Religion in politics

[Varaj]

In general it is what I agree with Atticus about, religion should have no part in politics.

Thomas Paine: "Of all of the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny of religion is the worst."

James Madison, From "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785: "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison, etc. all had many words of wisdom on the issue.

So what do the rest of you think? Where the founding fathers crack pots? Is the religious right trying to undo what was set up in the US originally?

[Eliezer]

Not a subject that can be addressed very easily in my mind.

In general, no, laws should not be based solely upon offending the moral sensibilities of certain individuals.

Religious tyranny refers to a tyranny of thinking. We're using government to try to combat that tyranny right now in the debates over the teaching of evolution in schools.

Madison's comments refer to the tyranny of organized religions/churches in upholding their own power. Such is always a concern and a vigilant separation of church and state should be maintained in this instance.

[Northcott]

I think that, insofar as people are religious, politics cannot help but be informed by religion. The question is to what degree, and what kind of person we're dealing with when talking about elected officials (or those running for office). Kennedy, for example, allowed his thinking to be influenced by his perception of his religion. While I've got some serious beefs with Catholic theology and absolutely despise what the hierarchy has done over the years, his perception of it lead him to make some choices with beneficial long-term impact: the Peace Corps leaps to mind. It was also apparently a considerable weight on him during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I agree with Eliezer: tyrrany of thought is the enemy. We've seen it step outside of religious bounds and into the political: just look at the fanaticsm behind Communism at points in history. Or Pol Pot's homicidal atheist philosophy that convinced him slaughtering thousands would be a keen idea.

Any time somebody allows compassion to be drowned in favour of blind adherence to an ideology, tragedy is likely to follow.

[Bregh]

.

[Sobek]

Any organized pattern of thought can be twisted to wicked ends. This could be religion, political parties, philosophies, or any of a number of things I can't enumerate at the moment.

Just look at the way the parties in the US have morphed over the years and how many people are die-hards for no better reason than that's just the way they vote. I'm watching it happen with the Republicans. I'm a small government, states-rights capitalist with a paranoid streak about government surveillance. That used to fit it pretty well, but not so much right now.

Religion is just on more thing that's perverted by extreme power. As has been said many times before, though, you can't legislate morality. My religion teaches that I should give to charity and help support those who are in need, and I agree. It's wrong of the state to make me do it, through taxes, though. I oppose the death penalty, in part, because I hope to see the criminal redeemed and accepting of Christ, but I can't imagine that you really want a law that says prisoners should be proselytized to and indoctrinated into Christianity -- and I can't blame you. I wouldn't want dress codes based on hard-line Islamic codes, either.

Really, I think a state should either be fully theological, or accept that it must support its laws and decisions through other trains of thought. That doesn't mean a country can't do things like have "In God We Trust" on money. It just means that the state is the state and the church is the church. What works for one may not work for the other.

[Northcott]

I wouldn't want dress codes based on hard-line Islamic codes, either.

Speak for yourself. I'd look HAWT dressed up in a funky white suit.

That reminds me, I'm interviewing midget sidekicks tomorrow...

[Harry]

Do I sense a hidden message here? Is it just me?.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xn7uSHtkuA

[Atticus_of_Amber]

In general it is what I agree with Atticus about, religion should have no part in politics.

Thomas Paine: "Of all of the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny of religion is the worst."

James Madison, From "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785: "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison, etc. all had many words of wisdom on the issue.

So what do the rest of you think? Where the founding fathers crack pots? Is the religious right trying to undo what was set up in the US originally?

[quick post on the run...]

Not so sure we agree here. My problem is with faith in politics - by which I mean that it should be unacceptable to make arguments in political life that appeal to faith claims. For example, most standard objections to abortion and stem cell research stem from faith beliefs about the "soul". Other faith-claims (usually about the divine moral authority of the Bible) lie behind various objections to homosexuality. Such arguments should be treated with the same ridicule that we'd treat public policy arguments based on astrology (we can't go to war in Iraq because Mars is retrograde!).

I have no problems with religions getting involved in politics otherwise though.

[Varaj]

[quick post on the run...]

