- There is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity, and man's highest destiny is to fulfill His purpose
- I routinely ignore what this deity says because my neighbors disagree
America, and to a lesser extent other western nations, have a long history of keeping doctrinal disagreements out of the public square, an excellent notion. But my reading of political history, admittedly incomplete, does not indicate that our predecessors actually thought that people were supposed to vote entirely without recourse to their relgious faith--that the Almighty God was supposed to be kept in a dark corner of your heart where he couldn't possibly affect any public portion of your life.
Indeed, some of the noblest endeavors in American history, like the fight against slavery and the civil rights movement, were very explicitly religious movements, and wouldn't have succeeded half so well without the power of the church behind them. Though I don't share their faith, I'm totally okay with that. Believers will believe. The rest of us will have to judge their beliefs by our own lights, of course.
The problem isn't with a faith as you've formulated it. The problem is with actual faiths in the real world. The situation is something more like this:
1. There is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity, and man's highest destiny is to fulfill His purpose.
2. Our faith, and only our faith, knows what this purpose is, and what rules people need to follow in order to achieve that purpose.
But
3. My neighbors disagree with 2 and/or 1.
The question then becomes, how to reconcile 3 with 2 and 1.
If you're a legislator, the job is easy. You can simply vote on whether or not you think the law is moral. If the people don't like it, they can vote you out. But if you're a part of the executive or judicial branch, you're supposed to take the laws as they are and act or judge based on that. It's part of the job description. (Of course judges and executives can and do ignore this, but I'm talking about the ideal).
Indeed, some of the noblest endeavors in American history, like the fight against slavery and the civil rights movement, were very explicitly religious movements, and wouldn't have succeeded half so well without the power of the church behind them
This isn't really accurate. You're correct in that most of the aboltionist movement was explicitly religious, but you forget that most most of the anti-aboltionist movement (or inertia, if you will) was explicitly religious as well. So I'm not sure it's very clear what the net effect of the church was on the abolition movement. The same is generally true of the civil rights movement in the mid 20th century. Remember that the Klan fancies itself a religious organization, as do most other white supremacist/hate groups.
In general though, I find this argument extremely distasteful because it's underlying premise, that it is the job of the state to codify our moral sensibilities, never really gets challenged.
I can't see how you can have any sort of meaningful faith and divorce it from your voting decisions. Religious faith is supposed to tell you, among other things, what is right and wrong. How are you supposed to vote without reference to your notions of goodness?
Because imposing your notions of goodness on your neighbors through exercise of political violence (i.e. voting) is wrong in and of itself.
It is amazing how you manage to both insult "believers" and pander to them in the very same post.
And considering that the God (Jesus) himself suggested separation of church and state ("give unto Caeser..."), it seems very easy to reconcile the two. Your confusion stems from the fact that you probably know zilch about the demands of (as you describe) an "omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity". You probably conflate God’s demands that with the demands of his self-anointed shepherds (Robertson/Falwell/Dobson et all).
Religious faith is about the spiritual (eternal life etc.) Politics is about the temporal (tax rates, social security, etc.). It is silly to think that there is no intersection between faith and politics. But at a minimum you shouldn't choose your pastor the same way as you choose your President. Or at least the decision criteria need to be different. If someone finds that confusing, they are either incredibly religious or incredible stupid.
Another huge practical problem is that in the US we mostly vote for representatives, not issues. History shows that if you choose your representatives based entirely on religion, you will mostly be getting hoodwinked by the politician who is best at pretending that he "deeply shares your faith" or what have you.
The idea that faith is not to influence your politics exists in France, but it's not embraced by most other democracies I'm aware of. Many European nations have Christian-oriented political parties. This does not occur in the US, but is not specifically prohibited so far as I know.
Otherwise in the US John Jay, and a few other prominent figures, specifically wanted the US to be a Protestant nation. Nineteenth century American politicians specifically cited religion as an influence on their support of everything from abolitionism to imperialism.
I think the concern might be that faith-influenced voters are less likely to adapt to changing situations and instead hold to principles that are no longer useful. Also that faith-influenced voters are less likely to listen to someone like Andrew Sullivan or give him what he wants.
This appears to refer to Douthat's (I think, correct) slap at Sullivan, without the appropriate link.
When I was writing that there'd be no comments.
I can't see how you can have any sort of meaningful faith and divorce it from your voting decisions. Religious faith is supposed to tell you, among other things, what is right and wrong. How are you supposed to vote without reference to your notions of goodness?
You can't. I would have trouble voting for members of some faiths/sects, since their worldview is incompatible with a democratic republic. However, the US has a political tradition that looked at the troubled history of Europe and their religious wars as a warning. It was expected that politicians would be religious and religious philosophy would inform their decisions. (I'm reading McCullough's biography of John Adams - yes, late to the party - and have recently read a biography of Paine.) The view of the Founders was that we would be a nation that had faith, but kept the doctrinal disputes out of the political sphere.
I think we'd be still there today except for one issue - abortion. Since the fundamentalists and Roman Catholics have made this a centerpiece of their "public square" debates with the rest of the world, religion has been injected into the everyday political debate. Their secondary issue, gay marriage rights, is the issue that I think has Mr. Sullivan so strongly wound up. I understand why he's so wound up, but think it has negatively affected his writing.
