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kath: I'm not trying to throw your vote out. I'm trying to get you to Think, not Believe.
You make a law, it gets challenged, you can't come up with anything better than "God says so" and it gets struck down.
Your last sentence sounds like we're in agreement. You could bring a drunken monkey into the poling place with you, pull all the levers for you and unless you voted for something unconstitutional, the courts would have no say.
But it wouldn't be an ethical thing to do. Any more than a Muslim voting to keep women locked indoors without a related male escort would be an ethical thing to do.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But you do want to throw out any vote I have unless you deem it made from non-religious reasoning.
No. You can use religious reasoning all you want. But I do expect laws that have no compelling secular interest to be scarce and for the courts to correctly overturn them.
A law that is *only* justified religiously is a de facto endorsement by the government of the religion whos doctrine justifies the law.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The government is secular now. So, you're good with the way it is now?
What they are arguing is that all laws must have a justification that is not informed at all by any religious views and no votes may count if their were influenced by the voter's religious views. That is an entirely different thing, and that's what would change our government from a republic to something much uglier.
They are arguing that laws need a secular basis. Thats how it is now. You are the one who wants to use your religion as a basis for law. No one is saying you can't hold you beliefs and use them to live your life. No one is saying that you an't vote. What they are saying is that you can't force people of other religions or those without any religion to do things simply because of your religious beliefs.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:What they are arguing is that all laws must have a justification that is not informed at all by any religious views and no votes may count if their were influenced by the voter's religious views. That is an entirely different thing, and that's what would change our government from a republic to something much uglier.
Nobody argued for this, you see. Pixiest's reduction was far more accurate:
"You make a law, it gets challenged, you can't come up with anything better than "God says so" and it gets struck down."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Can you see how condescending you are? That because I'm Mormon, you automatically define me as someone who doesn't think? How dare you - and how dare you style yourself as a defender of anything good when it is your intention to infantalize a large portion of the adult population because they may disagree with you.
---
If you want all votes by adult citizens to count, and you want to keep the Constitution as the standard for what laws are allowed without adding anything to it, then why are you clamoring for this extra litmus test?
You want to add an amendment to the Constitution that only laws that are acceptable to non-religious people can be allowed. Good luck with the passing of that one.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Can you see how condescending you are? That because I'm Mormon, you automatically define me as someone who doesn't think? How dare you - and how dare you style yourself as a defender of anything good when it is your intention to infantalize a large portion of the adult population because they may disagree with you.
This is precious. I don't know who you're addressing, but though I certainly wasn't being condescending before, I'm going to jump all over this opportunity. It's kind of cute how when you're up against an argument you can't cope with, you up the ante and accuse everyone of being condescending and using your religion to dismiss your arguments. Run along now.
That was condescending.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
What extra litmus test? They are arguing that laws need a secular basis. THATS HOW IT IS NOW. Sorry for caping that but you don't seem to actually be reading what anyone is saying.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If that's how it is now, what are you so upset about?
And the thing is, it isn't that laws are automatically not allowed unless they are justified on a secular basis.
The Constitution doesn't say "Everything not permitted is forbidden." It is "Everything not forbidden is permitted (to the states)."
Laws don't have to justify themselves on a secular basis. They are struck down when they are proven to be unacceptable on a Constitutional basis.
Your proposal would switch that. Fah. How dictatorial.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: You're just so intent on getting offended aren't you?
Look, Think with your head, not your soul. You think with your soul and pass something that hurts people with no good reason beyond what your impotent(*) God says, and an honest court will strike it down.
If I thought with my anger instead of my head, I could vote for some truly horrible things. And they would get struck down too.
I guess it boils down to Think with your Head. Not with your soul or your anger or your drunken monkey.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pixiest - I can't believe you are repeating the evil slander of Javert where you imagine the stupidest possible motivations for me.
Are you really so blinded by your bigotry you can't see your own condescension and the lack of democracy or respect that you are showing?
How dare you decide for yourself that because I'm religious, I don't think. This is proof enough of what a terrible thing power in your hands would be - you can't even participate in a discussion in a discussion without perpetuating an injustice.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You want to add an amendment to the Constitution that only laws that are acceptable to non-religious people can be allowed.
Nope. We want the existing constitutional amendment regarding establishment to be honored. I think Pixiest is also asking that when you vote that you consider whether you are attempting to compell others to follow your religious dictates rather than being free to follow their own. That's what a purely religious justification of a law does. Sort of a God's plan/Satan's plan thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pixiest doesn't get to dictate on what basis I vote. She especially doesn't get to codify into law what are and aren't acceptable reasons for my voting the way I do.
Can you see what an evil thing it would be to reject someone's vote because you imagine they might have reasons for it you don't agree with?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The Constitution doesn't say "Everything not permitted is forbidden." It is "Everything not forbidden is permitted (to the states).""
"Laws don't have to justify themselves on a secular basis. They are struck down when they are proven to be unacceptable on a Constitutional basis."
And because laws that are justified by religious doctrine are forbidden, laws have to be justifiable on a secular basis. Otherwise the laws are respecting of an establishment of religion. Which is forbidden.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If that's how it is now, what are you so upset about?
And the thing is, it isn't that laws are automatically not allowed unless they are justified on a secular basis.
The Constitution doesn't say "Everything not permitted is forbidden." It is "Everything not forbidden is permitted (to the states)."
Laws don't have to justify themselves on a secular basis. They are struck down when they are proven to be unacceptable on a Constitutional basis.
Your proposal would switch that. Fah. How dictatorial.
Passing laws based only on religious grounds is unconstitional. The constitution ensures that our government is secular. If you can't come up with a single reason for a law other than the being I believe in but can in know way prove says so..then guess what It's unconstitutional. That is how it currently is in the US. You are the one trying to change that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Passing laws based only on religious grounds is unconstitional.
Nope.
Point to the part of the Constituion that says this.
And also the part where your magical machine discerns the motivations behind every vote.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote: I think teenagers would be wise to abstain.
A wise teenager is an oxymoron I believe.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kath: No, I'm saying you're thinking with your soul, not your head.
Maybe I shouldn't speak in metaphor...