Not so sure we agree here. My problem is with faith in politics - by which I mean that it should be unacceptable to make arguments in political life that appeal to faith claims. For example, most standard objections to abortion and stem cell research stem from faith beliefs about the "soul". Other faith-claims (usually about the divine moral authority of the Bible) lie behind various objections to homosexuality. Such arguments should be treated with the same ridicule that we'd treat public policy arguments based on astrology (we can't go to war in Iraq because Mars is retrograde!).

I have no problems with religions getting involved in politics otherwise though.

Feel free to replace religion with faith in my post, it is more or less what I meant.

[Northcott]

Do I sense a hidden message here? Is it just me?.....

That was a refreshing change for an ad from the political quarter.

[Bregh]

.

[Northcott]

There's something to be said about knowing the religion of a candidate in some kind of democratic representative system and knowing that the candidate faith is key to how s/he makes decisions.

When they're upfront about it, you can cast your vote accordingly, for you should know what you're getting.

Totally agreed. Religion should not be a taboo subject in politics; it should be something that's brought to the forefront and discussed openly so that people know exactly what a candidate believes.

The unfortunately truth of that is that most people are horribly prejudicial, and will have a knee-jerk reaction to a statement of faith (or lack thereof) whatever that belief may be.

[Varaj]

The only statement I really care to hear is "I will not use my faith as the sole reason for pushing for something."

Example:
Bad: I wish to ban condoms because the Pope says condoms are bad.
Good: I wish to ban condoms because it has been shown that access to condoms increases out of of wedlock sex that has negative costs to society in health care and divorce costs.

Bad example has nothing to be discussed. Even if I disagree with the good example it is something that can be discussed.

[Northcott]

Excellent way of phrasing it, Varaj. I think that open discourse about a politician's beliefs would help in that regard, but also likely prove toxic in terms of public opinion. No wonder so many of them practice half-truths and obfuscation.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The only statement I really care to hear is "I will not use my faith as the sole reason for pushing for something."

Example:
Bad: I wish to ban condoms because the Pope says condoms are bad.
Good: I wish to ban condoms because it has been shown that access to condoms increases out of of wedlock sex that has negative costs to society in health care and divorce costs.

Bad example has nothing to be discussed. Even if I disagree with the good example it is something that can be discussed.

That example really gets at what the "New Atheist" are talking about in their critique of faith. As Harris says, we have a choice between conversation and violence, and faith tends to foreclose the option of conversation.

[AZRogue]

I would say that it depends on what the person has faith in. If his faith doesn't require anything from YOU, then I don't see how it impacts anything, other than the person's world view.

Cultural taboos are just as bad as faith when it comes to interfering with logical government. I guess that would fall under the dogma category.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I would say that it depends on what the person has faith in. If his faith doesn't require anything from YOU, then I don't see how it impacts anything, other than the person's world view.

Cultural taboos are just as bad as faith when it comes to interfering with logical government. I guess that would fall under the dogma category.

Indeed. The so called "New Atheists" would be better called the "New Anti-dogmatists". They're against faith because it is a form of dogma.

[AZRogue]

Than I think they make a mistake. If they really want to attack dogma, than that's what they should do and avoid using faith as a blanket term because there are a lot of people who's faith will never impact another person in a negative way.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Than I think they make a mistake. If they really want to attack dogma, than that's what they should do and avoid using faith as a blanket term because there are a lot of people who's faith will never impact another person in a negative way.

But faith is a particular species of dogma. It's belief without evidence.

Now of course some dogma are more dangerous than others. The dogma of Islam is deadly. Christianity somewhat less so, even its msot virulent versions. Jainism is pretty harmless to anyone except Jains.

But its often hard to predict when apparently innocuous dogmas will turn deadly. For example, a hundred years ago, you would have thought that the dogma that the "soul" enters the zygote at conception was a harmless, even charming faith belief. But that dogma is now holding up one of the most promising areas of medical research in scientific history. It's literally shortening lives.

[AZRogue]

I think a large part of the resistance stem cell research has faced comes from cultural values (which are, yes, flavored by religious dogma). I know many women who object completely to it, as well as abortion, and they are completely atheist. They simply find it distasteful.



