Religion and politics

[Justforfun000]

I've been arguing into the nitty gritty all day with some yahoo on SB.com, and just now I saw this response from someone who apparently started this thread or was involved.....He's a little trickier as you'll see with the way he's trying to sum up my points and the other guys side and try to make it look like there is truth in the middle....I would appreciate some extra advice on how to come back strong and hard. I want a really good comeback on this to nip it in the bud. The apologistic types are the most aggravating to deal with because they make their arguments look so "cosy" so we'll all get along.

Take a crack at it and I'll try to compose along with you.

I have been travelling and was not able to follow the thread closely. I have interent access at the motel.

There seems to be a serious misconception on my points a page or so back. I never claimed that religion is the sole source of a person's values of right and wrong (nor does it have to be to have a place in politics any more than any other potential source of values). Nor did I claim that saying, "Well God said so," was particularly effective or sound in any debate. Just because an approach is not a good debate strategy in politics doesn't mean it has no place in politics.

I assumed that when people are taught morals in churches, they are also taught why that moral is good so they can justify their position to others. Most people want to have an explanation to support their faith. IS that too illogical to presume? I would hope adults would require more than 'because I said so'. Not being a religious person myself, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. What did Benny Hill say about ass-u-me? Perhaps I assumed something that was not true.

In any event, I agree, a person has to be able to articulate their justification better than just claiming, "Well God said so." Due to the 1st Amendment, a person cannot be precluded from saying that. Doesn't mean others have to accept that as a valid point either. Freedom of expression does not require acceptance. Do not deny the former when you are not willing to offer the latter. "Well God said so," is hardly convincing dealing with someone in the same faith, let alone, someone with a different or no faith at all. That's why I don't tie my positions to God. Does truth have to rely on God to be truth? I would hope not.

On the other hand claiming religion has no place in politics is absurd for both bolded concepts deal with the principles of right and wrong. How can you possibly have a basis for laws to define what is required or what is punishable if you do it, if you have no basis of right and wrong or no moral code? (I recall having a thread on this some time back.) A bad moral code is not the same as having no moral code. A bad moral code offers a basis to legislate.

Because religion is a source of right and wrong, it must have a place in politics.

If you can prove religion is not a source of the values of right and wrong or morality (whether good or bad), or you can prove that all religious values or values from religion have no place in politics, then you can claim religion has no place in politics. In our society we have determined that the values embodied in 4 of the 10 commandments don't belong in politics; those dealing with man's relationship to God. I'm speaking of the values dealing with man's relationship to man. Do any of those belong in politics or do they not? It's rather hard to argue they don't when we have laws dealing with at least 2 of the commandments (Thou shalt not commit murder and thou shalt not steal.)

[Tokaji Kyoden]

How can you possibly have a basis for laws to define what is required or what is punishable if you do it, if you have no basis of right and wrong or no moral code?

And this guy is claiming that all morals come from religion? Bull Fucking Shit! People who are brought up as atheists can have completely and absolutely normal morals. Morals can come from society as much as they do from religion.

Because religion is a source of right and wrong, it must have a place in politics.

And you know what? Satanism is a form of right and wrong too, and we don't consider at all for politics. So if he's going to say 'religion', then he'd better include all religions, which is completely illogical.

If you can prove religion is not a source of the values of right and wrong or morality (whether good or bad), or you can prove that all religious values or values from religion have no place in politics, then you can claim religion has no place in politics.

There is no need to prove that religion is not a source of morals. That would be a waste of our time. The key idea here is that no two major religions could ever agree upon one thing, and THAT is why it shouldn't be in politics.

I'm speaking of the values dealing with man's relationship to man. Do any of those belong in politics or do they not? It's rather hard to argue they don't when we have laws dealing with at least 2 of the commandments (Thou shalt not commit murder and thou shalt not steal.)

This guy knows nothing of history. Those laws are not based on religion, nor the ten commandments. They are based on ancient greek and roman laws. And that is where democracy came from. And in the spirit of democracy, I say only one more thing: the people have spoken, and they don't want religion in government, thus separation of church and state and freedom of religion.

[Duckie]

He is slippery. I can barely tell what you're arguing about with his slick psuedo-logic, so take my responses with a grain of salt.

There seems to be a serious misconception on my points a page or so back. I never claimed that religion is the sole source of a person's values of right and wrong (nor does it have to be to have a place in politics any more than any other potential source of values). Nor did I claim that saying, "Well God said so," was particularly effective or sound in any debate. Just because an approach is not a good debate strategy in politics doesn't mean it has no place in politics.