I think it's fine for a person to consider religious principles when deciding what policies to favor. But it's also important, when considering policies that are going to apply to everyone, to figure out how to justify those policies to people with different faiths, or none. You may want your children to learn to read so they can study the Bible, and this was indeed a common justification for teaching people how to read in the early modern era. But nobody says that this is why we need compulsory primary schools today. There are lots of other good reasons for them, though, and the fact that most children emerge from them able to read the Bible is merely one of many benefits.
Very few issues are so narrow that the religious take is the only possible spin you can put on them. Even something that is purely religious and ethically neutral, like the freedom to wear a particular kind of hat, can be discussed in terms other than whether wearing that particular hat is "correct" in any cosmic sense.
I'm a Meganite for sure, but the lady's wrong on this one.
As articulated by Tel and Noah above (and maybe others), the position she outlines fails to account for the moral good of tolerance of the positions of others, in and of itself. If we're talking about Christianity, there's no verse in the bible that could be used to suggest that Jesus wanted people to legislate their faith; that would impose Christian values upon other people. Instead it is a message of good news, 'gospel', which should be spread and gain followers of free will, an action dependent upon liberty rather than coercion.
Ultimately, if I believe that there is a great omnipotent omnibenevolent God, I will vote against any measure which would crush the freedom of others to act of their own free will or impede their ability to choose their religious faith for themselves.
John
Quoting C.S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters, "Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head."
If something is true, it should inform our actions. But therein lies the trouble - we, and our neighbors, aren't convinced that there is anything true, so the discussion turns toward no one legislating their views onto another. The question comes down to, is there something true, or isn't there?
I can't see how you can have any sort of meaningful faith and divorce it from your voting decisions. Religious faith is supposed to tell you, among other things, what is right and wrong. How are you supposed to vote without reference to your notions of goodness?
Uh...well, maybe some people believe their faith should tell them how to live their own lives, and not be used to dictate how others should live theirs. Or, you respect the freedom of religion in the U.S. and realize that there are many other religions that people are equally entitled to--and entitled to be free of rule by your religion.
This has always seemed like a no-brainer. How would a libertarian not see that? It's called tolerance.
The difference between the role of faith in the Civil Rights Movement compared to those, for instance, who want to use faith to justify banning gay marriage is that leaders like King made their case on a secular basis. If you cannot make a secular claim for your position, it is likely an illegitimate in a democracy. For instance, no one really knows when life begins. We can all agree, for instance, that a baby that is born is alive. Before that though, nobody really has any way of defining the point of when life begins that rests on any type of falsifiable grounds. Anyone, including Ross Douthat, that says they know exactly when life begins is lying to you. By enshrining some moment in pregnancy as when life begins into law based on when a minority of Americans believe it begins, you are robbing women of all religious beliefs the freedom to determine that for themselves.
In addition, the vast majority of issues we face today have no real connection to anything written in centuries-or-millenia-old religious texts. What does the Bible have to say about traffic lights, anti-dumping trade provisions, net neutrality, carbon taxes, etc.? Not really much. Making religion politically-oriented ends up robbing religion of much of its value. At least black churches focused on civil rights have engaged in self-help and community improvements, but so much (white) conservative Protestantism these days has become just another GOP get-out-the-vote organization. Jesus had very little to say about abortion (if anything at all), but the religious right is practically obsessed with it while having nothing to say about things like torture. In the end, politics and political organizations just end up co-opting faith for their own purposes.
Megan:
I used to envy your job, but having read the reactions two your articles I do not anymore.
I am sorry but I have come to the conclusion that you cook for humans, just to feed pigs.
nobody really has any way of defining the point of when life begins that rests on any type of falsifiable grounds.
This is such a weird argument. Why would you expect the definition of a word to rest upon falsifiable grounds? The line between bad business management and criminal fraud is also fuzzy, but nobody thinks that fraud prosecutions are religiously inspired or complains that by defining fraud a certain way, you're depriving bankrupt businessmen of the right to determine it for themselves.
"Because imposing your notions of goodness on your neighbors through exercise of political violence (i.e. voting) is wrong in and of itself."
Voting as an act of political violence? In rare cases, maybe; but most of the time, no. People are going to disagree on major issues, and voting is the least violent way to resolve those disagreements.
Further, all this "you shouldn't impose your beliefs of right & wrong on others" is just silly and foolish. Practically every law out there is an imposition of a belief of right and wrong. They have become laws because most people agree on the moral & ethical nature of a particular act (an agreement expressed through voting, BTW). Laws against securities fraud (don't cheat people), prohibitions on murder and rape (don't, uh, murder and rape), rules telling people to drive no faster than 20 MPH in a school zone (don't put children's lives at risk to save 30 seconds)--they're all expressions of what people consider to be moral or immoral.
I don't really have a problem with people's faith influencing their politics or policies for two reasons. First, there is is also a (strong) rational, non-religious basis for those same policies/politics; if a policy is justified in religion and by the data, great. I mean, you don't have to be a believer to be troubled by abortion - not that that's to say I don't support abortion rights. But it's very difficult to find opposition to gay marriage that has a non-religious, rational basis.
