Religion is bullshit

[GGT]

"Religion" has been an impetus in politics, international relations, and war.

As a political power structure, it's been very effective. Especially in tribal nations. But I think it's bullshit to create policy around any religion, since every religion has schisms.

Religion should be a personal thing. If religious folks don't want their faith to be considered bullshit, they could begin by removing "their" religion from democratic legislation.



BTW, the same thing applies to the NFL, which is treated like a "religion" in the sports world, and has tax-exempt status for that reason.

[Loki]

Everything has schisms. Is that really your reason for dismissing something? Heck, democracy, by definition, has schisms. Let's get rid of that.

[GGT]

Sure, everything with opposing views has schisms. But I'm talking about religion. Democracy doesn't work when politicians use religion to justify laws, or domestic and foreign policies.

Unfortunately, even great democracies like the US has its share of double-standards and hypocrisies. When it comes to religious-based principles, Christians have a long history of political power in the US, and too many people consider the US to be a "Christian nation" with "Christian values".

What I'd like to get rid of are....religious oppositions to teaching Evolution in public schools, religious arguments against Marriage Equality, religious objections to modern medical science (including birth control, abortion, childhood vaccinations, assisted suicide), etc.

I'd also like to clear the political field of anyone who wants to return the US to its Christian values.

[Enoch the Red]

Sure, everything with opposing views has schisms. But I'm talking about religion. Democracy doesn't work when politicians use religion to justify laws, or domestic and foreign policies.

Unfortunately, even great democracies like the US has its share of double-standards and hypocrisies. When it comes to religious-based principles, Christians have a long history of political power in the US, and too many people consider the US to be a "Christian nation" with "Christian values".

What I'd like to get rid of are....religious oppositions to teaching Evolution in public schools, religious arguments against Marriage Equality, religious objections to modern medical science (including birth control, abortion, childhood vaccinations, assisted suicide), etc.

I'd also like to clear the political field of anyone who wants to return the US to its Christian values.

I don't know if I disagree with the spirit of what you are saying, religion shouldn't play a role in creating policy, I just don't think I understand or agree with your premise. Why doesn't democracy work when politicians use religion to justify laws?

[GGT]

I don't know if I disagree with the spirit of what you are saying, religion shouldn't play a role in creating policy, I just don't think I understand or agree with your premise.

Why doesn't democracy work when politicians use religion to justify laws?

First, because our Constitutional framework explicitly prohibits mixing religion with laws. Secondly, because judges in Alabama (for example) are refusing to honor SCOTUS rulings regarding marriage equality...citing their personal religious beliefs.

Do you really think democracy "works" between 50 "united" states, when there's a powerful Bible Belt?

[Enoch the Red]

First, because our Constitutional framework explicitly prohibits mixing religion with laws. Secondly, because judges in Alabama (for example) are refusing to honor SCOTUS rulings regarding marriage equality...citing their personal religious beliefs.

Do you really think democracy "works" between 50 "united" states, when there's a powerful Bible Belt?

I don't think you understand what democracy means, or how there are more democracies than just the United States. There is nothing inherent to democracies that make them incompatible with religion and religious laws.

[GGT]

I don't think you understand what democracy means, or how there are more democracies than just the United States. There is nothing inherent to democracies that make them incompatible with religion and religious laws.

Democracy means much more than majority vote. When a "majority" of legislators thought blacks or females shouldn't have the right to vote, or any rights at all.....because the Bible said so....our US Constitution said otherwise.

Same thing for marriage equality and Prop 8 in California.

Maybe I don't understand what "Libertarian" means, and you can explain it to me.

[RandBlade]

Agreed on your conclusion if not your argument. Religion is bullshit.

[Loki]

I.E. Democracy means the country does what GGT wants.

[GGT]

I.E. Democracy means the country does what GGT wants.

Discussing what democracy means makes me a mensch? Gee, you really are Kissinger's acolyte.

[Loki]

Discussing it = certainly not. Assuming that democracy is synonymous with your interests = definitely.

[GGT]

Discussing it = certainly not. Assuming that democracy is synonymous with your interests = definitely.

If you don't like my definitions of democracy, where equality is paramount, and religion shouldn't play a role....feel free to disagree. Then show proof that the US the paragon of virtue.

[earthJoker]

If you don't like my definitions of democracy, where equality is paramount, and religion shouldn't play a role....feel free to disagree. Then show proof that the US the paragon of virtue.

First we should dicuss what definition means. And what means means, and what GGT means.

I mean, definition means a lot more than just defining the meaning of something. If you don't like my definition of meaning then show me proof that there is no unicorn hiding under my bed.

[Timbuk2]

[Lewkowski]

If people take a moral stand based on their personal beliefs... is that moral stand diminished in your eyes if that person states it is because of their religion? I'm all in favor of getting morality out of legislation but it appears GGT that you prefer active discrimination of religious thought in the public space.

[RandBlade]

Yes it is in my eyes. Though I agree morality should be personal and bot legislated.

[Loki]

So morality based on atheism is ok, but morality based on religion is not? How is that kind of logic any better than that of the religious fundamentalists you dislike?

[Enoch the Red]

So morality based on atheism is ok, but morality based on religion is not? How is that kind of logic any better than that of the religious fundamentalists you dislike?

I would guess Rand would say his morality isn't based on his atheism, it is instead based on reason, but that's just a guess.

[EyeKhan]

So morality based on atheism is ok, but morality based on religion is not? How is that kind of logic any better than that of the religious fundamentalists you dislike?

I would guess Rand would say his morality isn't based on his atheism, it is instead based on reason, but that's just a guess.