He might be distorting your position here. The bible may be a source of morals (though not particularly good ones, mind, if you actually read it), but politics is NOT about morals.

I don't know how to put this, but does "Politics is about laws, which are composed according to morals, not copied from them. Speeding, for instance, is a law violation that is neither moral nor immoral unless you end up hurting someone through it." sound right? I think you get what I mean.

I assumed that when people are taught morals in churches, they are also taught why that moral is good so they can justify their position to others. Most people want to have an explanation to support their faith. IS that too illogical to presume?

Yes, when they start using their faith to change the law. And morality is not universal to churches- indeed, I have set foot in a church approximately 12 times, and I'm no less moral than most people.

I would hope adults would require more than 'because I said so'. Not being a religious person myself, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. What did Benny Hill say about ass-u-me? Perhaps I assumed something that was not true.

Giving the benefit of the doubt is fine, but benefit of the doubt can be exhausted when it's proven they are being maliciously stupid instead of well-meaningly stupid.

In any event, I agree, a person has to be able to articulate their justification better than just claiming, "Well God said so." Due to the 1st Amendment, a person cannot be precluded from saying that. Doesn't mean others have to accept that as a valid point either.

Just because someone can say it doesn't make it an idiotic and untenable position. "God Says So" is not a logically sound position and has no meaning in a logical arena such as what politics ideally would be.

God says so is similar to "Because I say so." Do you want your laws to have that basis? I believe in the outlawing of rap music, because I don't like it. Why? I say so. It's my morals tellin' me to.

Freedom of expression does not require acceptance.

True. People can spout off all the bullshit they feel like and still not get it to be a law because it needs justification beyond sky pixies.

Do not deny the former when you are not willing to offer the latter. "Well God said so," is hardly convincing dealing with someone in the same faith, let alone, someone with a different or no faith at all. That's why I don't tie my positions to God. Does truth have to rely on God to be truth? I would hope not.

Who said we are denying freedom of expression? As I said earlier, people can mouth off about the wrath of the invisible man in the sky all they want, but it won't be law any more than the laws of Hank against Bunless Hotdogs or the Intelligent Design by Flying Spaghetti Monster Creation Theory.
A magical person's (who probably doesn't exist) word alone is not enough to rely on a book written by sheep herders thousands of years ago for laws that will change the lives of millions of men and women.

On the other hand claiming religion has no place in politics is absurd for both bolded concepts deal with the principles of right and wrong. How can you possibly have a basis for laws to define what is required or what is punishable if you do it, if you have no basis of right and wrong or no moral code?

Outrageous! Secular Humanism and logical common sense, along with ideas such as Utilitarianism or the "As Long As It Doesn't Harm Anyone Else" clause, and the Code of Hammurabi (which the Hebrews plagarized in creating the Old Testament) are direct statements on morality.
Don't act pompous and assume that religion is the ultimate arbiter of morality, when it is just a man sitting on a chair claiming to be king!

(I recall having a thread on this some time back.) A bad moral code is not the same as having no moral code. A bad moral code offers a basis to legislate.

Just because you said so in a thread, does not make it true. Better a tyrant than an incompetant, you say? No moral code IS a bad moral code!

Because religion is a source of right and wrong, it must have a place in politics.

Because apples are fruit, apples must be in an orange plantation.

If you can prove religion is not a source of the values of right and wrong or morality (whether good or bad),

Strawman. We didn't set out to prove religion is moralless, but rather that it is not the only moral code in existance.

or you can prove that all religious values or values from religion have no place in politics, then you can claim religion has no place in politics.

Strawman. Religious values often coincide with logical and secular values, such as prohibitions against murder or stealing.

In our society we have determined that the values embodied in 4 of the 10 commandments don't belong in politics; those dealing with man's relationship to God. I'm speaking of the values dealing with man's relationship to man. Do any of those belong in politics or do they not? It's rather hard to argue they don't when we have laws dealing with at least 2 of the commandments (Thou shalt not commit murder and thou shalt not steal.)

False dilemma. Just because the Ten Commandments has 40% of their commandments apply equally to secular government does not open the door for religious legislation of morality.
Religion does not hold morales in a vicelike grip, despite you masturbating to the contrary that the only source of right and wrong is the forbidden apple.