Secondly, faith in political life is not used to exclude others, especially those who don't have faith - which has all too often been the case. Witness the denigration and venom spewed at atheists in American politics. When there is only one (admitted) atheist in congress, Pete Stark, and even he goes to a unitarian church, something is deeply wrong.
Noah said:
Because imposing your notions of goodness on your neighbors through exercise of political violence (i.e. voting) is wrong in and of itself.
I agree, which is why I favor a very small state, but the nature of democratic politics is that people are voting to impose their will on others. Saying that religious people should not vote or should not take their beliefs into account is no more fair than saying that liberals should not take their envy and/or pity into account when voting to redistribute wealth.
Liberals make the case for this all the time when they bemoan the poor who will not vote their "class interests". They mean, "Look, we're promising to give you stuff from someone else. How can you not vote for this?"
Note: even if you think it would be more fair or just if religious people weren't allowed to vote based on their beliefs, it's impossible to police anyway.
Best outcome: support a minimal state so fewer decisions are left to voters with whom you may disagree.
Jimmy James,
Who cares what someone's basis is for how they vote? I assume most people are lying anyway. The fact is, everyone enjoys the exercise of power and getting his own way.
If the state were out of the marriage business, it wouldn't be a public policy decision who got to say they were married to whom. However, if it's going to be a public policy decision, be prepared for people to vote their preferences regardless of the "rationality" of them.
Of course religion should influence voting. Religion shapes your morals. Your morals influence what you think is right and wrong. And what you think is right and wrong along with an asessment of what is practical influences how you vote.
However it is up to each individual to translate religion in to morality and mix with feasability to determine policy.
For me my Christianity re-enforces my libertarian politics. For others they derive other political ideals (redistributionist, moralist, etc)
"This is such a weird argument. Why would you expect the definition of a word to rest upon falsifiable grounds? The line between bad business management and criminal fraud is also fuzzy, but nobody thinks that fraud prosecutions are religiously inspired or complains that by defining fraud a certain way, you're depriving bankrupt businessmen of the right to determine it for themselves.
Posted by Rob Lyman | August 18, 2008 12:47 PM"
Except that fraud and abortion are rather different issues. Fraud is not a religious issue in this country. Abortion is and the anti-abortion movement is explicitly religious. In cases of fraud, there is a class of people (whom we all agree are alive) who have been harmed: stockholders, employees, customers, etc. The question is whether that harm constitutes fraud, which varies from case to case. We have a secular legal basis for deciding such cases based on our secular Constitution (that enshrines freedom of religion by prohibiting a religious test for office) combined with laws passed by our elected representatives that have to be in line with our secular Constitution.
In the case of abortion, it is fuzzy at best if the class of people defined as victims (fetuses) are even living in a commonly agreed-upon sense. In order to argue that a bunch of cells in a petri dish are no different and just as alive as a living person like a stockholder requires the use of religious faith. The rights of a citizen of the US, according to our Constitution, apply to only those who are either 1) naturalized citizens or 2) those born in the US. After all, if a Mexican couple conceived a child in the US but had the child - or the woman had an abortion - in Mexico, American law would have nothing to do with that child's (or fetus's) or the couple's rights. There is a difference between trying to determine if harm was inflicted on a group of people we all agree are people (in cases of fraud) and trying to determine if a group of people even exist as such and thus enjoy such rights.
With fraud, you don't need to use religion to cut through the ambiguity. Saying certain actions taken in business constitute fraud and enshrining them in law doesn't require any form of religious interpretation. With abortion, you need religion to say definitively that any point during a pregnancy is the point at which life begins. As such, using the state to say that some arbitrary point during pregnancy is when life begins is imposing one group's religious values on another, just reducing religious freedom in the US.
"Laws against securities fraud (don't cheat people), prohibitions on murder and rape (don't, uh, murder and rape), rules telling people to drive no faster than 20 MPH in a school zone (don't put children's lives at risk to save 30 seconds)--they're all expressions of what people consider to be moral or immoral."
But these are all questions of morality with a secular basis. If murder and rape were legal, then our society would likely collapse. Being reckless in places where lots of children gather while operating a few tons of steel and glass is immoral because doing reckless things that can easily kill children is wrong. A capitalist system needs certain agreed-upon rules, such as the legal enforcement of contracts, in order to operate. You don't need religion to think that fraud, murder, rape, speeding through a school zone, etc. are wrong and that society as a whole has an interest in creating disincentives such behavior and deterring such behavior.
With abortion, you need religion to say definitively that any point during a pregnancy is the point at which life begins.
Why? Why can't I say that the category of "person" includes, among others, "any entity possessed of a complete human genome which, in the absence of outside interference, might within 9 months of coming into existence become a human baby"? What's "religious" about that definition? And if that's "religious," then why isn't defining "person" to be, essentially, "a baby born alive" equally "religious"?
When I stop laughing historically I will say that I expected "abortion" to show up sooner in the comments.
We all have religion. Some have us have faith (not the same group).