I support stem cell research, by the way, before someone thinks that I don't. It doesn't interfere with my central article of faith and so I deal with it as pragmatically as I can.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think a large part of the resistance stem cell research has faced comes from cultural values (which are, yes, flavored by religious dogma). I know many women who object completely to it, as well as abortion, and they are completely atheist. They simply find it distasteful.



I support stem cell research, by the way, before someone thinks that I don't. It doesn't interfere with my central article of faith and so I deal with it as pragmatically as I can.

So we agree that some faith beliefs are stopping or inhibiting stem cell research?

Nut now, as to you, what would happen if a major life saving technology did conflict with one of your fundamental articles of faith?

[Northcott]

So we agree that some faith beliefs are stopping or inhibiting stem cell research?

I think that's the first time I've heard you admit that atheism is a faith belief. :D

[Bagpuss]

religion should have no part in politics.

While I am an atheist, I find the idea that religion should have no part in politics naive at best.

The majority of the population is religious, a government should reflect the will of the majority of the people while protecting the minority. Thus it should reflect the will and moral beliefs of religious people. Voters, vote for candidates based on own moral code which is guided by their religion.

It run by people who are themselves religious so obviously are likely to vote and act based on their religious beliefs and moral code, which is given to them by their faith.

Religion has always been in politics and always will be. To think the two can ever be separate is foolish IMHO.

What is even more surprising for someone looking from outside the US, is for all you talk about separation of church and state religion seems more ingrained in your politics than it is in ours and we have Bishops in the House of Lords!

[AZRogue]

So we agree that some faith beliefs are stopping or inhibiting stem cell research?

Nut now, as to you, what would happen if a major life saving technology did conflict with one of your fundamental articles of faith?

I can't imagine one that would, but if it did than I wouldn't partake in it. I would try to avoid the benefits of whatever technology it was and not contribute to the use or funding of the technology. If you've read in the other thread what I believe, on faith, than I think you can see how unlikely that situation is to arise.

I think a lot of the distaste and hostility you see towards stem cell research (since that's a good example) doesn't come from organised religion, per se, but from the culture itself. Religion can organize the marches and the picket lines, but a lot of the people who vote against such things do so not because it's against their religion but because they find the idea behind it all repugnant.

Hell, most of them probably don't fully understand what stem cell research is and just imagine horrible things being done to "unborn babies". Religion is an easy target, but the beliefs behind these sorts of things are broader than that, I think, and deal with previously held prejudices, incorrect information, cultural taboos, and people with vivid imaginations telling stories to thier friends.

[Eliezer]

So we agree that some faith beliefs are stopping or inhibiting stem cell research?

Nut now, as to you, what would happen if a major life saving technology did conflict with one of your fundamental articles of faith?

Let's assume the stories about Elizabeth Bathory are more than fanciful fiction and that the bloody baths were life saving.

What would you do Atticus with this?

[Varaj]

While I am an atheist, I find the that religion should have no part in politics naive at best.

The majority of the population is religious, a government should reflect the will of the majority of the people while protecting the minority. Thus it should reflect the will and moral beliefs of religious people. Voters, vote for candidates based on own moral code which is guided by their religion.

It run by people who are themselves religious so obviously are likely to vote and act based on their religious beliefs and moral code, which is given to them by their faith.

Religion has always been in politics and always will be. To think the two can ever be separate is foolish IMHO.

What is even more surprising for someone looking from outside the US, is for all you talk about separation of church and state religion seems more ingrained in your politics than it is in ours and we have Bishops in the House of Lords!

I'm not sure you know what the word should means. :grey:

I also believe there should be no murder. Not going to happen, but still think that should be the case.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Let's assume the stories about Elizabeth Bathory are more than fanciful fiction and that the bloody baths were life saving.

What would you do Atticus with this?

I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with story you refer to.

[AZRogue]

It's a legend, I believe. She bathed in the blood of virgins to keep herself young.

[Varaj]

I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with story you refer to.

Bathed in the blood of virgins to keep her youth and health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory

[Bagpuss]

I also believe there should be no murder. Not going to happen, but still think that should be the case.

It's not the same though.

Do you believe in government of the people, by the people? If so to want to exclude religion seems counter to that belief as the people are religious.

I believe religion should be involved in politics until such time as everyone is an atheist.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

It's not the same though.

Do you believe in government of the people, by the people? If so to want to exclude religion seems counter to that belief as the people are religious.