[The Guid]

I assumed that when people are taught morals in churches, they are also taught why that moral is good so they can justify their position to others.

Huge jump. He talks later of the "because God says so" and that's all people are going to get.

Most people want to have an explanation to support their faith. IS that too illogical to presume?

Actually, yes... its totally and utterly illogical. Faith is about belief, you do not have an explanation. For example, I believe that God created humanity - I don't need proof or assert that it is there. I don't need there to be.

On the other hand claiming religion has no place in politics is absurd for both bolded concepts deal with the principles of right and wrong.

Presumably it is also absurd to not take a copy of the Lord of the Rings into Congress because both the Lord of the Rings and politics deal with principles of right and wrong.

How can you possibly have a basis for laws to define what is required or what is punishable if you do it, if you have no basis of right and wrong or no moral code?

Irrelevant. Moral code exists without religion. Totally out of place sentence.

Because religion is a source of right and wrong, it must have a place in politics.

So is the Lord of the Rings. I don't see that in politics.

If you can prove religion is not a source of the values of right and wrong or morality (whether good or bad), or you can prove that all religious values or values from religion have no place in politics, then you can claim religion has no place in politics.

And since when does he get to set the goal posts? His first statement of need about a "source of values" is irrelevant. His second is (presumably) just to sum up the whole debate! Why can not the need be on him to prove the neccessity of religion in polititcs?

I'm speaking of the values dealing with man's relationship to man. Do any of those belong in politics or do they not?

Prove they come purely from religion.

Hope this helps.

[Duckie]

If you're trying to score points, by the way, since it's one out of a thousand you ever convince somebody on the internet, I humbly suggest my "Masturbating to the Forbidden Apple" and "Man On A Chair Claiming To Be King" for zingers. They'll definately clear up the grey lines he's trying to draw around your positions for everyone else.

Not that I'm proud of them or anything as an achievement. I could do better if he were more insulting back.

[Vendetta]

How can you possibly have a basis for laws to define what is required or what is punishable if you do it, if you have no basis of right and wrong or no moral code?

Laws are not based on predefined moral codes. Concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' have only the barest relation to laws. Laws are the set of agreed rules by which a society operates and standards of behaviour it requires of all its members. Modern societies, which have members with many different personal moralities and concepts of right and wrong, must define their laws without recourse to any of those religions, or risk a section of society becoming segregated and setting their own moral guidelines above society's laws in cases of conflict. (insert example of "honour killings" in Muslim communities in Britain, Muslims have for the last few years becaome an insular subsection of society in some areas, especially Bolton and Manchester. There are an unfortunate number of "honour killings" which can largely only occur because a ghettoised society has partially withdrawn from the social contract that laws represent.)

Above all, laws are mutable, they can be interpreted or overturned by practical application, or by the changing composition and nature of society.

Also, the creation of law is only one section of politics, where is the concept of 'right' and 'wrong' in fiscal policy? What does God say about environmental policies? Do we allow our moral codes to guide foreign policy?

(It may also be instructive to talk about Shar'ia, and the treatment of non-Muslims in strict Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, and the deep divisions and social stratification and inequality that strongly applied religious laws will bring, as a strongly applied Christian law would produce much the same result)

[Justforfun000]

Thanks guys. I'll try to compose something tomorrow and post it.

I thought I was dealing with enough aggravation with the guy I have been posting against. Check out a couple of THESE little beauties he said to me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by justforfun000
lol. No seriously, obviously democracy is important, but it's important to BASE your decisions on what is right or wrong to the best of reasoned ability otherwise you are guilty of the fallacy. Simple question: Would it have been fair to keep black peoples as slaves in the southern states JUST because 80% of people (that were allowed to vote) said yes?


Yes. To do otherwise is to allow a small minority to dictate their morals and ethics to the vast majority, and THAT is the danger. If we are going to allow the 20% to dictate what the other 80% can and cannot do (expecially since if only 20% believe that slavory should be abolished, then they obviously don't have a very convincing argument, do they?) That is getting close to a dicatorship rather than democracy. The will of the few superceeding the will of the many.

Politicians are not speaking for EVERY citizen. They are speaking for the majority. If they had to speak for every citizen, then we should do away with politicians altogether and go with a direct democracy, no more of the representitive democracy. You're never going to find an issue were 100% of the people agree, and until that happens, you will never have a politician speaking for All of the people.

