Should secular arguments be privileged over religion-based arguments when it comes to public policy?

[More Than A Feeling]

I think so. "Because I think that God has said so" is not going to convince someone who doesn't believe in the same god, who doesn't care about religion, or who doesn't like you enough to think that you have a good handle on what god does and does not want. In fact, the only way that this could be an advantage is if doing so gave you points for integrity, because a person thought that your religion was a consistent standard that you held yourself to. As we have seen, expecting most any religious person to consistently follow the standards they set for themselves is unrealistic, and I think that the believers in here would agree with me. Therefore, since we have a standard that does not encourage agreement, and which even the people who hold themselves to cannot follow, why should credence be given to religious reasons for adopting or not adopting a policy? I can't think of a reason, can you?

[Vexatious Ape]

1. Yes, yes again and more yes.

Secular arguments are based in reality--most of the time, while religious arguments are never based in reality.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Isn't that why we have the establishment clause?

As a believer, let me assure you that the so called "faith based" programs and talk of "God telling me to do this" coming from politicians makes me feel very ill. Religion is a personal thing, and should remain generally private. I think it is ok for churches, mosques, synagogs, etc, to make a statement against something like war. But even the Friends have a separate non-profit that runs their anti-war activities. I believe in strictly enforcing the IRS codes against ministers who use the pulpit to tell their congregation how to vote. The creation of legislation should be secular in nature in this country.

By and large, the right wingers who rant on other boards often bring up the "religious excuse", usually based on totally false information. My favorite is that "before Clinton, everyone got to pray in school, and the Ten Commandments were on display at every courthouse"--yes, I've read that. Loved disillusioning the poster on that one, btw.

[skepticscott]

3. I wouldn't put it that way

Public policy should be based on facts and reason, to the best of our ability to know and apply them, not on faith. It just so happens that secular arguments are much more often based on the former and religiously based arguments on the latter, but that doesn't have to always be so. I hear secular arguments about public policy based on misinformation, delusion and wishful thinking all the time and I reject those just as vigorously as I do faith-based arguments. And a religiously-based argument can, occasionally, be grounded in good sense..if it is, I'll listen.

[More Than A Feeling]

4. Can you give me an example of a religion-based argument grounded in good sense?

[skepticscott]

15. Sure, here's one

Is it sensible public policy to prosecute members of the clergy for supplying alcohol to minors when they administer communion? Even though under other circumstances they would technically be committing a crime and could be prosecuted, the religious argument is that an exception should be made for this, and I agree with that. Which one of those alternatives do you think makes more sense?

[iamjoy]

5. Why Must One Be Better Than The Other?

Most of our secular laws are based on the bible. That's just a simple fact. It doesn't make them right or wrong, good or bad. We have some of each. So, why not use religious arguments? The bible says a lot about how to treat the poor, does it not?

If you want to debate prayer in school, sure we could bring up the Founding Fathers, but why not just reference Jesus as quoted in Matthew 6:5&6?

Jesus seems to emphasize five commandments, all of which are really pretty good rules by which to live and many of which are laws - not killing, not stealing, not bearing false witness (perjury) not committing adultery (sometimes a gray area) and honoring your parents (vague and unenforceable as law, but a good creed in most cases).

I am an agnostic, but I don't think we should deny the influence of the bible on the development of Western civilization or the relevance some parts of it still have today. We should keep it in perspective, though.

[donsu]

8. one IS better then the other - one is real the other isn't

every religion has it's own slant on fantasy

[More Than A Feeling]

9. How can secular laws be based on a religious document?

That would negate their secular character, which we can both agree that they have.

I gave the reasons why religious arguments are not as good as secular arguments in my OP.

[iamjoy]

10. But They Are

laws against stealing, perjury, etc have a religious basis to the extent that they are in the bible, but even non-believers think these are good laws.

As to why we should give credence to religious arguments, we should use any argument that works - if that is a religious one, so be it. So you may use different tactics with different people. To the fundamentalist Christian who whines about taxes and social programs, point them to the appropriate verses in the bible.

