Should lawmakers legally be allowed to use religious justifications in government?

Should lawmakers legally be allowed to use religious justifications in government?


  • Total voters
    13

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter what other arguments are valid.
Of course it does. If I say "We should protect this town from contaminating the water supply due to fracking" and some nutjob who was elected to congress says "Fuck that, God says fracking is A-OK! Frack on!", my argument is based on science and reason, the opposition's argument is based on bullshit. I win.
The sole one that motivated the lawmaker is religious.
Yet other arguments that are not based on religion remain valid

You don't seem to understand.. If an argument is based on religion, but still has valid scientific evidence that supports it, it's fine. If an argument is based on religion, but DOES NOT have valid scientific evidence that supports it, it's gone. Simple, right?
I don't care what the religious fool gets up there and says. I will not deny his right to express It. I will just try my best to take away his microphone next go round, and in the mean time make sure what he touches isn't poisioned by his foolishness.

Shutting him up would be too cumbersome, and give too much power to someone.
Yeah sure, you might try.. But what if the majority of the population agreed with it? Should we deny equal civil rights to females because the bible says they should be subservient to men and the American population was stupid enough to buy some politicians argument based in scripture? Ever heard the religious arguments against the 19th amendment? Using your logic, women should not have the right to vote. Using my logic they should, because the argument against giving them the right to vote stems from organized religion. There is no other legitimate basis not to allow women to vote outside of religion.
 

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Of course it does. If I say "We should protect this town from contaminating the water supply due to fracking" and some nutjob who was elected to congress says "Fuck that, God says fracking is A-OK! Frack on!", my argument is based on science and reason, the opposition's argument is based on bullshit. I win.

Yet other arguments that are not based on religion remain valid

You don't seem to understand.. If an argument is based on religion, but still has valid scientific evidence that supports it, it's fine. If an argument is based on religion, but DOES NOT have valid scientific evidence that supports it, it's gone. Simple, right?

Yeah sure, you might try.. But what if the majority of the population agreed with it? Should we deny equal civil rights to females because the bible says they should be subservient to men and the American population was stupid enough to buy some politicians argument based in scripture? Ever heard the religious arguments against the 19th amendment? Using your logic, women should not have the right to vote. Using my logic they should, because the argument against giving them the right to vote stems from organized religion. There is no other legitimate basis not to allow women to vote outside of religion.
You're missing the forest for the trees.

The point is far more narrow than you're trying to argue above. The question is, do we permit elected officials to envoke religious beliefs through the discharge of their duties. I say yes, you say no.

To your fracking comparison, it isn't valid because you have the religious saying allow it, and the science saying not to...

I'll use that to illustrate to you how I think we ought to do this, and I think we largely do.

Mayor of town says "Jesus came to me in a dream last night and said I should stop the gas company from destroying our water supply. To that end I will not sign the permit they are asking for."

It makes no difference here if he said allow it or disallow it.

If he had said Jesus told him to sign it for jobs, it's the same potential problem.

I interpret your stance to be any law made using religious justification should be void.

So imeadetly someone is going to challenge his decision, if he denies, the gas co. If he allows, the residents affected will seek higher legal remedies.

Upon review, it is clear there is a religious motivation behind this law, the mayor said so. But it's moot. It is non active. The gas co cant claim religious oppression because there are other valid resons for denying the permit. The residents cant claim it because gas co has mineral rights and fracking is legal overall.

If some mayor gets up and says "since Sunday should be holy, no businesses can be open in this town on that day."

Here is where it gets tricky... Should we allow this? I say yes... Until someone wants to stay open on Sunday. If the entire town is in unanimous agreement, no harm. So let them pass the law. The moment this is challenged it will fall. It is a religiously motivated law and will not stand in any state court these days.

What's the alternative? To do things the way you want would require setting up some sort of police agency for enforcement of these laws. Resources required would be huge. And we would have to crack down on people who are just speaking. It would be terribly difficult to enforce. This agency would have to have lots of power. They would have to go after people who would then code their talk, instead of talking openly as now, it would be coded more, and these people would have to connect lots of dots to act and mistakes would be made.