Justforfun000 said: Quote:
Like I said, all of this is IRRELEVANT as long as everyone bases decisions on logic and sensible debate. I don't care if you are Christian, moslem, Hindu, Wiccan or even TREKKIE, this won't matter a whit if they aren't simply using their DESIGNATION as a member of these groups as the actual reason for a policy. That's where it is wrong.


And if the majority agrees with that reasoning and the policy goes through, then that was a valid argument. Politics is all about convincing the masses that your ideas are the right reasons. As long as they convince people, they are valid arguments.

Do you see what I'm dealing with? Sheesh.

If you're curious, the thread is here:

++http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthrea ... ge=1&pp=25

[Darth Wong]

I have been travelling and was not able to follow the thread closely. I have interent access at the motel.

There seems to be a serious misconception on my points a page or so back. I never claimed that religion is the sole source of a person's values of right and wrong (nor does it have to be to have a place in politics any more than any other potential source of values). Nor did I claim that saying, "Well God said so," was particularly effective or sound in any debate. Just because an approach is not a good debate strategy in politics doesn't mean it has no place in politics.

Translation: "I never came right out and said anything. I'm not even really saying anything right now."

I assumed that when people are taught morals in churches, they are also taught why that moral is good so they can justify their position to others. Most people want to have an explanation to support their faith. IS that too illogical to presume? I would hope adults would require more than 'because I said so'. Not being a religious person myself, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. What did Benny Hill say about ass-u-me? Perhaps I assumed something that was not true.

Translation: "I'll bet there's some objective basis to religious morality, even if I can't tell you what it is."

In any event, I agree, a person has to be able to articulate their justification better than just claiming, "Well God said so." Due to the 1st Amendment, a person cannot be precluded from saying that. Doesn't mean others have to accept that as a valid point either. Freedom of expression does not require acceptance. Do not deny the former when you are not willing to offer the latter. "Well God said so," is hardly convincing dealing with someone in the same faith, let alone, someone with a different or no faith at all. That's why I don't tie my positions to God. Does truth have to rely on God to be truth? I would hope not.

Translation: "Blah blah blah, just repeating what's already been said."

On the other hand claiming religion has no place in politics is absurd for both bolded concepts deal with the principles of right and wrong. How can you possibly have a basis for laws to define what is required or what is punishable if you do it, if you have no basis of right and wrong or no moral code? (I recall having a thread on this some time back.) A bad moral code is not the same as having no moral code. A bad moral code offers a basis to legislate.

Translation: "You need religion in politics because you need moral codes. Of course, I'm assuming that you need religion for moral codes: a preposterous assumption since the incorporation of a moral code supported only by religion would represent de facto establishment of that religion's beliefs."

Because religion is a source of right and wrong, it must have a place in politics.

But not in law. So what precise part of politics should it be allowed to influence, then?

If you can prove religion is not a source of the values of right and wrong or morality (whether good or bad), or you can prove that all religious values or values from religion have no place in politics, then you can claim religion has no place in politics.

Easily done. There are two kinds of religious moral code:

1. Morals found in a religion which are fairly universal, ie- found in virtually all cultures and religions, even non-religious philosophical ethics systems such as utilitarianism, Lockean rights, and duty ethics. "Do not run around killing people" is a good example of this.
2. Morals which are distinct to one particular religion or family of religions. "Women must be modest in public" is a good example of this. It's found in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic triumvirate but there are plenty of cultures where people walk around naked and nobody cares.

Of the two, the first kind of morality is perfectly acceptable in political discourse, but in that case, religion is a redundant term. Since it is so universally agreed upon, there is no need to cite any particular religion in order to justify morals which fall into category #1. With the second kind of morals, they represent clear violations of the Establishment clause; if you use the apparatus of the State to forcibly promote the peculiar moral values of one particular religion or family of religions over others, then you are committing a textbook Establishment clause violation.

In our society we have determined that the values embodied in 4 of the 10 commandments don't belong in politics; those dealing with man's relationship to God. I'm speaking of the values dealing with man's relationship to man. Do any of those belong in politics or do they not? It's rather hard to argue they don't when we have laws dealing with at least 2 of the commandments (Thou shalt not commit murder and thou shalt not steal.)

There is a difference between coincidence and influence.

[Lusankya]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justforfun000
lol. No seriously, obviously democracy is important, but it's important to BASE your decisions on what is right or wrong to the best of reasoned ability otherwise you are guilty of the fallacy. Simple question: Would it have been fair to keep black peoples as slaves in the southern states JUST because 80% of people (that were allowed to vote) said yes?