But, without using religion, or moral arguements, provide me with a good reason why we have laws against theft. Why don't we just leave it up to each individual to defend their own property, much as it is in the animal world?

Wait, I know why. There would be anarchy. We couldn't have a functioning society. And we are now rational enough and learned enough to recognize this. However, go back 3000 or so years when the Hebrews were establishing a country, and building a society. They needed laws. They used the spectre of this omnipotent God so people would believe these laws were legit.

But, some people don't see it that way. They still need the God factor to believe laws have any relevacne at all. Furthermore, some laws aren't so basic or necessary to prevent anarchy as not stealing. Without using a moral or religious argument - why should we pay taxes to help the poor?

[msongs]

11. moral arguments and religious arguments are not related - one can be moral without religion nt

[More Than A Feeling]

12. Why we should pay taxes to help the poor (non-religious, non-moral reason)

Because if a society ignores the poor, there will eventually be a lot of poor (everyone has the potential to be down on their luck at some point), and they will have no stake in the system, and then there will be more violence and crime, which would have many negative consequences. Societies are formed because human beings have a better chance of surviving within a social structure than they do on their own, and a society that did not help its members survive better than if they were on their own would not last very long, and then we'd all have to make it on our own. A much harder life.

You know this, because you said it yourself: society couldn't function.

Ok, well, what about people needing the God factor to believe that laws are relevant? That says that if laws aren't backed up by a God (who, I guess you are assuming) would punish them after death, they wouldn't care about the consequences in this life. However, you underestimate the consequences in this life. Society is not kind to criminals. There are all sorts of sanctions and stigmas that go with being a criminal, and people see examples of this all the time, enough to respect them, without the need for supposed punishment after death.

That doesn't even get into the matter of what happens when people believe that human laws are in conflict with God's law. Hey, they can break those laws anytime they want, because God will give them a first class ticket into Heaven!

Do you honestly believe that fundamentalists are going to believe your interpretation of the Bible over their own?

Finally, you are suggesting that the following is true "laws against stealing are in the Bible. Society has laws against stealing. Therefore, the law against stealing must be based in the Bible." This does not follow.

[Goblinmonger]

14. So before the bible

people were just killing and stealing at will. No society ever figured out on their own, without the help of "god," that killing their own was a bad deal? No society ever figured out that stopping stealing was in the interest of the common good?

Thankfully the bible came around when it did or humans would have killed themselves off.

The laws that people say are based on the bible are actually secular laws that the bible used, too. Because if we are basing our laws on the laws of the bible, we have to include that first commandment, too, but then we are a theocracy and are completely screwn.

[iamjoy]

16. Actually, No

But the laws or the societies were largely based on what they thought their gods wanted, or at least the reason given was that it was largely based on what the gods wanted.

[Goblinmonger]

17. So our country is really a country

based on the goodness of Anu and Bel? I mean, that's who Hammurabi said picked him to bring righteousness. And I would guess that we got more laws from his code than from the bible.

[struggle4progress]

18. It's simply not true that "most of our secular laws are based on the Bible"

The English common law, which formed the original basis of much American laws, for example, arose from a jurisprudence that developed very quickly after the Norman invasion and was based on a complicated mix of new procedural norms, traditional English practices, and abstract legal categories that have no obvious precedents.

[libertypirate]

6. Those who lack the most understanding

believe they understand the most. Assumptions are safe, they corral logic and understanding beyond, sometimes away from facts and reality. Since everything takes second fiddle to something that is believed "above all else" there is really very little an unbeliever can do. Why, because they assume that you are the one lacking the understanding...

The godless are infidels in all religions just ask any nonbeliever, and this is a social tool of control.

You can prove me wrong of course just ask a believer if they would vote for a non-believer over a believer for president and you get the answer to religious freedom in America.

There is no freedom when people are compelled into choices they assume over ones they deliberate.

[donsu]

7. yes, of course

nt

[kestrel91316]

13. Yes. Our nation is not, and never has been, governed by "holy writ".

[struggle4progress]

19. Either one supports free speech or one does not. If one supports

free speech, then must one not also tolerate religious speech in public forums?

