Well, no... this is the argument: A: V1 B: V1 A: V2 B: V2 A: V1 & V2 -> V3 B: Sure, that looks true, until you realize V4. V4 & V1 & V2 -> not V3. Therefore not V3. A: I disagree with V4, therefore V4 can't be considered here. Therefore V1 & V2 -> V3. Therefore V3.
In ethics there are things that appear to be right under one set of conditions, but that become wrong when an additional condition (V4) is added. For instance, if two guys are strapped to a railroad track and are about to be hit by a train, it SEEMS like you should switch the train to a different track. But if some premise V4 tells you that there are 10 people on the other track, it reverses this conclusion. Furthermore, if we ignore V4, we will end up killing the 10 people and doing wrong, even though we did what seemed right based on the more limited assumptions.
This is the problem with only considering agreed-upon factors. When you say "V1 & V2 -> V3" you necessarily also are assuming that there are no other factors that would negate that claim - you are assuming there is no V4. It's a hidden assumption!
So, to take a more practical example: If you say that gay marriage doesn't cause any suffering for anyone, therefore it is okay, there is a hidden assumption that there are no other things that would negate that conclusion - things like "God exists and we should obey him and he says no gay marriages". Thus, even though we don't explicitly mention God in the issue, we are making hidden assumptions that either He doesn't exist or He allows gay marriage - which is unfair and unequal to people who believe otherwise.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a call on this thread to do away with Secularism and replace it.
I ask with what?
With nothing.
Isn't that what the Constitution calls for - no establishment of a government position on religion? Why would secularism have to be replaced with something?
posted
Tres, the problem with your "logic" is that it's not logical.
If A and B agree on three things, and it logically follows that those three things MUST lead to a fourth thing, it is irrational for A and B to disagree on the fourth thing.
The only way logic can explain the above is to state that those three things do NOT necessarily lead to a foregone conclusion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, no... this is the argument: A: V1 B: V1 A: V2 B: V2 A: V1 & V2 -> V3 B: Sure, that looks true, until you realize V4. V4 & V1 & V2 -> not V3. Therefore not V3. A: I disagree with V4, therefore V4 can't be considered here. Therefore V1 & V2 -> V3. Therefore V3.
I see what you are trying to say, but B's last statement is inconsistent with A's second to last statement, so one of those two has to be wrong. In fact, if B's last statement should be true, it looks to me like in line 5, A should've said
V1 & V2 & not-V4 -> V3
and thus his argument for V3 is invalid.
While this is a problem with the specifics of your example, I see now that it's not a problem for the overall point you're trying to make. What you're saying is that any moral judgement involves many of these "not-V4" type premises, and that some of these, such as "there is no God who disapproves of homosexual marriage," are pseudo-religious.
Interesting.
My first inclination is to appeal to the social contract. If believers of many disparate religions are to come together in a society with nonbelievers, they're going to need some laws. That's the problem with your reply to Dan. You can't replace secular laws with nothing. Then you'd have no laws.
There is also a certain practical ease to dealing only with secular questions when you're making laws. Material harms can be debated, and you can convince someone that he's wrong about whether ousting Hussein will really do any good. Spiritual harms, on the other hand, tend to lead to impasse. And as Dan has pointed out, if you accept the spiritual norms of one group as your laws you have alienated everyone else in the society.
Besides the fact that religious norms which do not connect up or coincide with secular norms can in most cases easily be observed by believers regardless of what nonbelievers are doing in the meantime.
Also, in your most recent example of the train I note that the unknown factors which affect the decision in this case are not themselves values -- they are matters of fact. You call them "considerations." I feel like this is symptomatic of some hole in your reasoning, but I'll have to get back to you on it because I have homework to do now.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, to take a more practical example: If you say that using medicine and other healing arts eases pain and suffering and saves lives, therefore it is okay, there is a hidden assumption that there are no other things that would negate that conclusion - things like "God exists and we have no right to interfere with his chosen plan". Thus, even though we don't explicitly mention God in the issue, we are making hidden assumptions that either He doesn't exist or He permits our use of medicine - which is unfair and unequal to Christian Scientists.