I believe religion should be involved in politics until such time as everyone is an atheist.

We're not talking about censorship. We're talking about shifting the overton window. We want arguments based on faith premises to be tested by evidence and ridiculed if they fall short - just like all the other premises that haven't previously been cloaked by the "we must respect people's religion" taboo.

[Bagpuss]

Isn't that the point about faith that it can't be tested by evidence.

Embryonic Stem Cell research, or abortion for example, if you believe life begins at conception how can you test that belief? That belief is going to colour how people vote, who they vote for, what bills a politician supports or brings to the house.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Isn't that the point about faith that it can't be tested by evidence.

Embryonic Stem Cell research, or abortion for example, if you believe life begins at conception how can you test that belief? That belief is going to colour how people vote, who they vote for, what bills a politician supports or brings to the house.

And that's precisely what's so bad about faith. By being imprevious to evidence it massively increases the likligood of violence. Even when it doesn't lead to violence, it can have crazy effects like holding up stem cell research.

Its a cognitive bad habit we need to discourage.

[Bagpuss]

And that's precisely what's so bad about faith. By being impervious to evidence it massively increases the likelihood of violence.

Care to support that with some evidence?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Care to support that with some evidence?

The evidence is being delivered by bomb blasts every day. It was delivered to New York in two plane loads on 11 September 2001. The evidence is tearing Iraq apart today as sunni and shi'a murder each other over a point of theology. The evidence is half a planet killing itself over what amounts to literary criticism. The evidence dies daily in Africa because its catholic priest told it condoms were bad. The evidence is dying today from a disease that might have been cured sooner if faith wasn't inhibiting stem cell research. The evidence was recently delivered to London by cricket loving Englishmen who just happened to be followers of Islam.

It follows as a matter of logic. When people disagree and they can't for whatever reason just walk away, they have two alternatives: conversation or violence. If one or more hold beliefs critical to the conflict as dogmas, conversation becomes either impossible or massively more difficult. If you hold a belief without or in spite of the evidence (i.e. on faith) and that belief puts you in direct conflict with me over something I can't walk away from, conversation is massively unlikely to solve the problem. If neither of us backs down, its going to come down to a fight. At best, if we're both committed to democracy and we're very lucky, it's going to come down to a very divisive popularity contest. At worst, we create Iraq.

The problem with dogma is that it inhibits conversation. Ultimately, if there is no conversation, there is violence.

So let's stop codling faith. Whenever a person makes an argument based on faith we should treat them the same way as we would someone who'd made an argument based on astrology. If we get the cultural change right, faith will be put in the same category as astrology, crystal healing and alien abduction conspiracy theories: Quaint, amusing, harmless and irrelevnt.

[Bagpuss]

The problem is societies that suppress religion are just as violent, the Soviet Union was hardly non-violent, and neither is China. "Scientific evidence" was used to support the Nazi's claim they were a master race. It would be great if we could all be non-violent but as a race we aren't, religion is isn't the root cause of this violence in many cases, IMHO.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The problem is societies that suppress religion are just as violent, the Soviet Union was hardly non-violent, and neither is China. "Scientific evidence" was used to support the Nazi's claim they were a master race.

First, those societies were as dogmatic as any theocracy. They're hardly evidence for the benefits of tolerating dogmatism.

Second, who's talking about "suppressing" anyone? This is an argument about treating faith dogma the same as astrology dogma. No one suppresses astrology believers or alien abduction conspiracy theorists, we just laugh at them. If it weren't for the taboo, we'd treat faith the same.

[Bagpuss]

So it's now any dogma not religion that the problem?

Also I'm curious as to how this could work practically. After all there is evidence that previous and perhaps even current world leaders have consulted astrologers. If you can't keep astrology out of politics what hope do you have for keeping religion out?

How do you respond to issues like slavery were many abolitionists were religious people and argued equality on faith based arguments, and those opposing used 'science' and 'reason' to show that those in slavery were a lesser race. Faith isn't always a bad thing and science and reason isn't always a force for good.

[Varaj]

So it's now any dogma not religion that the problem?

Also I'm curious as to how this could work practically. After all there is evidence that previous and perhaps even current world leaders have consulted astrologers. If you can't keep astrology out of politics what hope do you have for keeping religion out?