Why introduce such a cumbersome process and army of speech cops into the process when we have such a good way of keeping religious nonsense out of our laws now?

To the extent we have religious legal abuse, it is mostly in old laws that have been around for a long time. New law introduced is much harder to get through it it has religious conflicts.
 

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Give me an example of some reason I wouldn't agree with. Let's see if I bend to that
Ok... Challenge accepted.

A religious governor and legislative body enact a law limiting the speed on the highway to 55 for a stretch where there are some massive crosses and billboards around that depict religious imagery.

The crosses and billboards aren't funded by government. They're totally private. The state gov just wants traffic to be slow there so people can have time to read the messages.

It is totally within a states right to limit speed. In the language it doesn't mention the crosses and stuff, but it's clear they're the only reason.
 

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
Ummm. Totally off subject.

I agree that its not against god to use cannabis.

This thread is more towards christian politicians forcing their beliefs on others through law.

Gay marriage and the bathroom laws. Things like that.
 

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Ummm. Totally off subject.

I agree that its not against god to use cannabis.

This thread is more towards christian politicians forcing their beliefs on others through law.

Gay marriage and the bathroom laws. Things like that.
This is the politics forum... Threads don't have topics.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I can't get really excited for it. I think if the people of a state wish to define it one way or another that is their right.

Gay marriage and bathroom laws are wedge issues that seem to get emotional reactions from the religious. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that those are the only folks opposed to those issues.
 

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
This is the politics forum... Threads don't have topics.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I can't get really excited for it. I think if the people of a state wish to define it one way or another that is their right.

Gay marriage and bathroom laws are wedge issues that seem to get emotional reactions from the religious. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that those are the only folks opposed to those issues.
No topic?

This thread has a specific question.

Christians aren't really the reason pot is illegal.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
People are guided by their ideology and to try to restrict what people are thinking is impossible. It is inevitable that lawmakers use ideological justifications to guide their actions. Out of infinite choices to respond to an issue, only a few can be chosen and a person's religious beliefs provides a way to choose a given course of action and I see nothing wrong with that within the context of a secular democracy.

In order to enact a law, the lawmaker must justify, explain and convince others that this course of action is the right one or the best choice. This is where religious arguments are not appropriate. For one thing, using "because it is god's will" as justification is completely unprovable. Building a set of laws with that justification would be just a house of cards that can be knocked down with a simple denial that it was god's will. For another, if the action can't be justified using real world evidence, science or other physical reality, it probably won't work or hold up when circumstances change. So, yeah, everybody ought to act according to their conscience but keep religion out of the state's legal system.
 

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
People are guided by their ideology and to try to restrict what people are thinking is impossible. It is inevitable that lawmakers use ideological justifications to guide their actions. Out of infinite choices to respond to an issue, only a few can be chosen and a person's religious beliefs provides a way to choose a given course of action and I see nothing wrong with that within the context of a secular democracy.

In order to enact a law, the lawmaker must justify, explain and convince others that this course of action is the right one or the best choice. This is where religious arguments are not appropriate. For one thing, using "because it is god's will" as justification is completely unprovable. Building a set of laws with that justification would be just a house of cards that can be knocked down with a simple denial that it was god's will. For another, if the action can't be justified using real world evidence, science or other physical reality, it probably won't work or hold up when circumstances change. So, yeah, everybody ought to act according to their conscience but keep religion out of the state's legal system.
I mostly agree with you. And I even agree with you on the specific point I'm going to challenge you on here.

I agree that when a law is up for debate, that is not the appropriate time for a law maker to say "this is God's will, let us do it."

But suppose one does... And suppose he is very persuasive in doing so. Does the law automatically become bad? Bad meaning unconstitutional or something to that effect...

This is essentially what pada and I were discussing. He would make some way to prevent that type of talk at that time, and presumably punish it. I would allow it. But I would then want that law to be scrutinized.

What say you? What if it is an otherwise valid law. No infringmrnt on religious rights of or by anyone. Does religious reasons to pass it take away from the law?
 
Top