When you think, consider how you would justify your arguments to people who don't follow your religion. How would you convince them without falling back on "Well, it's in the New/Old Testement/BOM." If you can't think of anything compelling, maybe it's not such a good idea to vote that way. Because not everyone believes as you do. And you don't want them voting their faith on you.
It's the whole "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You," type thing. You know, The Golden Rule.
It's not a law. It's just a good idea to follow. You know, for Nice people!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pixiest, are you even talking about me personally? What on earth are you talking about? And this is the nth time you have accused me of not using my head. To say the least, it's condescending and patronizing.
I completely applaud your efforts are preaching responsible citizenship as you see it. It's when you want to bring the power of the government to work according to your own wishes and disenfranchise everyone you disagree with that you become an unConstitutional, undemocratic, power-hungry dictator.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pixiest, are you even talking about me personally? What on earth are you talking about? And this is the nth time you have accused me of not using my head. To say the least, it's condescending and patronizing.
I completely applaud your efforts are preaching responsible citizenship as you see it. It's when you want to bring the power of the government to work according to your own wishes and disenfranchise everyone you disagree with that you become an unConstitutional, undemocratic, power-hungry dictator.
Pixiest is making a very simple statement. Why not just respond to it instead of getting defensive and saying that she said something completely different from what she actually said?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: I have said multiple times I'm against passing laws against you and I'm certainly against disenfranchising you.
What I'm for, is striking down laws that harm innocent people for no compelling secular reason.
Once you get rid of the "secular" part, you open everyone up to a world of hurt because we're all a minority on *something* we believe.
Have you even read what I've said?
Other people in this thread: am I really this unclear?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are perfectly clear: You believe that by striking down and disallowing any law not in line with your belief system, even if it is passed in according by a majority and is allowed under the present Constitution, everything will be better.
Fortunately for democracy, the Constitution doesn't allow you to do that.
I am not answering the questions about how I would vote on individual laws because it has nothing to do with the central issue.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Other people in this thread: am I really this unclear?
I think you are clear, but I can understand Kat resenting the "think with your head" thing. She is thinking with her head, and her head is saying that she should do what God wants her to do. Suggesting that she's not thinking with her head comes across as suggesting that she's not thinking at all even if that's not your intent.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: So you're fine if the majority starts voting to persecute Mormons again? Cuz, you know, Mormons aren't really Christians according to some of the larger sects...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:her head is saying that she should do what God wants her to do.
Thank you Matt, but you are wrong about this. I have not made any statements about the way I might personally vote and my reasons for doing so.
However, under Pixiest's desired system, if she doesn't agree with my vote it would get tossed out anyway.
Also, I don't have to agree with someone voting with their gut/heart/toes/monkeypet in order to be in favor of preserving the right to vote however the voter sees best.
Pixiest: The same laws that protect me against your tyranny protect me against others'. The failure of the 19th century was that the laws that should have protected the Mormons were not enforced, not that they didn't exist.
It isn't bigoted Southern Baptists that want to take away my right to a vote. It's you.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: my desired system is the system we have. But instead of of answering my questions, you keep misstating what I said and acting all hurt and offended.
Does this work in real life? I only ask because I know you're very pretty and it's easy for pretty girls to get what they want.
But I can't see you on the internet and I'm too old and disillusioned to be screwed up by a pretty face anymore anyway.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The belief that is driving my argument here is a belief that a free country only stays free if adult citizens are able to vote the way they see best, and that their vote is not tossed out because someone somewhere else decided the imagined motivations for it weren't acceptable.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
My argument is that a free country only stays free so long as people who aren't hurting anyone are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Cuz Utah is taken and there's no where left for us Pariah to run.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, that's so sweet that you think I'm pretty. I'm really not.
Pixiest - seriously, what part have I misunderstood? Because it seems like you are saying that there should be a litmus test for all laws and any that do not pass the litmus test of being acceptable to a non-religious arbitrer should be tossed out.
Is that not what you are advocating?
If you wish only to urge people to be responsible citizens and do not wish the bring the weight and power the government to enforce your views on what is responsible citizenship, then speak away. I'm a big fan of using free speech to try and persuade people to vote a certain way. I am not a fan of using the force of law to do so.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then I wish you luck in having laws you disagree with struck down. That's what the court of appeals are for.
However, "religious people voted for it" is not a Constitutional reason. And it never, ever should be. That would create a monstrous injustice and destroy democracy.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Laws are passed in this country, not on the weight of the arguments but by who has the better PR.
That's why money is so important. It's all about the marketing.
However, when a law is challenged, it has to be challenged based on a compelling state interest. And that has to be secular. To base it off anyone's faith would be a direct violation of the first amendment.
Me entiendes?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Exactly - it has to be challenged on a secular reason, not made for secular reasons.
That's as it should be. The results of a vote should be respected unless compelling secular arguments are made otherwise. Not the other way - results of a vote should be DISrespected unless a compelling secular argument can be made for it.
It's a matter of respect for the votes of citizens. Votes should be respected by default, not tossed out by default.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
That's what I've been saying all along, as far as challenges go.
However, as a personal matter, I don't have much respect for someone who bases their votes on faith.. or anger... or drunken monkeys.
There is nothing I would want done legally to disenfranchise such irresponsible and rude people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I try to look on the bright side: at least they are voting. I believe in voting. It kills me that so many people have longed and fought for this right for centuries and then not everyone uses it. Yay for voting! Elections and peaceful transfers of power make me so happy.
Even drunken monkey voting is better than no voting at all. The problem is that not enough people vote - if everyone voted, then there would be more interest in general in what those representatives are doing, and there would be more attention paid and light shone, and if that keeps happening, things get better. The enemy of democracy is apathy. The drunken monkeys can't hold a candle to that.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: However, as a personal matter, I don't have much respect for someone who bases their votes on faith.. or anger... or drunken monkeys.
If you don't mind me asking, why is faith such a negative for you?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: You really think so? I'd rather people who didn't study and think about their votes simply abstain. People who don't bother about the consequences of their votes are part of the problem. It's why every bond measure always passes, for instance "Oooh, that sounds nice, we could use another park." "Ooo! Bike lanes! It's a bond so we don't even have to pay for it!"
Might as well hook a random number generator to the ballot box.