[ March 01, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If believers of many disparate religions are to come together in a society with nonbelievers, they're going to need some laws. That's the problem with your reply to Dan. You can't replace secular laws with nothing. Then you'd have no laws.
It's not that we need to replace our laws. It's just that we need to get rid of the idea that their justification must be based in secular logic. And when I say we should replace it with nothing, I mean we should not establish any particular way in which we should evaluate possible laws. We should just let people evaluate them based on whatever they see fit, secular or religious.
And this is not to say that I think we should start enforcing religion by law. No - the government should stay neutral in matters of religion, itself. All I am changing is suggesting that we do not try to end the influence of religion on other matters that the government is entitled to legislate.
Example 1: Passing a law requiring school children to "Praise Jesus the Savior" in class, for secular reasons (such as because we determine it's healthy to do, or something like that.)
This is still wrong, in my view, because it is forcing a religion on people, even if it is done for secular, nonreligious reasons.
Example 2: Passing a law banning gay marriage for religious reasons.
This, I think, is not necessarily wrong. Even though it is based on religious logic, it is something within the government's sphere of influence.
Secularism, I think, would say we should not have either of these. My view is that the first is a violation of church and state, so we should not have it, but the second should be fine.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our legal system isn't set up to assign "reasons" to laws. If citizens vote for a law based on religious convictions, that's fine, but not at all comparable to the way you phrased it. Secularism merely says that laws cannot depend on external beliefs for their justification.
[ March 01, 2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Example 1: Passing a law requiring school children to "Praise Jesus the Savior" in class, for secular reasons (such as because we determine it's healthy to do, or something like that.)
This is still wrong, in my view, because it is forcing a religion on people, even if it is done for secular, nonreligious reasons.
Because it’s a hypothetical example , I’ll leave alone the idea that there is any way, in any realm of possibility, that forcing school children to praise the savior Jesus could be justified for secular reasons. But I don’t see any difference in forcing school children to follow a certain religion’s doctrine on praising the Lord during school hours and forcing homosexuals to follow a certain religion’s doctrine on gay marriage.
quote:Example 2: Passing a law banning gay marriage for religious reasons.
This, I think, is not necessarily wrong. Even though it is based on religious logic, it is something within the government's sphere of influence.
All laws are within the government's sphere of influence. If the government passed the law in your first example, that would then be in the government’s sphere of influence. You’re using circular logic. You’re saying, “It shouldn’t be wrong for the government to pass laws about marriage based on religious beliefs because the government can pass laws about marriage.”
quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The reason for the concept of separation of church and state is so that the government will not be in a position of enforcing religious beliefs and ideology on citizens who do not follow the tenets of that religion. The constitution clearly says, ”no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This goes beyond saying, “The government will never force you to praise Jesus.” It also has to include saying, ”The government will never force you to live by laws that are solely derived from ANY religion’s doctrine.”
Secularism would say, “Before the government can pass a law banning gay marriage, we must first see concrete evidence that gay marriage is harmful to others."
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Actually, I took Chris's example to be a reductio ad absurdum of your view. Or do you think it would be consistent with the Constitution for a hypothetical Christian Scientist majority to ban hospitals?
posted
I think it would definitely be consistent with the Constitution to ban hospitals.
That's exactly my point - that separation of church and state does not and should not prevent people and the government they control from doing otherwise allowable things for religious reasons.
quote:All laws are within the government's sphere of influence.
Not so - the Constitution restricts our government's capacity to pass laws in some areas. The first amendment restricts the government from forcing people to do things like praise Jesus, go to church, believe certain religious views,etc - regardless of the reason.
quote:The constitution clearly says, ”no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This goes beyond saying, “The government will never force you to praise Jesus.” It also has to include saying, ”The government will never force you to live by laws that are solely derived from ANY religion’s doctrine.”
No, it doesn't. It only restricts the government's ability to force a given religion on the people. It says the government cannot say one religion is right or wrong, or make people follow one religion over another.