The politics of the USA is how to deal with all of the incompatible and irreconcilable beliefs, faiths and gods and make it all work for all of us.
If you think you won't be here next Thursday, fine, not stop us from planning for next Friday.
"With abortion, you need religion to say definitively that any point during a pregnancy is the point at which life begins."
Not at all. Science shows us that human life begins at conception. This is not even a controversial point. The definition of abortion is killing and removing a fetus or embryo.
It's the concept of soul or "personness" and what that means to us that is addressed by religion, philosophy and laws. This is the part under debate.
If one's faith, or lack thereof, is a part of their lives it will also be part of their administering whether in public or private life.
The only basis we can judge these people by is their behavior, which in and of itself will tell us a great deal about their personal faith or value system.
If a pol spouts deep religious ethics when running for office and then votes contrary to same or steals or violates their supposed religious ethics, it tells us they were lying in the first place and nothing more. The same, of course, could be applied to the reverse.
Our votes are what we have to pass our own judgment on these people in the public sphere. The private sphere is more complicated, but we can look for another place to sell our skills if we're really dissatisfied.
Many of the issues that commentors have used as examples (i.e. theft, murder, slavery) are not strictly moral issues. These can be viewed as matters of property rights, which in my view is the primary role of government. It is not that murdering another is illegal due to moral concerns. Rather, murder is illegal because it violates well-defined property rights, with no moral significance attached.
Most laws that seem to be based on moral sentiments can be justified using the property rights perspective alone. Often, the conclusions are the same (i.e. murder).
The part of my faith that informs my political decisions is the part that says: God gave us free will.
If God himself isn't going to force us to live in accordance with his will, I hardly think it's the government's responsibility.
Religious faith is supposed to tell you, among other things, what is right and wrong. How are you supposed to vote without reference to your notions of goodness?
Certainly vote in reference to those things, but understand that if you want to craft public policy - say, a new law that prevents what you see as a moral wrong - then you have to justify that policy in a secular way, without reference to faith. In other words it's unconstitutional to say "we need a law against stealing because it's in the Ten Commandments", but not to say "we need a law against stealing because we've founded our society on a concept of property rights, and those rights need to be protected."
Is it really so hard to see the difference? Not if you think about it for ten minutes, maybe.
Is it really so hard to see the difference?
Well, yes, given that "property rights need to be protected" isn't any more self-evidently true than "The Ten Commandments should be obeyed."
Especially given the religious and moral origins of the common law. It's not like judges in 1186--or, for that matter, in 1946--were hanging murderers because of a well-thought-out utilitarian analysis of the most economically productive way to structure society. It's only very recently (mid-to-late 20th century) that the notion of government passing laws to protect "public morals" fell into disrepute.
Indeed, there are all sorts of government actions justified on moral grounds; it's not like the term "Great Society" refers to a society which maximizes GDP at the expense of all else.
"Religious faith is supposed to tell you, among other things, what is right and wrong. How are you supposed to vote without reference to your notions of goodness?"
Perhaps Megan because there is not a moral dimension to every political question. Certainly issues like abortion can be driven by religious views or defense issues if you are truely a passivist. But religions does not speak to most political issues one way or another.
What's the old joke - Ted Kennedy believes so strongly in the separation of church and state that he refuses to impose his religion on himself? (Apologies in advance due to Sen. Kennedy's illness, but it doesn't really work as well for anybody else.)
"Many of the issues that commentors have used as examples (i.e. theft, murder, slavery) are not strictly moral issues. These can be viewed as matters of property rights, which in my view is the primary role of government."
Property rights themselves are philosophical, moral and subject to laws as well. "Viewing" slaves as property didn't provide justification for their freedom.
The difference between the role of faith in the Civil Rights Movement compared to those, for instance, who want to use faith to justify banning gay marriage is that leaders like King made their case on a secular basis. If you cannot make a secular claim for your position, it is likely an illegitimate in a democracy.
On the contrary, MLK's message was saturated to the core with religion.
Ever heard of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech?
This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South.
Or his Letter from a Birmingham Jail?
* * *
How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
* * *
Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment.
Well, yes, given that "property rights need to be protected" isn't any more self-evidently true than "The Ten Commandments should be obeyed."
The First Amendment establishes a society where the first argument is defined as being more self-evidently true. That's the point.
Funny, but when Obama acts as a Christianist, Sullivan thinks it's brilliant.
The view of secularism Sullivan is expression is a common one, but very confused. The idea that leaders cannot cite and express religious ideas was little to do with secularism in government.
The point is that the GOVERNMENT should have a secular purpose when it exerts its power, rather than advancing a religious agenda, which is supposed to simply be out of its range of legitimate authority.
The point is that people are 100% capable of dealing with their religious convictions without government direction, and as such government has no legitimate place purporting to manage them.
It is not that people should not have or express religious convictions: even those that inform their politics.
"Property rights themselves are philosophical, moral and subject to laws as well. "Viewing" slaves as property didn't provide justification for their freedom."