Hum: Because people of faith don't bother so much with justice or minding their own business. Their basis of value isn't freedom or happiness, but the word of their god which probably doesn't even exist, and most certainly doesn't exist in the way they perceive him.(*)
(*) There are so many different ways god is perceived, this statement holds true for the majority of people, even if god exists.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yeah, I really think so. I do think that California's method of bypassing the legislature has produced an untenable system, but I'm really a fan of the republican system we've got going. Besides, if everyone votes and people pay attention and the three branches work as designed, even if the government is crappy, at least it is the one we deserve. Better a hell of our own making than a place where the trains run on time but the people are powerless.
I even think we should lower to voting age to 16. If people are considered adult enough to drive and pay taxes, they should be able to vote where those taxes are going and on the laws that govern their activities.
People vote for all sorts of crappy reasons. Overwhelmingly, it is for their own pocketbook at the expense of others. I think it is unconsciounable that we have socialized medicine in this country, but the benefits only go to the people who don't pay into the system. Old people only have the power because they vote - if everyone voted, then there wouldn't be any group that could be dismissed off hand because if there is enough to be a "group", there's enough to influence some election or other.
Shine a light and weild the power. Keep the workings of government open and everybody go vote. The results will be better than anything else could possibly come up with.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
EDIT - perhaps some explanation is due. The link isn't in response to anyone in particular. It just seems like it would be useful to the discussion.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: The fact that old people are the dominant demographic that votes bugs me too. You can't cut their programs even as they steal from their own grandchildren.
I always thought a great poster against SS would have a crying baby as a hand takes his lollypop away. The legend would read "Social Security: As easy as taking candy from a baby."
But I still don't think the message would get across. They (old people) were stolen from their whole life by their parents and grand parents, it's only fair that they steal from the young, cuz they're the next level in the Great Ponzi Scheme....
But I digress...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I completely agree on that level. I don't want to cast grandma in the street, of course, but it's horrible that the same people who are stridently against socialized medicine for poor children will happily accept medicare when they get old and it's finally their time to have expenses beyond their ability to pay.
I think anybody who is against socialized medicine, especially for minors, should refuse any and all Medicare benefits to be consistent.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Hum: Because people of faith don't bother so much with justice or minding their own business. Their basis of value isn't freedom or happiness, but the word of their god which probably doesn't even exist, and most certainly doesn't exist in the way they perceive him.(*)
While I think this is true of some, I am doubtful that it is true of all people of faith. I find that most people of faith value what they believe to be correct, just as you do, only they come at the problem from a different perspective. I think they value the same thing you value, only they do do it differently.
Is that really reason for scorn then?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Because people of faith don't bother so much with justice or minding their own business.
Yeah...this is not a fair, informed, or charitable stereotype. I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences, but it doesn't justify the negative assumptions about people you've never met. That's bigotry.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: 52 to 48 percent of Californians voted to remove rights from gay people. The more religious, and uneducated one was, the more likely they were to vote for prop hate.
I'd say my characterization was spot on.
In any event, it's time to go home. Night everyone.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: "Abstinence" is what I meant - not "abstinence only education". I think teenagers would be wise to abstain.
So do I. However, given that many of them won't, are you in favor of them being taught other methods of contraception?
If it given that many won't, I think it'd be foolish not to teach them alternatives.
quote:Some extreme (fictional, as far as I know) examples that I hope should be easy to dismiss as too overtly religious and without a secular basis, not to mention violating the Bill of Rights in some cases: - Illegal to work on the Sabbath - Illegal to eat pork - Illegal to teach your child that God doesn't exist - Women required to wear a burka
You wouldn't say that if say 67% of the populace (and their representatives) voted for such laws, that they should stand, would you?
I would say the first, second, and fourth should stand if the majority voted for them. The third violates the Constitution because it attempts to prevent people from being atheist.
I wouldn't vote for any of them though, even if my religion said those things were wrong, because I don't really it is wise for the government to be regulating those sorts of things (whether it be for secular or religious reasons.) Even if there was a secular argument for why requiring burkas was a good idea, I don't think that the government's sphere should include regulating appropriate fashion.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Even if there was a secular argument for why requiring burkas was a good idea, I don't think that the government's sphere should include regulating appropriate fashion.
But regulating our eating of pork or what days of the week we can work are in the government's sphere?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Not really. I wouldn't support regulating eating of pork, whether it be for a religious reason (God is against it) or a secular reason (studies show it is unhealthy). Sort of like how I wouldn't support a law forbidding Big Mac consumption.
As for what days we can work, I don't really think the government should be saying that either, although if they did I wouldn't be that upset.
But in any of those cases, the problem I'd have with the law really has nothing to do with the religiousness of the reason for the law.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pixiest: You are wrong in your bigotry. It is essentially dishonest to perpetuate that kind of prejudice.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's interesting that you would think those laws (1,2,4) should stand, Tresopax. I feel the opposite. However large the majority that would want such things, they seem to me to be imposing religious restrictions on people, and that seems contrary to the 1st amendment. Barring, of course, some secular justification. If pigs were granted rights that cows don't get because pigs were found to be sentient, that'd be justification enough. If ALL meat eating was banned (not just pork) to conserve resources, that'd be justification enough (enough to make the law constitutional from my POV, not necessarily entirely justifying the laws).
I can't think of a secular justification for the Sunday restriction or the burka, though.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pixiest: You are wrong in your bigotry. It is essentially dishonest to perpetuate that kind of prejudice.
Are you saying that her facts are wrong, or that she's wrong to be upset/angry/passionate about it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It seems that things are twisted around - laws don't have to be justified by an outside body/litmus test. They have to struck down by a Constitutional justification, not instituted with a secular justification.
It is not "laws not permitted are forbidden." It is "laws not forbidden are permitted." That it is an issue because a large number of the voters have it as part of their religion is not reason enough to strike it down.
Which is as it should be. There shouldn't be some extra-Constitutional review of laws, and the Constitution is fine with closed-on-Sunday laws if enough people vote for it.
There are laws forbidding the slaughter of horses in this country, and there are a whole host of animals that restaurants are forbidden to serve. Non-endangered animals are on that list. Adding pork to that list wouldn't be a fundamental change in these kinds of laws.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This:
quote:Because people of faith don't bother so much with justice or minding their own business. Their basis of value isn't freedom or happiness,
Her facts are wrong. She has the right to feel any way she wants, but her blanket bigotry is flat out wrong.