A law banning gay marriage doesn't force religion on people any more than a law banning murder does, because neither of these are religion - they are other activities that religion simply has views about, views that might effect our judgement of them. But when you say you can't marry a member of the same sex, it doesn't imply you must start acting or believing like a Christian, or that Christianity is right. Nor is it something that's going to try to pressure or convince people to favor Christianity over anything else. Thus it is in no way forcing religion on anyone.
However, the notion that religious people can't base their support of certain issues on religion IS an establishment of secularism as a national pseudoreligion, and IS forcing secularism on them. As I illustrated earlier, even though secularism does not explicitly say so, it necessarily implies other religions are wrong - and that only material concerns should matter to us. It is the practical equivalent to the government calling all religions wrong, despite the fact that it does not come out and say it.
quote:Secularism merely says that laws cannot depend on external beliefs for their justification.
No - it says laws cannot depend on RELIGIOUS external beliefs. It appears perfectly fine with equally unproven secular external beliefs - things like "people should have equal rights" or "we should help the downtrodden."
The constitution says nothing about where our motivations for laws come from. In Utah, it is against the law to buy alchohol in a grocery store on Sunday. Why? I have no doubt that it is mostly because of the large Mormon population out here. It is within the realm of what the state can pass laws on, i.e., the control of alchohol sales, but the motivation comes from people's religious beliefs.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, tres, while you say we can act as you have outlined (which I still don't completely buy, though I suspect it actually works closer to your way today than a true pure secularism that you decry), it doesn't follow that we should.
After all, one of the reasons the Christian Scientists aren't waging guerrilla warfare (aside from the denomination's general pascifist leanings), is that they can opt out easily and freely. They just can avoid hospitals.
Coming from C.S. country (eastern MA), I learned about them at a young age, from parents and teachers, as it came up, and it was dealt with by saying "some folks believe like this..." No overt judgment was made.
-- SILLY ON I think we should replace all the hospitals with amusement parks, since it is well documented that over the course of this republic, more people have died in hospitals than amusement parks.
I agree, there are all sorts of laws like that here in MA too (go Puritans!). Because of the separation of legislative from judicial, the only way it would change is if people decided to do it, or someone appealed it on Constitutional grounds through the courts.
As it stands, there hasn't been a desire to do either, so it remains.
On a related note, a friend from college went to public schools in an upstate NY town, and until some time in middle/high school, they had RELIGION classes. Specifically Christian religion. It was only until an atheist family objected that they stopped.
Nothing ever gets changed cleanly, there are always holdovers. That doesn't mean that we should continue to operate this way.
quote:Of course, tres, while you say we can act as you have outlined (which I still don't completely buy, though I suspect it actually works closer to your way today than a true pure secularism that you decry), it doesn't follow that we should.
Well, I think we should if we wish to be equal and not suppress religion opinion, for the reasons I mentioned above.
This is not to say we need to start pushing religious values more than we do. I'm not saying Christian Scientists are making a mistake by not pushing to get hospitals banned. (I mean, I believe premartial sex is wrong, but I'd be opposed to a ban.) I'm just saying those who DO wish to push their religious values more, should be able to if they wish.
Truthfully, I would much prefer the secular America to Pat Robertson's America. Ironically, I think it would even be more consistent with Christian values. But those who disagree with me should be able to have their say, even if they disagree with me for purely religious reasons, and they shouldn't be rejected with a simple "religious views don't count as reasons to support a law."
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm amazed that atheism could be considered something other than a religion. What is it then? It takes an extreme amount of faith to hear testimonies from everyone around you and yet continue on in the belief that there is not a God. It takes faith to believe that everyone who has religious epiphany of some sort is wrong. It takes faith to believe that everything will always work according to what you see.
It takes unbelievable faith to look at all the people all over the world and say, "I'm right, you're wrong" on just about any topic. Almost everyone does this, but what is the basis for their belief? My arrogance is based on a belief in God, and is therefore arrogance in him. But an atheist's arrogance is based on himself, and what HE thinks. It takes alot of faith in yourself to maintain this.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two points, PSI, which we've covered on other threads on this topic:
1) Faith is not synonymous with religion. Religion is a structure built around shared faith, but requires more than mere belief in something.