How you define the property rights is where morality comes into play. The abolition of slavery was caused by a change in ownership of the slave's life. Under slavery, the life of the slave belonged to the owner. The abolishonist movement caused the right to shift to that of the individual. Certainly the shift in ownership was motivated by moralilty, but philosophically the issue of slavery can argued on the grounds of property rights alone - absent any notion of right or wrong. To whom you assign the rights is the moral issue.
You can be an agnostic as the metaphysical question of whether there's a God. Be you can't be agnostic as to whether or not you believe in God (unless you claim that you don't know your own conscious beliefs.)
Atheism means the lack of belief in God. Because Meg McArdle does not positively believe in God, Miss McArdle lacks belief in God (Law of Excluded Middle.)
Thus, Meg McArdle is an atheist.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Brian,
For one, Atheism doesn't mean the lack of belief in God. For two, McArdle is such a unique and special snowflake that she steals hitherto obscure terms to describe herself and pretends that she created them.
For one, Atheism doesn't mean the lack of belief in God.
That's what some of the other atheists here will tell you; they get touchy if you say that atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God.
The First Amendment establishes a society where the first argument is defined as being more self-evidently true. That's the point.
I suppose if we take an insouciantly ahistorical view of the First Amendment--an odd idea for someone who uses "our society was founded on" as the preface for an approved argument--you could argue that explicitly religious beliefs are to be considered self-evidently false for the purposes of legislation.
The difficulty is in deciding what counts as religious; it seems to me that anarcho-capitalists have a pretty religious fervor for property rights which is unmoored from any empirical basis. And there's no question that the language of morality and quasi-religion gets deployed in the service of causes from environmentalism to gun control.
"Why? Why can't I say that the category of "person" includes, among others, "any entity possessed of a complete human genome which, in the absence of outside interference, might within 9 months of coming into existence become a human baby"? What's "religious" about that definition? And if that's "religious," then why isn't defining "person" to be, essentially, "a baby born alive" equally "religious"?
Posted by Rob Lyman | August 18, 2008 1:18 PM"
It's one thing for an individual to say this. It's another to enforce this view, which isn't based on reason, under law. Choosing this point is rather arbitrary. Even without outside interference, most embryos don't make it to nine months. Most end up expiring in the womb before the woman even knows she is pregnant. If we are going to consider an embryo a human life, then each time an embryo dies inside a woman that is either manslaughter or neglect, meaning that every sexually active woman in America should potentially be in jail. Running a society in such a way is absurd. Similarly, we should close down all fertility clinics because they destroy tons of embryos. By this logic, infertile couples that would want to bring a human life into the world would be barred from doing so because the medical process of helping them have a child destroys embryos. This is a bit absurd.
Also, for you last point, defining a baby as such is not religious in that it is the one point at which all reasonable people can agree that a person has come into existence. Anything earlier forces women of different religious beliefs to adhere to the religious beliefs behind the law or else face criminal prosecution for making decisions regarding her own body. As such, defining a new human life at birth gives the pregnant woman in question the right to make her own decision about her body and decide for herself how to follow her own religious beliefs. Azar Nafisi has made the point that after the Iranian Revolution, when the mullahs forced women to wear the hijab, her religious female students felt the hijab had been robbed of all religious significance because it had become a political symbol and not a sign of one's own personal faith. Once you have the state enact religious morality, you rob the individual of the right to choose for themselves what their religion says is moral and thus reduces religion to nothingness beyond a tool of the state.
"Not at all. Science shows us that human life begins at conception. This is not even a controversial point. The definition of abortion is killing and removing a fetus or embryo."
Just asserting science say so doesn't make it so. Name me the scientists that have actually proven this. There is a big jump between a human life and an embryo. Also, if you don't think such an assertion is controversial, then you haven't been paying attention to the abortion debate for the past few decades.
"On the contrary, MLK's message was saturated to the core with religion."
I'm not saying King didn't use religious language, but he made a secular case. If you strip away every reference to God or scripture in his speeches and writings, you still get a very persuasive and forceful argument in favor of civil rights, equality before the law and racial equality and harmony. This was rather deliberate, especially considering the degree to which Christian churches in America back then were so segregated (King once joked about how the US is never as segregated as it is on a Sunday morning).
In Megan's defense, there is nothing she wrote that would require a religious believer to base his voting on, say, the Decalogue, to the exclusion of all else; and indeed, I suspect few believers do this in practice.
As far as the Christian Right is concerned, their political program is surprisingly modest. I challenge anyone to identify any goal that is not without precedent in the 20th century. Abortion was illegal until 1973; pornography was illegal until 1966; school prayer was unchallenged until the 1940s. Only the most blinkered secularist would mistake America in 1940 for a theocracy, so leveling the charge against even Jerry Falwell is gross hyperbole.
Even without outside interference, most embryos don't make it to nine months.
You'll notice that my definition accommodates this with the word "might.
If we are going to consider an embryo a human life, then each time an embryo dies inside a woman that is either manslaughter or neglect, meaning that every sexually active woman in America should potentially be in jail.
Why would that be true? Manslaughter and neglect require actual wrongful acts or omissions. Prosecuting a woman whose embryo fails to implant would be like prosecuting a parent whose child dies of cancer, and is in no way required by my definition.