She sounds like someone's great-grandfather railing against black people. It's embarassing, but you try to ignore it because he's so upset and nobody believes him anyway.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: This:
quote:Because people of faith don't bother so much with justice or minding their own business. Their basis of value isn't freedom or happiness,
Her facts are wrong. She has the right to feel any way she wants, but her blanket bigotry is flat out wrong.
I disagree.
She may be imprecise. Not all people of faith fit her description. But many do. Certainly many (I won't say all or even most) who are against SSM, for example.
When passionate, one tends not to be as precise as when you're not. But passion doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with bigotry.
I'm assuming, of course, that either Pixiest was being imprecise, or has a specific definition of 'people of faith' that would exclude wide swaths of tolerant religious people.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"There are laws forbidding the slaughter of horses in this country, and there are a whole host of animals that restaurants are forbidden to serve. Non-endangered animals are on that list."
Pork was definitely my weakest example. *grin* Mostly because I CAN imagine a number of secular reasons to ban eating pork. Just like the secular reasons for the bans on eating horses and those other animals.
"the Constitution is fine with closed-on-Sunday laws if enough people vote for it."
I'm not so sure. MY interpretation of the 1st amendment - which of course carries no force whatsoever - is that imposing religious restrictions on the populace is not OK. That there'd have to be a non-religious reason for such laws for the Constitution to be fine with them.
No idea if this one has been tested in the courts, though.
Care to expand on why it's OK for the majority to impose this kind of rule, despite the constitutional bar to establishment of religion?
EDIT: In case it's not clear, I'm NOT talking about some kind of preemptive impediment to passing such laws. I mean such laws could/should be struck down upon judicial review.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Imprecise" is exactly why prejudice and stereotypes are wrong.
"Black people are criminals" is "imprecise" in exactly the same way. How about you substitute some other group and see if you're still all excited about justifying her malificent ignorance.
quote:I'm assuming, of course, that either Pixiest was being imprecise, or has a specific definition of 'people of faith' that would exclude wide swaths of tolerant religious people.
There is no basis for this assumption in anything she's said, and there is certainly no room for it in her statement. She sounds like a crazy prejudiced racist, and all her words bear that out.
Like I said, embarrassing, but you avert your eyes because that's what polite people do when someone exposes their bigotry like that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "Imprecise" is exactly why prejudice and stereotypes are wrong.
"Black people are criminals" is "imprecise" in exactly the same way.
quote:I'm assuming, of course, that either Pixiest was being imprecise, or has a specific definition of 'people of faith' that would exclude wide swaths of tolerant religious people.
There is no basis for this assumption in anything she's said, and there is certainly no room for it in her statement. She sounds like a crazy prejudiced bigot, and all her words bear that out.
Like I said, embarrassing, but you avert your eyes because that's what polite people do when someone exposes their bigotry like that.
Thing you have said also make you sound like an intolerant bigot sometimes, Kat.
Things I have said, I'm sure, have made me sound like an intolerant bigot at times.
I tend to look at everything a person says (or writes), however, as opposed to picking and choosing what they say to back up one view of them. So I don't think that you, Kat, are a bigot. Nor do I think that Pixiest is one. I know that I'm not one.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Aside:
I wonder how many bigots know they are bigots.
I sincerely DON'T care to accuse anyone of being one. Especially no one in this general area. *gestures broadly*
Just wonder whether a bigot ever self-identifies as one.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm a bigot, insofar as I regularly presume that my opinions are manifestly better than those belonging to anyone who disagrees with me.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:However large the majority that would want such things, they seem to me to be imposing religious restrictions on people, and that seems contrary to the 1st amendment.
The 1st Amendment does not say laws can't be made for religious reasons or that a secular reason is needed for a given law. It just says the government can't recognize/establish one religion as correct or force people to practice a given religion. Or, at least, this is how I think the Supreme Court should interpret it - I don't agree with the Lemon test.
Requiring burkas because Religion X asks people to wear burkas is not equivalent to saying that Religion X is true, and it is not equivalent to forcing people to practice Religion X (unless wearing a burka is considered in Relgion X to be some sort of religious ritual, in which case I could see a case being made).
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Aside:
I wonder how many bigots know they are bigots.
I sincerely DON'T care to accuse anyone of being one. Especially no one in this general area. *gestures broadly*
Just wonder whether a bigot ever self-identifies as one.
And can you avoid being a bigot if you're intolerant of bigots?
Am I a bigot bigot? And should there be another word for that? (A 'large-ot', perhaps? Or a 'smallot'?)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Exactly. All the people. Not just the non-religous.
Agreed.
That's why the laws should be kept secular.
The problem with this is that a lot of the behaviors laws define as wrong as ALSO defined as wrong by most religions. There is a TON of overlap that is unavoidable.
Also, in a democracy, people get to vote their own conscious, and other people don't get to decide what is and isn't a valid motivation for their beliefs. A lot of times people have developed their own stances on moral issues based on their experiences with religion.
You don't get to decide WHY people vote the way they do any more than THEY have the right to tell you what to believe regarding God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Even if there was a secular argument for why requiring burkas was a good idea, I don't think that the government's sphere should include regulating appropriate fashion.
The government enforces indecent exposure laws. If the government can dictate that women must cover their breasts, why couldn't they mandate burkas?
ETA: And lots of places have Sunday laws forbidding certain businesses from operating on Sundays or during the hours that people "should be in church."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "Imprecise" is exactly why prejudice and stereotypes are wrong.
"Black people are criminals" is "imprecise" in exactly the same way. How about you substitute some other group and see if you're still all excited about justifying her malificent ignorance.
Like, for example, gay people can't be good parents?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you think the best way to correct what you think is a misstatement is to invent larger and more viscious lies?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And, in addition, that's a twisted, uncharitable, and inaccurate summary of others' positions.
You want to present an egregious example, find something to quote. You know, like that ugly snippet of ignorant prejudice I quoted from Pixiest above.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:that's a twisted, uncharitable, and inaccurate summary of others' positions
Would a fairer statement be "gay people are so much less likely to be good parents that society can't afford to encourage that event?"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: ... Just wonder whether a bigot ever self-identifies as one.