2) It takes less "faith" than you might think to hear hundreds of thousands of mutually contradictory testimonies from people who seem no more enlightened or happy or principled than you are and conclude that they haven't actually experienced a higher power.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I takes faith to build a belief in atheism based on this. Now, choosing agnosticism (sp) would make more sense.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand where everyone is at with this.
Its not that you want Secularism out of the law, replaced by religion. Its that you want it out of the debate about laws. To say, "My reason is right because it isn't based on faith" is a bad argument.
The advantage that Secular debate has over Religious debate is that Secular arguments can have answers. You should be able to prove whether Law A or Law B is better in the long run, given a finite tangible goal. People on both sides can bring in theory and fact, statistic and anything else that both sides can agree is proof.
Religious arguments simply go, "I believe A." followed by someone's rebuttal of "I believe B." After that point, there isn't much use in talking about it.
As a result, the secular arguments get more thread time, more press, and make more noise.
(Except for those who just keep repeating "I believe A" over and over again in ever louder voices. Screaming does not create converts.)
Belle has made some of the most impassioned pleas against gay marriage, by simply stating, "I believe its wrong. You cannot force me to change my core beliefs."
There is only one counter to that argument. It is mine. "I believe its right. You cannot force me to change my core beliefs." Those core beliefs are religious and not secular.
What I find sad that many deeply religious people create secular sounding arguments to back up their faith based ones. This is probably due to the fact that they fear the world only respects secular arguments. This might even be why you started this thread, suggesting we should respect those arguments.
I will support you on this. If you believe, with your faith, in an argument, please express yourself as such. I, if not more will respect you and that argument.
We, being of different faiths, may not agree with it. We will respect it but still argue against it.
Its when you try to bolster up your faith based beliefs with secular arguments, and they are far weaker than your faith, that you are ridiculed and your cause suffers.
In other words:
Joe: I believe A Jill: I belive ~A Stalemate so Joe adds-- Joe: I belive A because of C. Jill: Proves ~C or If C then ~A.
Suddenly A is no longer seen as good a choice.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fascinating , considering the huge numbers of christians and hindus who do it implicitly to each other by their very existence
edit: in reply to PSI's "how could you see all the people who believe something contradictory and not be acting on faith".
Actually, come to think of it, this point is completely synchronous with hers, as christians and muslims are acting on faith. But that makes me amused, so I shall leave it.
posted
Tres, I've come to the conclusion that your interpretation of the Constitution is probably correct. But something's being constitutional doesn't make it wise. I maintain that if religious people want to live peaceably in a society with unbelievers and members of other faiths, they should try not to base laws purely on religious beliefs that others don't share.
Anyway, your view that we have established secularism as a pseudoreligion is pretty far-off from the reality of American government. There are Buchanans and Robertsons and the like exerting massive influence on elections, and no one is stopping them on constitutional grounds. So your utopia is very much alive.
In fact, it'd be nice if we could see the no-establishment clause uniformly enforced in this country. Get rid of the Christian chaplains in Congress and the "In God We Trust" on the money and so on. These are piddly little details, but I do find them insulting.
quote:(I mean, I believe premartial sex is wrong, but I'd be opposed to a ban.)
Have you always believed that? I seem to remember you thinking the opposite at some point in the past, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Secular resoning is a very useful tool, and I think that it has an important part to play in the crafting and evaluating of our laws.
What I object to is the the attitude "your opinion derives from a non-secular source, therefore it is invalid." I don't want to see secularism removed. I just want it removed as the only acceptable source of truth.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I just want it removed as the only acceptable source of truth."
But as it's the only acceptable source of shared truth available to the country, why SHOULDN'T it be the only acceptable source of truth? If you can't come up with a decent secular rationale for something -- in other words, if you can't actually demonstrate a real-world effect of your legislation -- why SHOULD it be enshrined in law?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The advantage that Secular debate has over Religious debate is that Secular arguments can have answers. You should be able to prove whether Law A or Law B is better in the long run, given a finite tangible goal.