Yes. To do otherwise is to allow a small minority to dictate their morals and ethics to the vast majority, and THAT is the danger. If we are going to allow the 20% to dictate what the other 80% can and cannot do (expecially since if only 20% believe that slavory should be abolished, then they obviously don't have a very convincing argument, do they?) That is getting close to a dicatorship rather than democracy. The will of the few superceeding the will of the many.

Obviously he didn't notice your little "That were allowed to vote" line. Given that at the time, women and slaves were not allowed to vote, that 80% of the majority would turn into a 30% of the population (I'm not sure of the exact demographics of the Confederacy; this is assuming that just under 40% of the popluation was black.

Politicians are not speaking for EVERY citizen. They are speaking for the majority. If they had to speak for every citizen, then we should do away with politicians altogether and go with a direct democracy, no more of the representitive democracy. You're never going to find an issue were 100% of the people agree, and until that happens, you will never have a politician speaking for All of the people.

When John Howard was re-elected last election, in his election speech (which was actually quite good, incidentally) he said, "And we must always remember that a government is elected to serve not only the people who voted for them, but also to serve the people who voted against them."

It was a statement that stuck in my head: No government can morally disregard the rights of the minority simply because the majority wants it to be so. The Government has a duty to treat all of its citizens equally. Even the ones who voted against them.

Justforfun000 said: Quote:
Like I said, all of this is IRRELEVANT as long as everyone bases decisions on logic and sensible debate. I don't care if you are Christian, moslem, Hindu, Wiccan or even TREKKIE, this won't matter a whit if they aren't simply using their DESIGNATION as a member of these groups as the actual reason for a policy. That's where it is wrong.


And if the majority agrees with that reasoning and the policy goes through, then that was a valid argument. Politics is all about convincing the masses that your ideas are the right reasons. As long as they convince people, they are valid arguments.

Ugh. That just made my head hurt, so rather than dealing with that point, I'll tell everyone a story about the time that I convinced my sister that the reasons pigeons squeaked when they took off was because they were too fat, and their wings could barely support them. Then there was the time my family convinced her that there was something wrong with her because she couldn't roll her tongue into a straw-thingy (which is, as we know, a genetic matter and is no more detrimental to your health than the colour of your hair). I guess they're valid arguments now, though, because we managed to convince her. [/pointless ramble]

[wolveraptor]

So this guy would rather have the rights of human beings kept as property than compromise the principles of democracy? Jackass. There is nothing inherently wrong with a dicatatorship. It is abuse and misuse of power that produces conflict. Were there a magic uber-fairy who was uncorruptable and 100% moral, I would support his/her dictatorship whole-heartedly, and do away with all the beaurocratic nonsense that surrounds a democracy.

Also, he changes positions in the same damn post. He goes from saying that religion is not the arbiter of morality to saying it is, and therefore must be included in politics.

[brianeyci]

There seems to be a serious misconception on my points a page or so back. I never claimed that religion is the sole source of a person's values of right and wrong (nor does it have to be to have a place in politics any more than any other potential source of values). Nor did I claim that saying, "Well God said so," was particularly effective or sound in any debate. Just because an approach is not a good debate strategy in politics doesn't mean it has no place in politics.

So you're saying catering to the religious right is an effective strategy in politics? Tell me something I don't know.

I assumed that when people are taught morals in churches, they are also taught why that moral is good so they can justify their position to others. Most people want to have an explanation to support their faith. IS that too illogical to presume? I would hope adults would require more than 'because I said so'. Not being a religious person myself, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. What did Benny Hill say about ass-u-me? Perhaps I assumed something that was not true.

Nothing of substance.

In any event, I agree, a person has to be able to articulate their justification better than just claiming, "Well God said so." Due to the 1st Amendment, a person cannot be precluded from saying that. Doesn't mean others have to accept that as a valid point either. Freedom of expression does not require acceptance. Do not deny the former when you are not willing to offer the latter.

Nothing of substance.

"Well God said so," is hardly convincing dealing with someone in the same faith, let alone, someone with a different or no faith at all. That's why I don't tie my positions to God. Does truth have to rely on God to be truth? I would hope not.

Again, nothing of substance. Do you like hearing your own voice?

On the other hand claiming religion has no place in politics is absurd for both bolded concepts deal with the principles of right and wrong.

