Should Religious Beliefs Be Immune From Criticism?

[Ray]

The reason for the policy does matter, and if there is no reason for it then religious ones, is the policy fair to those who do not have those religious views?

You're saying that if you agree with the policy, then you must know the reasons for the policy to be the way it is before you'll accept it?

Majority rules is not a good way to do this, as, well, majority rules. Let's say 80% of a country is Atheist, and they decide, and vote to ban the Christian bible as it is a source of violence and obstacle to science. Are they right in doing so? Vote is 80% to 20% mind you.

You're right in that majority rules is not a good way to rule. Democracies are too darned slow and inefficient. Make me king and it'll be the way I want it, and I'll be happy (until everyone revolts).

 

[Andrew Green]

You're saying that if you agree with the policy, then you must know the reasons for the policy to be the way it is before you'll accept it?

Not neccessarily.

Say you want a rule, "no murdering", I go "Ok, sounds like a good idea"

I justified it on what I considered common sense, you on biblical doctorine. We agree on the rule, just not the reasoning.

I don't think any rules should be based around religion, you think that is the only basis. We can agree on rules, but not reasons. So if we must also agree on reasons, there will be no rules as there will be no agreement.

 

[Ray]

Not neccessarily.

Say you want a rule, "no murdering", I go "Ok, sounds like a good idea"

You have come full circle.

I justified it on what I considered common sense, you on biblical doctorine.

That's a false statment. I do not, nor have I said I, believe that public policy and laws should be based upon biblical doctrine.

I will live my life and make personal decisions based upon what I believe (as does everyone, regardless of where their beliefs originate) - and I, like everyone else, will either live within the established law or suffer the consequences.

I don't think any rules should be based around religion, you think that is the only basis. We can agree on rules, but not reasons.

You may be surprised, we may agree on the rules and the reasons, sometimes and sometimes not. You seem to have stereotypical view of believers.

So if we must also agree on reasons, there will be no rules as there will be no agreement.

Now you're learning. We, hopefully, can agree on rules and abide by them as a peaceful society.

 

[Andrew Green]

meant to include a little "*" in there, the "you" was a rhetorical one, not you in particular

 

[bushidomartialarts]

public policy should never be the result of religious doctrine.

take two cases:

1. murder is illegal. just about everybody, regardless of faith, thinks killing when not in personal, life-threatening danger is bad. the 1% who think otherwise are decidedly crazy. also, the you can look at societies where that taboo broke down and see very clearly that it's bad for the society as a whole.

so, yeah, making murder illegal is a good move. it's not religiously motivated and is has been shown to be good for societies who embrace it as a law.

2. contraceptive education. the christians and the muslims historically come down against this. atheist/agnostics tend to be pro. so far, (us) public policy is decidedly anti. all the evidence in countries where contraceptive education is embraced, and in studies regarding contraceptive eductation, show that it's unmitigatedly positive to educate teens about the proper use of contraceptives, especially condoms. far lower pregnancy, lower STD rate, and -- perhaps counterintuitively -- a higher rate of abstinence among teens who receive contraceptive education.

in this case, public policy against contraceptive education is a bad idea. it's been demonstrated to have a good effect where it's embraced, but religious beliefs prevent it from coming into force.

now, if your religion forbids teaching contraception, you should absolutely have the right to ask that your child go read c.s. lewis in the library during that class. but you should never, ever have any say over whether or not somebody else's child has access to the information.

see also abortion, gay marriage and buying alcohol on sunday.

 

[Cryozombie]

I don't think any rules should be based around religion, you think that is the only basis.

Nor should policy be made that is restrictive of religion because you disagree with that religion, but that gets done all the time, by both religious and anti-religous groups. Whether its no displaying "Insert religious symbol here" because its not everyones symbol to "your religious doctorine is not in line with our morals so you cannot worship your way" (such as mormons and multiple wives)

But, again, it happens. *shrug*

 

[Ray]

public policy should never be the result of religious doctrine.

take two cases:

1. murder is illegal.

Yes, It is but you don't know my reasoning for wanting it illegal. You only know that we both think it should be illegal and that's enough.

now, if your religion forbids teaching contraception, you should absolutely have the right to ask that your child go read c.s. lewis in the library during that class. but you should never, ever have any say over whether or not somebody else's child has access to the information.

I don't believe that my (youngest and last) child should be exempt from attending the class about contraception even if my religion was [hypothetically] against it. I hope that I teach my children correct principles and that they can govern themselves in a variety of circumstances.

 

[jetboatdeath]

Ahhh yea totally different topic but I don’t think it’s a teachers job to teach birth control in public schools. That seems like a parent’s job or a hooker at least.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

If I buy, vote and make decisions based on my religious beliefs and the majority of my country does the same, thats just tough for you, thats the way our system works. Now punishing or restricting the constitutionally protected rights of someone of different beliefs is wrong, but you will NEVER take the majorities religious beliefs out of American politics/gvt. Its a gvt of, by and for the people and that includes their religious beliefs...much to the atheists chagrin it appears.

A gvt. making "policy" based on religion is wrong and thats what the whole "separation of Church and state" is about. What it isnt about is removing any and all religious expression from public life, which is what it looks like some people want. Showing the 10 commandments in a court building isnt "public policy". A christmas tree in town hall isnt "public policy".