Similarly, we should close down all fertility clinics because they destroy tons of embryos
Why? The embryos in the clinics don't meet my definition, because they won't become babies within 9 months; they're frozen in a test tube.
You need to read my definition more carefully. I don't say it's the best possible definition, but I do say it isn't "religious," and I'd really like you to explain to me why it is.
defining a baby as such is not religious in that it is the one point at which all reasonable people can agree that a person has come into existence.
So...if some supermajority of people believe something, it doesn't count as religious? We could probably find someone, somewhere, who thinks that a child doesn't get a soul until its 30 days old, or something similar. Why is it OK to impose your religious beliefs on that person rather than allow a "4th-trimester abortion"? And how big does the supermajority have to be before it's OK to impose a belief? 60% 75%?
you rob the individual of the right to choose for themselves what their religion says is moral
Boo-hoo for the clitorectomy crowd; I don't mind imposing my non-religious belief that the practice is barbaric, immoral, and should be banned. Ditto for anyone who thinks suttee should be brought to the Mississippi. We impose on each other all the time.
I suppose if we take an insouciantly ahistorical view of the First Amendment--an odd idea for someone who uses "our society was founded on" as the preface for an approved argument--you could argue that explicitly religious beliefs are to be considered self-evidently false for the purposes of legislation.
I wonder if there's something about Megan's blog that renders people incapable of reading the English language, because that's not what I said at all.
The First Amendment privileges secular justification for government policy, and de-legitimizes religious justifications. That's what "no law respecting an establishment of religion" means. Obviously.
"Name me the scientists that have actually proven [an embryo is alive]. There is a big jump between a human life and an embryo. Also, if you don't think such an assertion is controversial, then you haven't been paying attention to the abortion debate for the past few decades."
A human embryo is living by definition. It's just an early development form of a human.
Those favoring abortion may say "it's not immoral to kill an embryo" because that is an opinion. It can be debated and laws can be made accordingly. But saying "an embryo is not living" is a contradiction of fact.
em·bry·o
–noun
1. the young of a viviparous animal, esp. of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month. Compare fetus.
2. Botany. the rudimentary plant usually contained in the seed.
3. any multicellular animal in a developmental stage preceding birth or hatching.
4. the beginning or rudimentary stage of anything: He charged that the party policy was socialism in embryo.
The First Amendment privileges secular justification for government policy, and de-legitimizes religious justifications. That's what "no law respecting an establishment of religion" means. Obviously.
As I said, your understanding of the First Amendment is ahistorical. At the time it was written, there were established churches--established by individual states. Congress was forbidden to change that, either with a national establishment or national disestablishment. The notion that religious and/or moral justification for legislation is illegitimate is a mostly second-half-of-the-20th-century phenomenon.
And you still need to define "religion" if you want to banish it.
Re: It's only very recently (mid-to-late 20th century) that the notion of government passing laws to protect "public morals" fell into disrepute.
In many cases those laws weren’t about anything public at all, but were blatant intrusions by the state on the sphere of private life. I have no problem with the government making it legal to have sex openly in public; but they have no business sticking their nose in my or anyone else’s bedroom unless I have wronged someone there.
Re: Science shows us that human life begins at conception.
Science has shown us no such thing.What science has shown us is that there is never a point when life ‘begins” at all. Sperm and Egg are certainly alive, not dead! The answer to this question is not to be found in science. Pro-lifers bark up the wrong tree when they appeal to science.
Re: At the time it was written, there were established churches--established by individual states. Congress was forbidden to change that, either with a national establishment or national disestablishment.
But these were relics of an older era, and Congress was forbidden to change that because of federalist principles, and the general fear of an excessively dictatorial federal government. The founders were opposed to state-supported institutions of religion, their writings reveal this quite clearly. Indeed, they worked at the state level to disestablish the churches during the early years of the Republic. Only Massachusetts kept its state church any siginificant length of time after the Constitution was ratified and that church too was disestablished well before the Civil War Amendments extended the Bill of Rights over the states.
JonF, everything you say may be true, but
1) what the founders personally thought of state churches matters no more than what I personally think of a presidential candidate; the only binding thing is the laws they wrote (or my actual vote).
2) My point is to puncture Chet's notion that the First Amendment's meaning is "obviously" what he thinks it should be. The fact that you (or Chet, or me, or anyone) don't like a law doesn't make it unconstitutional, and the fact that Chet thinks a particular meaning "obvious" doesn't make it the correct interpretation.
Rob is absolutely correct. We impose on each other all the time. That is the function of any law ever written. Even a declaration that says, "There shall be no laws (except this one)" is still an imposition of a particular viewpoint.
People can rationalize and justify however they like in voting for this or that public policy, even if they do so entirely on the basis of religious belief. The difference between voting for or against something because one believes that it is right or wrong or because one believes his or her religion demands it, is no difference at all--at heart, the motive is identical.
I like secularization. I think our Constitution is a remarkably secular document, given the time it was written. But, like Megan, I can't argue in good faith that the Constitution demands that one ignore one's religious beliefs in crafting public policy. I wish it did, but it doesn't.