How do you respond to issues like slavery were many abolitionists were religious people and argued equality on faith based arguments, and those opposing used 'science' and 'reason' to show that those in slavery were a lesser race. Faith isn't always a bad thing and science and reason isn't always a force for good.

Allow me to quote myself.

The only statement I really care to hear is "I will not use my faith as the sole reason for pushing for something."

Example:
Bad: I wish to ban condoms because the Pope says condoms are bad.
Good: I wish to ban condoms because it has been shown that access to condoms increases out of of wedlock sex that has negative costs to society in health care and divorce costs.

Bad example has nothing to be discussed. Even if I disagree with the good example it is something that can be discussed.

You make this sort of thing happen by changing the culture around political discussion. You make it socially acceptable to question faith as an excuse for something.

[Bagpuss]

Okay but I can't recall seeing anyone use that sort of reasoning (your Bad example) in a public political debate and not get ignored (at best), by most people present. Even Bishops involved in political debates here tend to back up their faith with reason, perhaps your situation is very different?

[Varaj]

Okay but I can't recall seeing anyone use that sort of reasoning (your Bad example) in a public political debate and not get ignored (at best), by most people present. Even Bishops involved in political debates here tend to back up their faith with reason, perhaps your situation is very different?

As you say the British are actually better at separation of Church and State then the US, or at least use a different definition of it. :)

Give you a recent example where it happens all the time in the US.
"We must protect the sanctify of marriage." That is the whole of most political folks anti-gay marriage stance.

[Goblin Girl]

So what do the rest of you think? Where the founding fathers crack pots? Is the religious right trying to undo what was set up in the US originally?

Note that I haven't read any posts beyong the initial one before answering, so the conversation may have moved on by now. If that's the case, sorry!

Everything Maddison said was true. The Catholic church and later the Church of England were either the slaves or the masters of kings and emperors. This led to all sorts of conditions that were unfavorable for the common man.

That's not exactly the same as saying that faith in a god or gods leads to tyranny. It does not, necessarily.

The situation in the US today is not analagous, because even the most frothing fundie is not asking for the government to make itself beholden to a religious organization. I have not heard anyone say that the Southern Baptist Convention or the Missouri Synod Lutherans (to name two of the more extreme conservative factions) should become the Official Church of the United States.

It seems to me that what the separation clause in the first amendment meant and what it has come to mean are not quite the same. Or at least, we no longer fully agree on what it means. The religious right wants to strictly interpret it, so in their eyes, the fact that what I said in the previous paragraph is true is all that is required by the constitution. Most of the rest of us want to interpret the separation clause more broadly, so for instance we don't want mandatory, organized prayer in schools because we don't even want to suggest that one religion is sanctioned. Personally I also have a problem with a chaplin opening senate sessions with a prayer, but I know that many people don't see that as a confilct. And I also had a serious problem with that nutbar John Ashcroft gathering his staff to pray each morning when he was a public employee. (And don't get me started on covering up the nude classical statues with drapes so he didn't have to look at tatas and peepees.)

Yes, it's true that the Judeo-Christian moral code has informed our laws and culture. There isn't any escaping that amd there's no reason to even want to, IMO.

However, we have an increasingly pluralistic society, and I think that we will decrease discord if we keep religious sensibilities as far away from politics and tax supported services as we can.

[Goblin Girl]

"We must protect the sanctify of marriage." That is the whole of most political folks anti-gay marriage stance.
This issue makes me tired. I really wish people could be honest about it.

What's wrong with calling marriages performed at the courthouse "civil unions" and offering them to any two consenting adults, and letting "marriage" be a term that only applies (legally) to the commitment ceremony that's done in church?

All the objections to that solution that I've heard are really more or less well cloaked versions of "gays are icky."

[Varaj]

This issue makes me tired. I really wish people could be honest about it.

What's wrong with calling marriages performed at the courthouse "civil unions" and offering them to any two consenting adults, and letting "marriage" be a term that only applies (legally) to the commitment ceremony that's done in church?

All the objections to that solution that I've heard are really more or less well cloaked versions of "gays are icky."