One of the big problems with this, though, is that even in secular arguments it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove the goal we are after is the correct goal. You can't prove "we should minimize the suffering of the poor" any more than you can prove "we should fight homosexuality." You can reason about both some, but ultimately both of these goals cannot be justified like "F=MA" might be proven.
And even in religious debates, finite and observable evidence is often used. It may take different forms, such as Bible verses, but it still alows for debate beyond "I am right and you are wrong."
quote:What I find sad that many deeply religious people create secular sounding arguments to back up their faith based ones. This is probably due to the fact that they fear the world only respects secular arguments. This might even be why you started this thread, suggesting we should respect those arguments.
I agree completely. I am very much opposed to making up a fake argument because your true argument won't work. ("We just need to invade Iraq to get the WMDs!")
quote:I maintain that if religious people want to live peaceably in a society with unbelievers and members of other faiths, they should try not to base laws purely on religious beliefs that others don't share.
That's a fair claim - although you must realize that some religious individuals are going to feel certain religious issues are so important that it merits risking this peace.
quote:If you can't come up with a decent secular rationale for something -- in other words, if you can't actually demonstrate a real-world effect of your legislation -- why SHOULD it be enshrined in law?
Well, perhaps it has an effect you cannot demonstrate - at least to the standards that secularism would demand. Maybe there's something besides an observable, objective, empirical effect that would make a law worthwhile - many people do believe in such effects.
I mean, we could just as easily say "If you can't show where the Bible justifies something - if you can't actually demonstrate God's approval of it - why should it be enshrined in law?" And the answer would be, because maybe there's something besides Biblical justification that could make a law worthwile.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, secular law is indeed the lowest common denominator, as EVERYONE believes in demonstrable effects.
If you punch someone in the face, for example, he observes that he has been punched -- regardless of his religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, it doesn't. It only restricts the government's ability to force a given religion on the people. It says the government cannot say one religion is right or wrong, or make people follow one religion over another.
A law banning gay marriage doesn't force religion on people any more than a law banning murder does, because neither of these are religion - they are other activities that religion simply has views about, views that might effect our judgement of them. But when you say you can't marry a member of the same sex, it doesn't imply you must start acting or believing like a Christian, or that Christianity is right. Nor is it something that's going to try to pressure or convince people to favor Christianity over anything else. Thus it is in no way forcing religion on anyone.
As I said, if there were concrete, observable evidence that gay marriages, like murders, are harmful to others, the secular government would be completely within the bounds of constitutional restrictions in passing a law banning it. In the absence of said evidence, the only justification for passing the law is that Judeo-Christian doctrine says that gay marriage is wrong. Thus, the law is enforcing Judeo – Christian doctrine. That IS forcing religion on someone. I am not trying to turn this into a gay marriage argument. I would make the same argument about school prayer, or the ten commandments hanging on the courtroom wall, or the pledge of alliegance. The same argument would apply to a law banning pre-marital sex, or rated R movies.
quote: However, the notion that religious people can't base their support of certain issues on religion IS an establishment of secularism as a national pseudoreligion, and IS forcing secularism on them. As I illustrated earlier, even though secularism does not explicitly say so, it necessarily implies other religions are wrong - and that only material concerns should matter to us. It is the practical equivalent to the government calling all religions wrong, despite the fact that it does not come out and say it.
Secularism does not imply that all religions are wrong. It clearly states that all religions are irrelevant and must remain irrelevant regarding laws which will be enforced on both believers and non-believers. The issue is not the government saying all religions are wrong, it’s the government saying religions, right or wrong, cannot even be a consideration when creating these laws. True Secularism, if it were ever achieved, would not be a pseudo- religion, it would be an absence of religion.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, because of my faith and the reasons for it, I believe certain things are genuinely harmful that the average person doesn't. So I may have that as my motivation to want something legistlated. My reasons wouldn't be secularly based, but I think it is still valid as my opinion. If the majority felt a certain way based on non-secular reasoning, the majority gets the vote. That's how it works in my limited understanding, or how it ought to.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Tom. Based on how many of my posts are addressed to you, I guess I really like talking to you!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, I would argue that such things should not be legislated, but that you are welcome and encouraged to speak out against them as much as possible and try to sway public opinion.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I think you're right, Beverly, despite my poor attempts at communication so far. Secularism says nothing about the motivations of individual voters; a principal virtue of a secular society is that nobody has the right to question whether you hold your position because of Islam or Mormonism or Voodoo, since none has a preferred status. (it is our mere hope that through proper education social libertarians will outnumber you )
None of this, however, means that a law itself can be upheld for religious reasons. An alcohol regulation whose draft opens "Owing to The Goddess's immutable will..." can be rightfully struck down in the courts.