Be more specific. Tell me what religion you would have in government, and how this would work. Tell me how religion deals with "principles of right and wrong" with specific examples.

How can you possibly have a basis for laws to define what is required or what is punishable if you do it, if you have no basis of right and wrong or no moral code?

You are assuming that morality is exclusive to religion.

(I recall having a thread on this some time back.) A bad moral code is not the same as having no moral code. A bad moral code offers a basis to legislate.

False dilemma fallacy. You are saying that either there is religion and therefore some "moral code" or there is no religion and no moral code. Does it even enter your mind that you can be moral without religion?

Because religion is a source of right and wrong, it must have a place in politics.

Again you are assuming that you need to be religious to be moral.

If you can prove religion is not a source of the values of right and wrong or morality (whether good or bad), or you can prove that all religious values or values from religion have no place in politics, then you can claim religion has no place in politics.

If you want to show that religion is a source of "right" morality, the burden of proof is on you. Also, it is a false dilemma to say "wrong morality with religion or no morality with no religion". You start from the false assumption that religious "morality" is the only form of morality, clearly false to anyone with even the least bit of contemporary or historical knowledge.

In our society we have determined that the values embodied in 4 of the 10 commandments don't belong in politics; those dealing with man's relationship to God. I'm speaking of the values dealing with man's relationship to man. Do any of those belong in politics or do they not? It's rather hard to argue they don't when we have laws dealing with at least 2 of the commandments (Thou shalt not commit murder and thou shalt not steal.)

The problem is, and this is what you don't understand, that these concepts are not exclusive to religion. You do not need to be religious to understand the concept "do not commit murder except in self defense" and so on. The crux of the matter is that monothestic religion promotes intolerance. Intrinsically, if you believe in your God and I believe in mine, if your God is supposed to be the supreme being and mine is supposed to be the same, then there is an obvious conflict.

Now polythestic religion may work, but even with that there are specific Gods for death, nature, sexuality, and so on, and someone may have a different God of Sex than you, and then there will be conflict.

Brian

[Justforfun000]

Thanks all. I composed a response with inspiration (and in a couple small places blatant copy/text..lol) from your posts.

I'm anxious to see the response.

[Justforfun000]

Not that I like to get in the habit of running for backup, but considering a few of us were involved in the way I composed a rebuttal to this guy, you will probably want another crack back. He is not only sneaky as fuck, but he's either deliberately lying about what he said before or really brain dead as to what his post was intimating.

snipping to the key issues--


Quote:
Originally Posted by justforfun000
THIS is where the wheels fall off the bus. With that paragraph you did what is called circular argumentation. You are stating as FACT the premise that without religion, you have no moral code.



You're reading your key point into the statement that wasn't there. I'm stating as fact that at least some people do get their moral code from religious teachings, that religion and politics deal with values and morality, and you cannot legislate without some code of right and wrong (morality). I consider that self-evident. Now if you want to prove that statement false, be my guest. I never claimed that moral code had to be religious based! Mine is not, but I know people whose moral code is based on religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by justforfun000
First of all, even Atheists and Agnostics have a moral code. In fact EVERY human being has a personal one of their own, it's something you can't HELP but have as a human being because your whole life is based on decisions tempered by judgement.


That's why I find it ludicrus to claim legislation is seperate from morality. It's a question of who's morality is being legislated. Any source of that code is grounds for discussion in the political process.

So it's OK for atheists and agnostics to push their morality in the political process into the legal code, but not OK for Christians? The 1st Amendment begs to differ.

--snipped--


Quote:
Originally Posted by justforfun000
In any event, if you try to push the idea that you have to accept a religious basis for a starting point, then you are trying to establish de facto an endorsement for their beliefs.


No. What I'm pushing is the recognition that values stemming from religion have a place in considering what the laws will be. Nothing more, nothing less. Again you're reading something into my post that isn't there. I never claimed religion is to be the only player in politics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by justforfun000
But not in law. So what precise part of politics should it be allowed to influence, then?
Actually, relating to law, a fellow poster had this take on it:

So where are we left to insert religion fairly?


See above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by justforfun000
Lets sum up moral codes as being from two basic camps:

1) Morals that are universal in practically all religions because of their universal agreement as to what is not desirable. Even non-religious philosophical ethics systems like utilitarianism, Lockean rights, and duty ethics will have gems like "Thou shalt not murder". There isn't too many that would disagree with this.