It has specifically and recently come to my attention that there once was a man named Bigot who drew cartoons ...
quote:that's a twisted, uncharitable, and inaccurate summary of others' positions
Would a fairer statement be "gay people are so much less likely to be good parents that society can't afford to encourage that event?"
Yes, actually - fairer as in a more accurate and truthful summary of some people's opinions. Disagree with that, and that's a fabulous use of free speech.
If you want to take out an animal in the forest, you are more likely to hit it if you aim at the target instead of the sky.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
58% of people without a college degree voted for prop hate.
60% of people with advanced degrees voted *against* prop hate.
83% of people who do not attend church voted *against* prop hate.
The more ignorant and religious you are, the more likely you were to have voted for prop hate.
The demographics back it up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would say that a more fair summary of racists would be "Black people are so much more likely to be criminals that society can't afford to have them live in my neighborhood."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I would say that a more fair summary of racists would be "Black people are so much more likely to be criminals that society can't afford to have them live in my neighborhood."
Which is, of course, different than what racists actually say. Rather, some say that, and a great many say stuff like the crap Pixiest is saying.
I find it amusing but very human that when confronted with naken, blatant, hateful prejudice like Pixiest's, people try to find ways to excuse or try to pretend that she's saying something different from what she actually said. ---
Pixiest, even overlooking that California is not the human race, and that your pet issue is not the end all and be all of human experience, and that your very framing of the issue in those terms shows a fundamental and willful ignorance, your own numbers don't bear out your prejudiced statements.
Unless it is 100% on all counts, you are wrong to spew such hateful bigotry.
Not mention the snobbish classism displayed there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I find it amusing but very human that when confronted with naken, blatant, hateful prejudice like Pixiest's, people try to find ways to excuse or try to pretend that she's saying something different from what she actually said.
Forgive me, kat, but if you're going to complain about naked, hateful prejudice, I have some suggestions for prejudices that really hurt people that you could be railing against.
I mean, seriously, "Oh, no! Pixiest is assuming that people who want to prevent her kind from getting married are stupid bigots, and that religious people in general are worse than non-religious people! In this country, those opinions will surely have horrible consequences for everyone!" Is that really where you want to spend your energy?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pixiest's prejudice is right here, right now, and it is wrong, bigoted, and hateful.
I respect your right and feeling of obligation to fight the battles you feel need to be fought.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The prejudice against gay people is also right here, right now, and is also wrong, bigoted, and hateful.
And still in many places has the force of law behind it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then find someone on Hatrack advocating using the law to steal the votes of gay people and knock yourself out.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So we're agreed that we shouldn't pass laws against letting religious people vote, but should remain free to (optionally) obnoxiously accuse religious people of being dangerously stupid when they vote based on religious edict? And the consequence of this is that some religious people will accuse the original accuser of bigotry?
I'm just trying to boil this down to some sort of shorthand, so we can speed through these arguments in the future. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I believe in free speech, even when people use it to spread nasty lies and bigotry.
I also believe in pointing it out when people do it.
Do you believe in that spreading viscious lies is an appopriate response to speech you don't like? If not, why are you intent on defending Pixiest?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, for one thing, I don't see what she's saying as a particularly vicious lie. Why do you think it's "vicious?" What about it is especially hurtful?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: There ya go bein' the pot again!
So tell me, How is my pointing out that religious people are bigots (at least, in a sample of size of several million Californians) worse than religious people using the force of law to deny a basic human right to gay people?
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: So tell me, How is my pointing out that religious people are bigots (at least, in a sample of size of several million Californians) worse than religious people using the force of law to deny a basic human right to gay people?
Honestly, I think you hate those people Pixiest, and I don't think you get to claim that you hate those who hate without being a hypocrite.
You are right about proposition 8 and you are correct that *some* of those people are bigots, but becoming a bigot to fight them and painting all of them with the same brush is incorrect as well. In fact, it is much easier to hate and demonize these people, it's much easier to simply dismiss them because of a belief, but it is much harder to embrace them and to understand them.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Honestly, I think you hate those people Pixiest, and I don't think you get to claim that you hate those who hate without being a hypocrite.
Why?
I could be wrong, but I don't think she's saying that them hating is the problem. It's the fact that the reason for their hate is wrong.
Hate is fine if it is given to those who deserve it, IMHO.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Are there levels of Bigotry?
Joe believes that all Venusians are stupid and deserve our hate. This is what he has been taught, and he refuses to do change his mind no matter what.
Jane believes that all Venusians are animals and routinely sets out to hunt and kill them. This is what she read on an internet forum, and it makes sense to her.
Mark was beaten up by a Venusian once, and since then he has hated all of them. He talks bad about them to everyone.
Mary had her house destroyed to make way for a Venusian off ramp. The Venusians construction workers just laughed when she tried to stop them. Since then she has assumed that all Venusians were as uncaring as those workers, and as greedy and dangerous as the Venusian government that stole her house.
These are all bigots, since they all hate Venusians.
However, does the circumstances of how they came by their hatred make a difference?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Hum: I've defended christians for a long time. Have you read my poorly drawn comic? Most of the main characters are christian.
But I'm pretty damn angry about prop hate and I no longer believe that befriending them will work. (once again, thanks to my, now former, best friend.)
Until the current generation of christians have grown old and died, the rights of gay people will never be safe.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Hate is fine if it is given to those who deserve it, IMHO.
Absolute baloney. This isn't true at all, and I can't believe the words didn't choke in your mouth as you wrote them. It's classic bigotry with a fascism on top, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Pixiest: Countering what you see as an injustice by becoming much, much worse than what you hate is no kind of victory. Not only will it not get you your goal, you will have become what you claim to loathe.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: What have I done that's as bad as what prop hate did to gay people? (I ask for the 5th time without you responding...)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm talking about the religious people you are slandering. What has some innocent Catholic in Tennessee done to you? But you are happy to include that person in your blanket and sweeping indictments without nuance, and you are happy to take away their vote if it doesn't pass your personal standards.
The almost nice things about blanket, bigoted statements like that is it does make the speaker sound so ignorant and unsophisticated - like they have never been out of their bubble, and they can't imagine people different than the few they've encountered, and they don't know enough of history and sociology and current demographics to know how wrong they are and ridiculous they sound when they claim that all religious people don't use their heads, don't value goodness, and are uniform in all ways, those ways being bad.