Personally I think the state should offer civil unions and marriage should has no legal meaning and is offered by churches. You want legal benefits get a civil union, you want spiritual benefits get a marriage, you want both get both.
But yes almost all the objections to gay marriage/civil union are gays are icky and it is a sin.

[Goblin Girl]

Personally I think the state should offer civil unions and marriage should has no legal meaning and is offered by churches. You want legal benefits get a civil union, you want spiritual benefits get a marriage, you want both get both.
But yes almost all the objections to gay marriage/civil union are gays are icky and it is a sin.

Yes, that's what I meant. I wasn't clear. I was saying that people will probably continue to use the terms civil union and marriage interchangably, and those who have only had a civil union will refer to themselves as "married" but that an actual marriage ceremony carried out in a church will have no legal weight.

This would solve some other problems too. There are increasing numbers of elderly couples who get divorced when one of them becomes gravely ill, so that the healthy spouse does not have to be impoverished. This is traumatic for them because they believe divorce is a sin. If we could all agree to separate the two, then people could get married in church but still be considered single by the government.

[Goblin Girl]

But yes almost all the objections to gay marriage/civil union are gays are icky and it is a sin.
I've never run across one that I thought was anything more than a smoke screen for gays are icky, so I'd love to know which one(s) I missed! Share please?

[Goblin Girl]

Oh, and on a related note, Izzy and I had both a civil and a church ceremony. We didn't do it to make a political statement, but because the conditions for getting a marriage license in Minnesota were not ones we could meet. But it seems more right all the time (philosophically) that we did it that way.

[Varaj]

I've never run across one that I thought was anything more than a smoke screen for gays are icky, so I'd love to know which one(s) I missed! Share please?

The only one I heard (and I don't agree with) is that the legal benefits of marriage are to provide additional support for the raising of kids.
This argument is full of many holes but it is a non gays are icky argument.

[Goblin Girl]

The only one I heard (and I don't agree with) is that the legal benefits of marriage are to provide additional support for the raising of kids.
This argument is full of many holes but it is a non gays are icky argument.
Well, it's full of many holes if you take the person making it at face value. On the other hand, I'd tend to say it's about as honest as the "intelligent design" smokescreen for teaching creationism in schools, so to me it's really just an ill formed code for "gays are icky." :)

[AZRogue]

So it's now any dogma not religion that the problem?

Also I'm curious as to how this could work practically. After all there is evidence that previous and perhaps even current world leaders have consulted astrologers. If you can't keep astrology out of politics what hope do you have for keeping religion out?

How do you respond to issues like slavery were many abolitionists were religious people and argued equality on faith based arguments, and those opposing used 'science' and 'reason' to show that those in slavery were a lesser race. Faith isn't always a bad thing and science and reason isn't always a force for good.

I agree. Focusing on "faith" isn't what they should be doing, IMO. They should be attacking individual dogmas that are negatively effecting others. Trying to eliminate faith itselt, however, only looks like a good idea to a, well, an atheist.

[Varaj]

I agree. Focusing on "faith" isn't what they should be doing, IMO. They should be attacking individual dogmas that are negatively effecting others. Trying to eliminate faith itselt, however, only looks like a good idea to a, well, an atheist.

Heh I am very, very far from being an atheist. :)

[AZRogue]

Granted. :) Teach me to make sweeping statements, even for effect.

[Varaj]

Granted. :) Teach me to make sweeping statements, even for effect.

:tongue:
I think replacing faith, in politics, with reasoned logical positions should look good to anybody.

[Bagpuss]

Heh I am very, very far from being an atheist. :)

But I am (an atheist that is), and I'm the one arguing for faith... no wonder we got him confused. :cool:

[Varaj]

But I am (an atheist that is), and I'm the one arguing for faith... no wonder we got him confused. :cool:

Everything according to our plan. Muhahahahahahaha

Step 1: Confuse AZRogue
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Take over the world

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

So let's stop codling faith. Whenever a person makes an argument based on faith we should treat them the same way as we would someone who'd made an argument based on astrology. If we get the cultural change right, faith will be put in the same category as astrology, crystal healing and alien abduction conspiracy theories: Quaint, amusing, harmless and irrelevnt.