It annoys me to no end that a certain segment of the American public wishes to ban abortion, pornography, and sodomy on religious (or secular) grounds. It really grates when I hear people argue that same-sex marriage should be legally barred because that's what God wants. I think these people are horribly, horribly wrong and misguided. I also don't particularly like them in a personal sense. I wish they would shut up and launch themselves into outer space, so that they might endeavor to convert the alien species of the cosmos and leave me the hell alone.
I encourage like-minded people to use whatever means they can to prevent these people from imposing their views on them. Voting is only the first measure. Protest is second. Not obeying the laws is third. And on down the list until you get to real, physical violence. That last option should never be forcelosed; it's amazingly effective.
As I said, your understanding of the First Amendment is ahistorical.
Nonsense. I suspect you simply haven't thought hard enough about what it means to "establish a religion." Hint - it's not really equivalent to establishing a taco stand, for instance.
I suspect you simply haven't thought hard enough about what it means to "establish a religion."
It is not possible to discover the historical context for an important document (or an understanding of the historical meaning of the words contained therein) by "thinking hard enough."
I can't see how you can have any sort of meaningful faith and divorce it from your voting decisions.
Interesting, then, that Jesus Himself walked and talked in a time when the Romans were dominating the Jewish homeland (and permitted all kinds of sexually licentious behavior and social debauchery among their own kind), and explicitly resisted calls and opportunities to overthrow the government or otherwise work against its policies in any fashion, focusing instead on individual behavior and ministry. The prolific writers that carried on His ministry -- notably Paul -- continued in the same vein, placing the Christian in the position of accepting the governments that exist and preparing themselves for better things to come.
The church did not really become intimate with the state at all until around 300AD, and then rose to dominate the governments of Europe for a thousand years following. The result of that was, predictably, wars, martyrdom, the Inquisition, and other nasties.
I would argue that meaningful faith would lead a faithful person to abstract his beliefs from politics, using them as a guide for his own behavior while fully expecting an unbelieving society to head straight in the opposite direction -- not meld them ever tighter and use them as a bludgeon, knowing that s/he could not possibly use that implement any better than the medieval catholic church (although you won't hear mainstream evangelical leaders tell it).
sexually licentious behavior and social debauchery
I should have been a Roman.
Shorter McArdle: God doesn't exist and He has a penis.dick.
McArdle's skull is the empty vessel.
"Why would that be true? Manslaughter and neglect require actual wrongful acts or omissions. Prosecuting a woman whose embryo fails to implant would be like prosecuting a parent whose child dies of cancer, and is in no way required by my definition."
If you assume that the embryo is a person and a human child, the mother is therefore legally bound to protect it as she would a child of hers that had been born. Once you accept that the embryo is a person, a parent is thus liable for actions that do not try to prevent their demise. If a child died of cancer and the parent(s) didn't notice or try to get the child medical treatment, there would be a legal question of liability and wrongdoing. Similarly, if the embryo is a child and depends on implantation in order to survive, then not taking steps to ensure implantation is neglect.
"Why? The embryos in the clinics don't meet my definition, because they won't become babies within 9 months; they're frozen in a test tube."
Just because a person could potentially believe something doesn't mean such an argument holds any actual currency in the real world and descends into masturbation. The definition is simply an assertion without a basis in logic. For it to become believed by any meaningful number of people would require a religious doctrine behind it. After all, it is apparent the pro-life crowd doesn't share your definition because they would then have no opposition to stem-cell research.
"So...if some supermajority of people believe something, it doesn't count as religious? We could probably find someone, somewhere, who thinks that a child doesn't get a soul until its 30 days old, or something similar. Why is it OK to impose your religious beliefs on that person rather than allow a "4th-trimester abortion"? And how big does the supermajority have to be before it's OK to impose a belief? 60% 75%?"
Unless you are willing to argue for a return to state-of-nature anarchism, you really aren't arguing anything here. A state exists to protect the people in the society in which the state operates (such as from murderers and rapists within and foreign invaders). It is quite common in our judiciary system to base things on the idea that all reasonable people can accept a certain assumption (for instance, IIRC a similar concept was recently used in a copyright case by the judge to determine the character of Superman was a fictional alien and thus the use of the character had to conform to certain copyright laws dealing with such intellectual property). We could easily find a crazy person who believes poor people are actually scarecrows and can thus be burned because it is legal to burn a scarecrow, but there is no reason to take into account their point of view as they are self-evidently crazy. Also, the basis of rights relating to personhood under the Constitution don't depend on the idea of a person possessing a soul, so your question about a person believing children not getting souls until the age of 30 days is neither here nor there in terms of what should be the law.
"Boo-hoo for the clitorectomy crowd; I don't mind imposing my non-religious belief that the practice is barbaric, immoral, and should be banned. Ditto for anyone who thinks suttee should be brought to the Mississippi. We impose on each other all the time."
Except that the victims of clitorectomy by and large are not willing participants of the practice. The practice is also similar to rape or at least unwilling sexual mutilation, which is also illegal. Now if of an adult woman decided to have her clitoris removed for religious reasons, she should be allowed to do so and it's none of our business just like it's none of our business if a woman decides to have her clitoris pierced. (For similar reasons, I would be sympathetic to arguments outlawing infant male circumcision but in favor of allowing adults males to choose it.) It is just like how we allow for animal sacrifice within certain bounds because killing animals for food or hide is legal in the US. Similarly, suicide is illegal (largely for insurance reasons), so suttee would be illegal in Mississippi anyway without the religious component.