I am talking about your wrong statements, and I was talking before about the attempt to steal votes from all religious people. Both of those things are unjustifiable, even if you are really, really angry about something.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Hum: I've defended christians for a long time. Have you read my poorly drawn comic? Most of the main characters are christian.
But I'm pretty damn angry about prop hate and I no longer believe that befriending them will work. (once again, thanks to my, now former, best friend.)
Until the current generation of christians have grown old and died, the rights of gay people will never be safe.
I'm angry about proposition 8 too. Why that's important for the debate is both dubious and interesting, but that's for another time. I can't say that I understand what you have gone through, that's patronizing to the nth degree, but I also know that some people, including best friends, are stupid. Shocking, I know.
Let me ask you this, do you really think the world will be a better place if homosexuals gain the rights they absolutely deserve at the expense of demonizing half the country? If so, then you have more in common with those you fight against than you really believe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Let me ask you this, do you really think the world will be a better place if homosexuals gain the rights they absolutely deserve at the expense of demonizing half the country? If so, then you have more in common with those you fight against than you really believe.
Honestly, if that is what it took (I don't think it is, but if it did) I would prefer that gays get the rights they deserve.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Let me ask you this, do you really think the world will be a better place if homosexuals gain the rights they absolutely deserve at the expense of demonizing half the country? If so, then you have more in common with those you fight against than you really believe.
Honestly, if that is what it took (I don't think it is, but if it did) I would prefer that gays get the rights they deserve.
One of the justifications of Rovian politics, the idea put forth by Karl Rove where demonizing half the country and governing to 50+1 of the country to insure a majority, is that the political ideology they embrace is correct, and thus, demonizing half the country is fine as long as a conservative political ideology is advanced. To be the good guys, you can't fight Rovian politics with Rovian politics, you have to find a way get the results you know to be right without resorting to his tactics or you are no better.
And the same is true for SSM.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Was it worth demonizing people (to the extent we did) who wanted to keep racial segregation in order to get rid of Jim Crow laws? Was it worth demonizing half the country to end slavery?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
katharina, how many times are you going to repeat the "take away their vote" strawman? It's been repeatedly pointed out as a strawman and disavowed.
Is outrage so much fun that you have to manufacture your reasons for it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Has the absolute ridiculous idea of subjecting laws and votes to "a secular justification" been dropped, then? If so, then I'll take back the accusation of attempted disenfranchisement. If not - if that still sounds like a jim dandy idea - then it is completely accurate.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Has the absolute ridiculous idea of subjecting laws and votes to "a secular justification" been dropped, then?"
Your "and" there is the problem.
Secular justification for laws, which would be tested via judicial review. That idea has not been dropped. (I would like to pass a clarifying amendment to the Constitution making this more clearly required than it is now, but I do believe it is required now.)
Requiring a secular motivation for votes was only ever your own straw man, as far as I can tell. You constructed it on the first page, which was pointed out on the first page, and here you are on the fourth still repeating it.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Was it worth demonizing people (to the extent we did) who wanted to keep racial segregation in order to get rid of Jim Crow laws? Was it worth demonizing half the country to end slavery?
I think the real question is, could we have achieved those same goals on a different path? Ending slavery and racial inequalities in America was a noble goal, but sometimes, I think we take the easy way out in trying to accomplish that which we need to accomplish.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Has the absolute ridiculous idea of subjecting laws and votes to "a secular justification" been dropped, then?
I think people should absolutely demand that laws and votes have a secular justification, and should ruthlessly mock people who cannot provide one. Do you disagree?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Was it worth demonizing people (to the extent we did) who wanted to keep racial segregation in order to get rid of Jim Crow laws? Was it worth demonizing half the country to end slavery?
I think the real question is, could we have achieved those same goals on a different path? Ending slavery and racial inequalities in America was a noble goal, but sometimes, I think we take the easy way out in trying to accomplish that which we need to accomplish.
But you are the one who offered the either/or choice. You will note that in my response, I noted my scepticism about that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Secular justification for laws, which would be tested via judicial review. That idea has not been dropped.
Then you are seeking to gut the vote of a certain group of people because you don't like their motivations.
That's reprehensible.
And, fortunately, would fail a judicial review in a spectacular. It would crash and burn like a cement kite, as it should when you seek to disenfranchise huge numbers of people because their values are not your own.
You don't get to pick and choose the motivations of fellow citizens when comes to running the country. Welcome to democracy.
Laws stand unless they fail a challenge, which must be based on a secular reason. The default is to let it stand. As it should be.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Then you are seeking to gut the vote of a certain group of peole because you don't like their motivations.
But this is *already* how it works. It's why sodomy laws are gone and part of why black people can marry white people now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because a Constitutional justification was found for tossing those laws out.
They weren't tossed because their was no non-religious reason for them, but because there were Constitutional reasons against them.
That's a key difference. Do y'all get the difference?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: Can you think of a law with strictly religious reasons behind it that would not be thrown out for constitutional reasons?
boots: Since I'm a bigot against all christians I have to bash you now. You're a... umm... uhh... forget it, I got nothing. *smooch*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, usually I ignore kat, but this I have got to hear. Now just what the devil was the non-religious reason for anti-sodomy and miscegenation laws?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:They weren't tossed because their was no non-religious reason for them, but because there were Constitutional reasons against them.
That's all anyone is talking about. The quote you were responding to when you said this was reprehensible referred to laws "tested via judicial review". It was a clear reference to a test for Establishment Clause violations through our existing processes.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Was it worth demonizing people (to the extent we did) who wanted to keep racial segregation in order to get rid of Jim Crow laws? Was it worth demonizing half the country to end slavery?
I think the real question is, could we have achieved those same goals on a different path? Ending slavery and racial inequalities in America was a noble goal, but sometimes, I think we take the easy way out in trying to accomplish that which we need to accomplish.
But you are the one who offered the either/or choice. You will note that in my response, I noted my scepticism about that.
How so? I believe I simply argued against Pixiest's approach to the SSM marriage issue, and I later claimed that that there has to be another way. Of course, I could be wrong or I may have been unclear.