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

-John Quincy Adams

 

[Andrew Green]

If I buy, vote and make decisions based on my religious beliefs and the majority of my country does the same, thats just tough for you, thats the way our system works. Now punishing or restricting the constitutionally protected rights of someone of different beliefs is wrong, but you will NEVER take the majorities religious beliefs out of American politics/gvt. Its a gvt of, by and for the people and that includes their religious beliefs...much to the atheists chagrin it appears.

Ok, so suppose the situation reversed, and suddenly the gov't was influenced by the principles of some other religion, or even atheism. Rules and laws where brought into play that conflicted with your beliefs as a Christian. Would you feel the same if your beliefs stopped being the ones of the majority?

Are totalitarian religous governments ok because they reflect the views and religion of the majority and there are no constitiutional protections in place on those matters?

"Majority wins" is a very poor policy as it fials to protect the views, be they religious or otherwise, of the minorities.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.justafreak.com/christianenemy/christquiz.html

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Ok, so suppose the situation reversed, and suddenly the gov't was influenced by the principles of some other religion, or even atheism. Rules and laws where brought into play that conflicted with your beliefs as a Christian. Would you feel the same if your beliefs stopped being the ones of the majority?

Are totalitarian religous governments ok because they reflect the views and religion of the majority and there are no constitiutional protections in place on those matters?

"Majority wins" is a very poor policy as it fials to protect the views, be they religious or otherwise, of the minorities.

What do you recommend? That a gvt. ignore the beliefs and desires of the people? In a democratic system, the people vote in people who believe what they believe. Thats the way it is dude. Thats how majority does rule. At least here in the USA. As long as its within the limits of our constitution.

 

[Marginal]

What do you recommend? That a gvt. ignore the beliefs and desires of the people? In a democratic system, the people vote in people who believe what they believe. Thats the way it is dude. Thats how majority does rule.

Which always makes me glad I live in a constitutonal republic that's been built from the ground up to hold the gibbering masses at bay.

 

[MBuzzy]

True, we vote for people who believe what we believe and then trust them to make the right decisions so that our government does the right things....But if people are choosing a candidate based on their religion....well, that is just no way to choose a candidate.

The "masses" tend to vote for candidates based on their stance on the issues. I've never heard a politcal advertisement say "Vote for me because I'm Christian." and THAT is what the separation between church and state is.....Granted, those candidate's moral views are probably based on some religious background, but they make decisions to please their party....not their priest.

 

[Andrew Green]

I was under the impression George W. Bush's Christian stance on many things got him a number of votes. The kids in that Jesus Camp movie where even waving there arms and blessing his cardboard cut out...

I also could be wrong, but I am under the impression there has not been a single US President that did not claim Christianity, and very few, if any high ranking politicians. Especially in the conservative states.

I'm also under the impression that claiming anything but Christianity would, in many states, be political suicide for a candidate.

Am I wrong?

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I don't believe that my (youngest and last) child should be exempt from attending the class about contraception even if my religion was [hypothetically] against it. I hope that I teach my children correct principles and that they can govern themselves in a variety of circumstances.

glad to hear it, but we both know that's not the only attitude floating around.

also, the way textbook publishing works in this country, for the most part you don't get to make that decision. what gets published and incorporated into curriculum is decided economically, and fairly heavily censored.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

T
The "masses" tend to vote for candidates based on their stance on the issues. I've never heard a politcal advertisement say "Vote for me because I'm Christian." and THAT is what the separation between church and state is.....Granted, those candidate's moral views are probably based on some religious background, but they make decisions to please their party....not their priest.

my goodness, but you're optimistic, Buzzy.

if you listen between the lines, a great many of the political ads are saying just that. especially in '04.

 

[MBuzzy]

That is completely right....I am sure that if a presidential candidate were not Christian, it would destroy them....in fact, they would probably never even make it to the race.

I know that I'm just idealistic to think that people vote based purely on the issues....but at least that is how the system is INTENDED to work. Obviously moral character counts too and having a strong religious background is a moral indicator that people TRUST.

 

[MBuzzy]

I know...sometimes too optimistic for my own good...

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I've never heard a politcal advertisement say "Vote for me because I'm Christian." and THAT is what the separation between church and state is......

No it really isnt. There is nothing at all preventing a candidate from saying "vote for me Im Christian".

Separation means that the civil authority cannot dictate to or control organized religious bodies. The state cannot tell religious bodies what to preach, how to preach or when to preach. Civil authority must exercise a "hands off" approach, neither helping nor hindering religion in society. This is a key issue to understand, because any time the state assumes the power to either help or hinder, the state also acquires the power to do the other.

Separation of church and state is a two-way street, however. It isn't just about restricting what the government can do with religion, but also what religious bodies can do with the government. As a consequence, religious groups cannot dictate to or control the government. They cannot cause the government to adopt their particular doctrines as policy for everyone, they cannot cause the government to restrict other groups, etc.

Note it says "religious bodies" i.e. "The Church" it doesnt mean that each and every one of us as a free citizen cant vote for someone who shares our beliefs. It also doesnt mean that there can be no public expression of religion, only that no civil or legislative process can be made regarding it.