Religious speech in public forums often offends me: it seems a noisy praying on street corners and taking the name in vain -- and for this reason, I am inclined to avoid it myself under many circumstances.

Although it's really not my favorite public policy tool, if I can use it in good conscience and need to, I will consider it: if, for example, my political opponents organize, and choose to march about proclaiming themselves the sole true discerners of Almighty Will, I may well be moved to set aside my distaste for using religious institutions or language in a public setting.

I'm not likely to object if Pastor X stands up to say that his/her denomination objects to a certain proposed policy as violating the separation of church and state, for example: Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's &c&c

Conservative death penalty enthusiasts have been known to quote "an eye for an eye." Against this, is there any really good reason for me, as a death penalty opponent, not to remind a governor that his/her church opposes the death penalty, when I write to seek clemency?

I once went with several hundred co-religionists to lobby Congress on the subject of poverty in America. We explained the denominational background of our group and then gave a completely secular discussion of the problem we wanted addressed. It was a very informative experience, because what I principally heard back, over and over again, from various Congressional aides was -- Congressman X is really very deeply and sincerely religious. None of us in that delegation really gave a rat's ass whether any of the Congressmen we lobbied were religious or not: what we wanted were productive programs to help the growing numbers of homeless living on the streets of DC and other American cities. Frankly, my later experiences have convinced me that inane responses are not uncommon, no matter how one presents oneself in such efforts.

It would be nice if public policy debates were decided on the basis of rational argument -- but in reality they're not: they're determined by the power of interest groups. I tell myself that I choose my own positions rationally, in accordance with my values, and I try to do so, but when it comes down to what policywins politically, the real question is: who's best organized to win?

[More Than A Feeling]

20. Well spoken.

I am glad we can agree that secular, rational argument is the way it should be. Whether it is actually that way or not, as you noted, is another question altogether.

[struggle4progress]

21. Is there any point in discussing "the way it should be" apart from material realities?

To do so is to produce an artificial abstract discussion divorced from the factual world. If I merely attend to rational arguments -- while those who are committed to various immoral projects continue to move forward -- my rational discourses have been a pointless exercise in navel gazing.

And unless something beyond pure rationality informs policy decisions, the decisions will always have a sociopathic character.

Enormous quantities of careful and verifiable rational thought can be invested in policy decisions which remain completely uninformed by ethics. The development of fusion weapons, for example, was an amazing scientific and engineering achievement: it seems difficult to criticize such an accomplishment, on the grounds that this weapons development was irrational, because in fact the development was a stunning application of the power of modern technical rationality. Nevertheless, the development of these weapons ranks among the greatest acts of political terrorism in world history.

http://www.authentichistory.com.nyud.net:8090/1950s/speeches/images/19460725_bikini_atoll_1.jpg
http://www.bmcpublications.com.nyud.net:8090/BJMain/BJ3.jpg
http://www3.uakron.edu/majuro.nyud.net:8090/Eniwetok-Army-Postcard.jpg

[More Than A Feeling]

23. Yes, there is. If we do not know where we want to go, how shall we ever get there?

There are better material realities than the one we currently have, and I'd like to see them come to pass.

Now if you want to talk about artificial abstract discussion, I can think of nothing more abstract than discussing what God wants. Ethics grounded in human relations on the other hand, are quite practical.

[struggle4progress]

24. You ask "If we do not know where we want to go, how shall we ever get there?"

But, in fact, we usually do not often know exactly where we want to go, because we want to go somewhere real -- and whether an imagined destination is actually accessible, will depend on what we are really able to do. And it is quite often the case in political fights, that one cannot afford the luxury of simply working towards and awaiting a rational conversion of everyone to a particular view of an issue.

[varkam]

22. If we enjoy freedom of religion, then absolutely.

Freedom of religion is predicated upon the idea that government should stay the hell out of religion. It should not have a position on church doctrine one way or the other. It should not endorse one religion over any other, because doing so would encroach on the entire idea of freedom of religion.