Pixiest
quote:boots: Since I'm a bigot against all christians I have to bash you now. You're a... umm... uhh... forget it, I got nothing. *smooch*
If that sentence is because of my argument, then I must say that you aren't a bigot Pixiest, nor did I ever claim you were. If you understood my argument as such, then I apologize. I simply believe there is a better way to fight the fight you fight. We can't tell good guys from bad guys by the hats they wear anymore, but we can tell who they are by the means they employ to accomplish right.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Then you are seeking to gut the vote of a certain group of people because you don't like their motivations.
That's reprehensible.
Actually, I'm seeking to avoid or remove a subset of the silly laws that don't actually benefit or protect all of the people they apply to.
Since I brought it up before, let me return to the example of special restrictions on Sunday: whether it's requiring that certain businesses be closed, or forbidding sale of certain products, or special noise ordinances, some of the people who don't agree with the reason for the law can be harmed. They might make less money, or be put at a disadvantage compared to other businesses. I think that is wrong, maybe even reprehensible. To "gut" the power of a religious majority to impose such harms would be great, actually, not reprehensible.
And I think such laws should be struck down.
I would really, really like to hear your counterexample. I've asked for it many times now. What kind of law do you think might get struck down, that shouldn't be struck down? How do you think the power of religious voters might be gutted in a way that is unjust?
I think you've abstracted this into "religious people will be powerless," but that's inaccurate. What this will do is more strictly delineate government from religion, and protect minorities from being subject to restrictions and penalties that exclusively stem from religions that they don't share.
Again, if you could be more specific, you'd have a much greater chance of convincing others that there's a real danger of gutting the vote of a portion of the population.
quote:And, fortunately, would fail a judicial review in a spectacular. It would crash and burn like a cement kite, as it should when you seek to disenfranchise huge numbers of people because their values are not your own.
You don't get to pick and choose the motivations of fellow citizens when comes to running the country. Welcome to democracy.
Laws stand unless they fail a challenge, which must be based on a secular reason. The default is to let it stand. As it should be.
What do you mean, the challenge must be based on a secular reason? The reasoning that seems most obvious to challenge laws that are solely religiously motivated is this: that they violate the first amendment. That's a secular reason.
To return to a question you asked earlier, along the lines of "so you're fine with the way things are then?" No, I think we've been too lax in applying the first amendment. This has led to some harmful results, some of which are significant and a lot of which are relatively minor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: How so? I believe I simply argued against Pixiest's approach to the SSM marriage issue, and I later claimed that that there has to be another way. Of course, I could be wrong or I may have been unclear.
This certainly sounds like a yes or no question, which is how I took it.
quote: Let me ask you this, do you really think the world will be a better place if homosexuals gain the rights they absolutely deserve at the expense of demonizing half the country?
My answer was, if it comes to that (which I don't think it will) then, yes.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Secular justification for laws, which would be tested via judicial review. That idea has not been dropped.
Then you are seeking to gut the vote of a certain group of people because you don't like their motivations.
That's reprehensible.
Haha, stop trying so hard to feel persecuted. You're not even very good at it.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: How so? I believe I simply argued against Pixiest's approach to the SSM marriage issue, and I later claimed that that there has to be another way. Of course, I could be wrong or I may have been unclear.
This certainly sounds like a yes or no question, which is how I took it.
quote: Let me ask you this, do you really think the world will be a better place if homosexuals gain the rights they absolutely deserve at the expense of demonizing half the country?
My answer was, if it comes to that (which I don't think it will) then, yes.
Ah gotcha. Isn't what I claim though simply a rebuke of an either/or? My question wonders whether the country will be a better place if, as Pixiest argues, demonizing half the country leads to the deserved rights of homosexuals. In that sense, I'm not presenting an either/or, I am arguing against one, and I think that's important to my argument because my belief is that there has to be another and better way to achieve this goal.
Oftentimes, we fail to make the hard decisions that need to be made to solve deep and difficult problems. We still face some of the same problems today that we did during the 19th century; those same divisions about states rights (Texas secession anyone?) and racism and equality and freedom are still as relevant today as they were during the civil war. After WWI, we did what was easy and allowed Germany to fall into right-wing extremism and fascism, and that led to the deaths of millions of people and the near extermination of an entire race. At some point, we are going to run out of fingers to plug the holes in the dam, and when that dam bursts, we will look back and wonder why we couldn't find better ways to solve our problems.
Demonizing the other side is an easy way to achieve what is right, but I also believe that, like history before has shown, failing to come up with a better solution makes us no better and worse off in the future.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Has the absolute ridiculous idea of subjecting laws and votes to "a secular justification" been dropped, then?
I think people should absolutely demand that laws and votes have a secular justification, and should ruthlessly mock people who cannot provide one. Do you disagree?
Oh sure, turn this into a civics thing. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I would really, really like to hear your counterexample. I've asked for it many times now. What kind of law do you think might get struck down, that shouldn't be struck down? How do you think the power of religious voters might be gutted in a way that is unjust?
I can't speak for others, but I'm not so much concerned with any given law being struck down as I am concerned with the side effects of being a culture where religious reasoning doesn't count in the public sphere. I think that essentially cripples our ability to talk, as a nation, about issues of right and wrong - because the vast majority of people believe in a code of ethics based in religion, one way or another. If religious reasoning is disallowed, our civil society is unable to give a consensus answer to questions like "Why should I bother to act morally?" or "Why should I bother to care about things beyond material possessions, wealth, and my own personal happiness?" Instead those questions are answered with a million different answers, or perhaps just with "You have to decide that on your own."
On top of that, it takes away the voice of religious moderates (who want to respect the principles of our civil society) and instead places responsibility for moral issues into the hands of religious extremists (who are so religiously oriented that they don't care about offending anyone with strongly religious reasoning.) Secularism is, in this way, responsible for placing so much influence in the hands of the religious right. It prevents anyone other than the extremists from representing moral virtue in our country.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't think there would be any side effects of that sort, to be honest.
What it might do is force religious moralists with legislative twinkles in their eyes to justify their ideas of right and wrong with something besides scripture or revelation. This is something they largely already do, of course, so public discourse wouldn't actually need to change very much at all.
Most religious ethics translate quite well outside the religion, luckily enough.