For a conclusion I must return to the theme of my original post. We desire a secular society in order to be as inclusive as possible. The Fathers didn't create a Deist society or a Federalist society, despite holding a majority in each case. Alternative minimal principles may exist, but none have proven as successful as those which derive as much nature as possible from shared experience and especially rationality.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, just so you know, I had no specific law or laws in mind when I said that. I only suggested that that could very well feel that way on something.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Beverly, I would argue that such things should not be legislated
That's find and good. Many people have opionions about what should and what should not be legislated. But nowhere in the constitution say that such things cannot be legislated. Calling it unconstitutional is simply not accurate.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard -- while a law phrased in such a way would be inappropriate, it doesn't matter what the voter's reasons were for wanting alchohol regulation laws in the first place. Someone cannot say that if I cannot to your satisfaction prove that unregulated alchohol consumption is demonstrable harmful, then such a law is unconstitutional.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, secular law is indeed the lowest common denominator, as EVERYONE believes in demonstrable effects.
If you punch someone in the face, for example, he observes that he has been punched -- regardless of his religion.
Tom, even if demonstrable effects are the only common denominator, it still doesn't follow that it's the ONLY factor that matters. I already gave examples as to the problem of basing joint decisions only upon common denominators, and dismissing all factors not agreed upon.
What's more, most secular arguments are based on far less agreed-upon "demonstrable evidence" than the example you gave. Often it is things like "gay people don't harm society in any way" which is accepted by some as well demonstrated and is rejected as others as false. What's more, in many cases (including that one) the truth is virtually unprovable.
quote:Secularism does not imply that all religions are wrong. It clearly states that all religions are irrelevant and must remain irrelevant regarding laws which will be enforced on both believers and non-believers.
But if religions were correct then they would be relevant, so by calling them necessarily irrelevant you are also calling them wrong, even if you don't actually say it explicitly.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that many are mutually exclusive, which would you allow to influence politics in the manner you're suggesting?
Again, secular laws are a baseline. If nobody in the entire country believes that they comprise a valid morality, that's perfectly ok; only compatibility matters.
quote:Someone cannot say that if I cannot to your satisfaction prove that unregulated alchohol consumption is demonstrable harmful, then such a law is unconstitutional.
No, which is why we deliberately chose a very restrictive constitution, in order to create secular means for similar invalidations. Prohibition was unconstitutional (until the amendment, of course) because the federal government was not given the power to regulate private activities in that way, regardless of whether the teetotaler position was supported or opposed by different religions.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if the supreme court agreed with you, they would strike down the legal drinking age laws.
But that's not the point. The point is that the constitution does not mandate that there be a valid secular argument behind a law. If the government has the right to pass laws concerning a thing, those laws don't have to be blessed by secularism any more than they have to be approved of by any God-centered religion.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, exactly. You can describe modern Society or Law or Government as secular because they are not, as institutions, connected to religion; but "secularism" is not itself a driving force behind the legal system.
(drinking ages fall under a loophole in the transportation funding system...stupid nanny-driven nerf-society panderers...)
[ March 03, 2004, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given that many are mutually exclusive, which would you allow to influence politics in the manner you're suggesting?
I propose we deal with it the same way we deal with all other conflicting opinion in this country - people try to convince eachother, a vote takes place, and the majority wins. Thus all religions would influence politics in proportion to their acceptance among the general population, just as conservatism and liberalism influence politics in proportion to their acceptance within the population.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