2) Morals that are specific to a religion that has no particular basis in logic. "Women must be modest in public" is a good example of this. It's found in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic triumvirate but there are plenty of cultures where people walk around naked and nobody cares.

The first example is acceptable in Politics, but the inclusion of "religion" is a redundant term. The universality of this idea means that no religion is NEEDED to justify this idea from being introduced. People would come up with it ANYWAY.

With the second kind of morals, they represent clear violations of the Establishment clause; if you use the apparatus of the State to forcibly promote the peculiar moral values of one particular religion or family of religions over others, then you are committing a textbook Establishment clause violation.


And from what source did those first set of values typically come from? The earliest civilizations had some religious faith that was passed down from generation to generation. Religion clearly aided in the acceptance of these values. Would people have come to it anyway? Possible, but you cannot disregard the fact religion played a role, possibly decisive role, in deriving these.

Incorporating the second type into law is not an establishment violation if they deal with sins against man.

What you're describing is the perversion of the establishment clause. It requires that there will be no state church like what they had in England or in ancient Rome. There is nothing that prohibits religious values (again the sins against man) from being incorporated into our laws.


Quote:
Originally Posted by justforfun000
So I ask again, WHERE is the necessity of moral codes deriving from religion?

--snipped for brevity--

Prove that these values come purely from religion and you may have an argument.


You are demanding something that is not necessary. All that is needed is religion to be a source of these values. The thread poll question only asked if there was a place in politics for religion. Since religion is a source for some people of values and morality, and since values and morality are incorporated into laws via a political process, then religion has a place (at least the values from it). You admitted, "The values THEMSELVES are open to discussion and inclusion as are ANY values whether Christian, Wiccan or Adolf Hitler's." I find it difficult to seperate them because religion deals with values and morality in addition to a relationship with some supreme being.

I think we agree that the values themselves have a place. There is another fundamental question interposing itself here. If religion as a source of values doesn't belong in politics, does any source itself of values belong? Is, "Because God said so," any less convincing or less belonging than, "Because I feel that way?"

[Darth Wong]

What a long-winded sophistic asshole. This quote says it all:

I'm stating as fact that at least some people do get their moral code from religious teachings, that religion and politics deal with values and morality, and you cannot legislate without some code of right and wrong (morality). I consider that self-evident.

See how he's carefully pretending that legislating based on your personal morals is the same as legislating the particular beliefs of a religion into law? Everyone has personal morals, and peoples' individual beliefs will influence their judgement, but as the government of a religiously neutral society, they cannot use the law as a weapon to enshrine one religion's beliefs into law.

In other words, Joe Senator may have some personal religious conviction that abortion should not be allowed, and he may try to pass laws to that effect, but he has to be able to justify that law with some reason that is not exclusive to his particular religion because otherwise, he is passing a law which effectively establishes that religion. If some religion says "you cannot paint on Thursday", the government has no business passing that into law because of the First Amendment, even if the person passing it says it's "based on personal conviction". It is obviously religiously motivated, since it is peculiar to that belief system.

But then again, there's almost no point arguing with this idiot. He's the kind of person whose logic leads directly to moral support for the Taliban, and if you confront him on it, he'll say "yeah, so what".

[Justforfun000]

But then again, there's almost no point arguing with this idiot. He's the kind of person whose logic leads directly to moral support for the Taliban, and if you confront him on it, he'll say "yeah, so what".

hmm...is this that type of apologistic mentality that seeks to please everybody by bending over for whomever feels strongly enough about ass-raping the subject? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that the person here is trying to reconcile all viewpoints into a disney melting pot that tries to make it look like ALL points are valid simply because of strong belief and we should cater to every point equally no matter how silly and pretend to find common ground.

I caught this at the tail end of a night with excessive alcohol, so my perceptions may be a little dulled....that's why I'm asking. lol

[The Guid]

Are you still looking for people to assist you in replying to this nonsense?

[Darth Wong]

hmm...is this that type of apologistic mentality that seeks to please everybody by bending over for whomever feels strongly enough about ass-raping the subject?

He looks more like the "look at me, I'm the most reasonable and understanding person in the world because I'll never tell any minority that they're wrong" kind of person. Even if they're slave owners. When you accept everything as valid, then the word "valid" has no meaning in your usage. That's the problem with people like this.

[Justforfun000]

Are you still looking for people to assist you in replying to this nonsense?

If you're so inclined. It may be banging my head against the wall, but since most people on that board are silent, I presume I'm getting through to them.