Since you're not concerned about any specific laws, per se, (though it sounded like katharina was, so my invitation to her stands) I'd like to know if there are specific forms of religious reasoning that you feel can't be sufficiently secularized without taking the teeth out of them...and how they benefit society. (Taking as given - for the moment - that it's possible that religious reasoning will count for less in the public sphere if laws without a secular basis go away.)
Quick edit: not to discount the examples you gave above, of course:
"Why should I bother to care about things beyond material possessions, wealth, and my own personal happiness?"
As you mentioned, churches probably do this job better than government. And churches would not be restrained from providing their versions of answers to this question.
"Why should I bother to act morally?"
This is a question that is almost circular. Morality provides the answer to why people should behave certain ways. It's unclear to me how a more strictly secular government would undermine the general impulse almost everyone feels to be "good".
More generally speaking, public discourse about government can remain as religious as people want to make it. If there's a religious point of view on tax rates, expound on it all you want (and let your Congressmen do the same - though it might lead to mockery, as Tom suggested). Just expect that if that is ALL a law has behind it, the law won't stand.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It prevents anyone other than the extremists from representing moral certitude in our country.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For moral certitude, I direct you to the "USA Admits to Torture" thread.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: It prevents anyone other than the extremists from representing moral certitude in our country.
Fixed that for you.
Not even. As a secular humanist (as are most religious people), I have moral certainty about certain things. I just got into a heated argument with some friends about whether it's okay that I condemn Muslim culture in the Middle East, specifically their treatment of women.
My friends were appalled that I would apply Western secular standards to a much different part of the world -- in their eyes, Middle Easterners have the right to do what they want in their cultures, no matter how horrific. I simply don't understand this attitude, and I don't think it represents secular humanists at all. Religious fundamentalists aren't the only ones who can have principles.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Religious fundamentalists aren't the only ones who can have principles.
I didn't say principles. I said moral certitude.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Religious fundamentalists aren't the only ones who can have principles.
I didn't say principles. I said moral certitude.
What's the difference? I have moral certainty in my principles against the abuse of women.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: ... Secularism is, in this way, responsible for placing so much influence in the hands of the religious right. It prevents anyone other than the extremists from representing moral virtue in our country.
I'm interested in how your model explains the relative lack of influence the religious right has in countries that are much more secular than the States, like say Canada?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Hate is fine if it is given to those who deserve it, IMHO.
Absolute baloney. This isn't true at all, and I can't believe the words didn't choke in your mouth as you wrote them. It's classic bigotry with a fascism on top, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Can you try to sound less hateful as you write that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have moral certainty in my principles against the abuse of women.
How have you derived those principles?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm interested in how your model explains the relative lack of influence the religious right has in countries that are much more secular than the States, like say Canada?
If I understand it correctly, Canada has no equivalent to the Lemon Test - the Canadian government allows religious reasoning as a valid justification for laws. So, Canada pretty much is doing what I'd suggest we do. They do formally recognize the right to religious freedom, but they don't prevent the government from touching on religion at all.
Their Constitution also officially recognizes the "supremacy of God", and I believe have public financing of some religious schools.
quote:Morality provides the answer to why people should behave certain ways. It's unclear to me how a more strictly secular government would undermine the general impulse almost everyone feels to be "good".
I don't think it would undermine that impulse. I just think it has, in practice, undermined our ability to collectively discuss how to fulfill that impulse. Aside from extremists, our leaders are willing to declare what they hold to be right and wrong, but they aren't willing to get into the foundation of WHY we are supposed to hold those things right or wrong. At a lower level, in schools you can find posters with words like "Character" and "Respect" on them, but they end up being superficial as schools have their hands tied when it comes to explaining why character and respect should count; any explanation they give is likely to end up touching upon religion. I don't think you can separate morality from religion. At a minimum, accepting a non-religious basis for morality entails rejecting the religious basis that so many people in this country accept.
I don't think these problems are hypothetical; they are going on right now and can be observed. The question is, would changing our legal principles do anything to change it? I'm not sure about that, but I think there may be a connection between the two.
I do think the example of gay rights that Pixiest used earlier gives a good example though: The "Christian" side of the debate seems to have been designated the anti-SSM side, based on the polls she listed. Yet, I think there is a very strong and rather obvious case to be made that Christ would support helping out a discriminated minority and would oppose a position associated with hatred. I've heard this argument presented by other Christians in a church environment, yet I rarely seem to hear it coming out in the general public, particularly from the leaders of the pro-SSM side. Why is that? It is as if moderates and liberals have ceded the religious element of the discussion entirely to the far right. As a result, we should not be suprised when Christian church-goers vote heavily in favor of the anti-SSM position.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:At a minimum, accepting a non-religious basis for morality entails rejecting the religious basis that so many people in this country accept.
I think perhaps it could bolster religious morality, without necessarily replacing it. To the extent that it obviates religious morality, it would seem that the religious basis was unnecessary. You might end with a more unifying shared belief system than religion provided.
quote: I've heard this argument presented by other Christians in a church environment, yet I rarely seem to hear it coming out in the general public, particularly from the leaders of the pro-SSM side. Why is that?
I suspect, although I don't know for sure, that reasons include:
- A sense that arguing the issue on religious grounds would be counterproductive - since religious opposition to SSM probably overwhelms religious support. Making a religious argument here would be to concede that religion should guide public policy, in a way, and most of the religious guidance would be contrary to the goals of the pro-ssm movement.
- Reluctance to speak for one's church in public, out of fear of misrepresenting the church or a simple lack of authority. (Leaving out the churches that actually instruct their members that SSM is wrong.)
quote: It is as if moderates and liberals have ceded the religious element of the discussion entirely to the far right. As a result, we should not be suprised when Christian church-goers vote heavily in favor of the anti-SSM position.
Yes, I think that's exactly what moderates and liberals have done. But I think that's to the credit of moderates and liberals, as you'd probably guess.
While I acknowledge that a religious person who refuses to make a religious argument in the public sphere might seem hamstrung, I don't quite see how anyone but a fundamentalist can honestly project his religious beliefs into the public sphere this way - or rather, I think the religious arguments, short of direct divine lobbying, that would tend to support SSM would ALSO tend to mirror the secular versions of those arguments, and the secular version would be persuasive to the same people for mostly the same reasons.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)