Do you want to stop coddling faith, or religious faith? There are plenty of political arguments on both the left and the right that are based on faith, the object of faith is usually the only difference. I see examples where a person arguing against faith is simply arguing for the primacy of one faith over another, usually a secular faith, or more properly an anti-theistic faith, versus one of a religious nature.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

So it's now any dogma not religion that the problem?

ARRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's ALWAYS been my problem. I LIKE religion; it's dogma/faith that scares the living shit out of me. How many times do I have to say that?????

Also I'm curious as to how this could work practically. After all there is evidence that previous and perhaps even current world leaders have consulted astrologers. If you can't keep astrology out of politics what hope do you have for keeping religion out?

But politicians who consult astrologers are ridiculed for it. The have to hide it and be embarrassed by it and minimise it. The rules of the discourse discourage it. So to should it be with faith.

How do you respond to issues like slavery were many abolitionists were religious people and argued equality on faith based arguments, and those opposing used 'science' and 'reason' to show that those in slavery were a lesser race. Faith isn't always a bad thing and science and reason isn't always a force for good.

The slaver holders were on far better ground, theologically, than the abolitionists. And they never tired of pointing that out. The abolitionist who used the Bible were dishonestly cherry picking it. And I'm glad they did.

To the extent that racism was based on "science" it was bad science and the solution to it was more science. It's science that's shown that there are practically no genetic differences between a "Negro" and and "Caucasian".

I agree. Focusing on "faith" isn't what they should be doing, IMO. They should be attacking individual dogmas that are negatively effecting others. Trying to eliminate faith itselt, however, only looks like a good idea to a, well, an atheist.

That's the point Sam Harris made at his controversial AAI talk. That we should be picking faith beliefs off one by one, getting temporary allies from other faith beliefs and then turning on them later, rather than taking on the whole army at once. He has a point, but I think it's a bit late for him to be saying that now.

:tongue:
I think replacing faith, in politics, with reasoned logical positions should look good to anybody.

The you have a lot of common ground with Dawkins, Dennett and Harris.

Do you want to stop coddling faith, or religious faith? There are plenty of political arguments on both the left and the right that are based on faith, the object of faith is usually the only difference. I see examples where a person arguing against faith is simply arguing for the primacy of one faith over another, usually a secular faith, or more properly an anti-theistic faith, versus one of a religious nature.

All dogmas. As far as possible, I want evidence-based public policy. I'm part of the "reality based community" after all.

[Morbidity]

I think it’s all a matter of who you voted for. If when you voted for the politician they were up front about their religion and stated that their basis for decision making would be determined by religion then it’s okay that they do so. What annoys me is when you vote for someone who makes no mention of their religion and then a conscience vote comes up and they vote against (say stem cell research) on the basis of the insane ramblings of Jensen (Anglican leader in Sydney).

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think it’s all a matter of who you voted for. If when you voted for the politician they were up front about their religion and stated that their basis for decision making would be determined by religion then it’s okay that they do so. What annoys me is when you vote for someone who makes no mention of their religion and then a conscience vote comes up and they vote against (say stem cell research) on the basis of the insane ramblings of Jensen (Anglican leader in Sydney).

Agreed.

What I'd like to see is politicians questioned on their religion. There seems to be a taboo on saying to someone like Rudd, "How will your religion affect your policy on stem cell research, euthanasia and gay marriage? Exactly what is it about your religion that makes you have these positions? And that proposition you base that view on is a matter of faith is it? Why do you think its right that your faith beliefs should dictate policy in this way for people who don't share your faith?"

It's one of the things that I think is hopeful about Romney, he's slowly being asked specific questions about his religion and it looks like that isn't going to stop. I want these issues talked about and pursued, often.

One of the things that really irritates me is that poll after poll makes it clear that the majority of Australians support legalising voluntary euthanasia (with lots of regulation and safeguards), but because both sides of politics are disproportionally populated with people of faith, it's still not legal here (indeed, the Commonwealth parliament nullified the Northern Territory's attempt to legalise it a few years back).

[AZRogue]

Everything according to our plan. Muhahahahahahaha

Step 1: Confuse AZRogue
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Take over the world

Then the world will soon be yours!

No, but really, I'm completely for removing religion from the decision making in our, or any, government--at least as much as we reasonably can. Religious arguement should never be used to justify policy decisions.