Loki - do you see any possible qualitative difference between a moral principle based on secular, objective reasoning and one based on what a god supposedly commanded via a 4000 year old text?

[Loki]

Loki - do you see any possible qualitative difference between a moral principle based on secular, objective reasoning and one based on what a god supposedly commanded via a 4000 year old text?

What makes you think secular reasoning is objective? You make it sound like there's some scientific way of determining what is moral and what is not.

[EyeKhan]

What makes you think secular reasoning is objective? You make it sound like there's some scientific way of determining what is moral and what is not.

I agree, objectivity is the wrong word - that's a measure of how one evaluates a means to a particular goal, whereas what we are really talking about when religion-bashing is the source of the goal. In other words one can objectively evaluate a social rule that is based on an ancient god's purported will, but it doesn't mean that rule is rational, sensible, or relevant to modern society. Moral codes are cultural and so based on a long history of who the hell knows what, so for any given social group they may be rationally based or not, and likely a mix. I think it is possible to wrench a nation's morality away from irrationality by using tools of logic and measuring a given rule objectively against whatever social goals set by the nation. Isn't this what's been happening with gay marriage in the US? The anti-gay social goal is to please ancient gods and preserve traditions set by that god's will, the pro-gay goals would be various, like freedom, pursuit of happiness, equal treatment (fairness), economic benefits of happy married gays vs. persecuted, jailed gays, etc. It's rational. Law is changing based on objective evaluation. It's a moral principle. Right?

And no, this isn't science. But I do sometimes wonder if the tools of science could be used to develop a set of social goals...? Different discussion...

[Steely Glint]

Both secular and religious moral systems start from axiomic principles which are, in their own world view, about as close to objective as it is possible to get. Secular systems start with principles such as "suffering is bad", "freedom is good" and so on. Obviously, these concepts only exist in the minds of human beings and are not objective facts in the same way that, say, the existence of matter is an objective fact. But they're so close to universal amongst human beings that they can be treated as objective even if they are technically not. Religious morality starts with the proclamations of that religion's deity and since in the cosmology of religion that deity is the the creator of and most fundamental force in the universe then its wishes may be considered objective as well - in the worldview of that religion. From these starting points, people can reason about the world and their actions and determine whether or not a given action is moral or immoral.

So, they work in basically the same way except humanistic morality comes from people and religious morality comes - supposedly - from a deity.

Can you guess where I'm going with this?

Humanistic morality is superior because human beings actually, you know, exist and can be proven to exist.

Deities cannot be shown to exist, and even if they do exist their wishes cannot be known to us.

[RandBlade]

I would guess Rand would say his morality isn't based on his atheism, it is instead based on reason, but that's just a guess.

Bingo. I have more respect for reason than blind faith and dogma. That is a personal judgement call to which others are of course capable of disagreeing but I wouldn't be honest if I didn't say that to answer Lewk's question.

[Lewkowski]

Bingo. I have more respect for reason than blind faith and dogma. That is a personal judgement call to which others are of course capable of disagreeing but I wouldn't be honest if I didn't say that to answer Lewk's question.

There are plenty of moral arguments that aren't based on religious that I'm sure you would find particularly stupid. Why would you automatically by default put them on a higher standard than religious morals?

Someone who chooses to give to charity and encourages other people to do so because of their religious belief seems far more preferable than people whining about fur is murder.

[RandBlade]

There are plenty of moral arguments that aren't based on religious that I'm sure you would find particularly stupid. Why would you automatically by default put them on a higher standard than religious morals?

I don't. I put dogmatic blind faith on a lower standing than reason. I also put plenty of other stuff on a lower standing. Just because dogma isn't reasoned doesn't mean other nonsense isn't unreasonable either.

[Flixy]

Measuring objectively to society's social goals still require subjective social goals - which is also a moral question.

[EyeKhan]

Measuring objectively to society's social goals still require subjective social goals - which is also a moral question.

Agreed. But like I said above, I wonder if it's possible to come up with social goals based on something completely objective using some sort of science-based criteria. For example, what if you start from scratch proceeding from the premise that, as living things, the one primary goal of human civilization should be to avoid human extinction. I choose this because objectively, in the grandest most general scheme of things, avoiding extinction is what "life does." (You can't say life "wants" to avoid its own extinction, but the overall process of life is all about perpetuating its own existence indefinitely...) From that premise you can hypothesize, test and implement all sorts of supporting social goals. It would be an interesting thought experiment to see what sort of "morals" develop... I don't think it would necessarily lead to an unpleasant civilization either - the biggest threat of human extinction comes from what humans do (either to the environment or to each other), so the new goals have to at least address the unpleasantness that makes people want to fight each other. Another goal would have to be maintaining some level of genetic diversity, which enhances a species' survival capability in the face of sudden challenges like disease or environmental change, and that means addressing genocide and racism in a way that preserves the optimal diversity....

It will never happen. But it's fun to think about.

[earthJoker]

I agree with Loki, you won't be able to get personal opinions out of political decisions. If you could have objective reasoning to make laws, why the need for democracy in the first place?

[Flixy]

What always bugs me is that religion is used as an excuse, but if you want to ban everything that is forbidden in the bible.. Where are the people wanting to ban divorce again? Or working on Sundays? etc

[Lewkowski]

What always bugs me is that religion is used as an excuse, but if you want to ban everything that is forbidden in the bible.. Where are the people wanting to ban divorce again? Or working on Sundays? etc

Which is why the only sane position is to not legislate morality. Though that being said divorce is actually OK per the bible. Just has some conditions.