"We impose on each other all the time. That is the function of any law ever written. Even a declaration that says, "There shall be no laws (except this one)" is still an imposition of a particular viewpoint."
The state, by definition, is coercive. However, that doesn't mean we should just leave it at that instead of passing laws only to be as least coercive as possible.
"A human embryo is living by definition. It's just an early development form of a human."
The first part is a bit tautological. The second forth is a bit nonsensical. I could assert:
A blank Microsoft Word document is a book. It's just an early development form of a book.
A foundation is a house. It's just an early development form of a house.
A bag of rock salt is ice cream. It's just an early development form of ice cream.
The state, by definition, is coercive. However, that doesn't mean we should just leave it at that instead of passing laws only to be as least coercive as possible.
I agree completely. The point I was making was pretty banal--all laws are fundamentally and necessarily coercive, just as you said.
I'm in exactly the some position you are. I don't believe myself, but expect that believers will, and should, be affected by their claimed beliefs.
The difference between the role of faith in the Civil Rights Movement compared to those, for instance, who want to use faith to justify banning gay marriage is that leaders like King made their case on a secular basis. If you cannot make a secular claim for your position, it is likely an illegitimate in a democracy. For instance, no one really knows when life begins. We can all agree, for instance, that a baby that is born is alive. Before that though, nobody really has any way of defining the point of when life begins that rests on any type of falsifiable grounds. Anyone, including Ross Douthat, that says they know exactly when life begins is lying to you. By enshrining some moment in pregnancy as when life begins into law based on when a minority of Americans believe it begins, you are robbing women of all religious beliefs the freedom to determine that for themselves.
I'm pro-gay and pro-choice, but this line of reasoning is crazy. Legal abortion throughout pregnancy isn't some kind of neutral position between the "human being" and "not even alive" views of the embryo/fetus. It's effectively a declaration that life/personhood begins at whatever point in the birthing process the murder laws kick in. (And when should that be? Starting the contractions? Head exiting the vagina? Cutting the umbilical cord?)
There are no neutral positions here: the state must pick some line between the "killing" of inert matter of no legal significance and the killing of a human being punishable as murder. There is no neutral position: the state must take a stand.
A human embryo is living by definition. It's just an early development form of a human.
You know the definition of "human"? Please do tell!
It is not possible to discover the historical context for an important document (or an understanding of the historical meaning of the words contained therein) by "thinking hard enough."
You've amply demonstrated it's beyond your power.
"you can't be agnostic as to whether or not you believe in God"
TR: Umm why not? I think it's accepted you can be uncertain about many other things from tax policy to where you put your car keys. So why is this issue a binary where you have to believe or disbelieve?
"If you assume that the embryo is a person and a human child, the mother is therefore legally bound to protect it as she would a child of hers that had been born. Once you accept that the embryo is a person, a parent is thus liable for actions that do not try to prevent their demise." RM
TR: Granting full-rights to an embryo might not be doable. Still parents can be allowed to "let their children go" in cases of some terminal illnesses or accidents.
So let's say an embryo is given as much rights as the comatose. This could be logically justified on brain activity and so forth. However this would mean that the father could take the mother to court to get custody. It could at least mean that a medical review board would be needed to determine if "letting the embryo go" is medically appropriate.
If you gave a human embryo the same protections as an ape there'd also likely be systems of appeal and medical findings before termination was allowed. In the US the law makes an embryo more equivalent to a tumor or a dog.
Chet, could you clarify the historical errors you believe I've made?
Except that the victims of clitorectomy by and large are not willing participants of the practice
In sharp contrast to aborted fetuses, who sign informed consent agreements.
"In sharp contrast to aborted fetuses, who sign informed consent agreements."
According to fundie mythology aborted fetuses go directly to heaven to picnic with Jeezass. This is a bad thing? If fundies really loved their fetuses they'd abort them all and spare them the risk of H-E-double-toothpicks.
Damn, religion is STILL funny shit.
"According to fundie mythology aborted fetuses go directly to heaven" MLaJ
TR: It isn't just fundies who reject abortion. Nor is it necessarily true that Christians believe aborted fetuses go straight to Heaven. Many do, but Christian tradition could almost as easily support the idea they go straight to Hell.
Besides that the fact someone may go to Heaven when you kill them is not a justification. In this case it robs the person of a chance to develop a mature relationship with God and other people.
Tommy, is having that "mature relationship" worth going to Heck?
And if aborted fetuses go to Heck, isn't your god really just the biggest piece of shit ever invented?
"is having that 'mature relationship' worth going to Heck?" ML&J
TR: It's the "risk of" going there. And yes I'd say it's more or less worth the risk.
"And if aborted fetuses go to Heck, isn't your god really just the biggest piece of shit ever invented?" ML&J
TR: Augustine believed that baby's who die before baptism go to Hell, but that their punishment would be "so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable." (Which as someone who rather likes existing I would say this is not all that mild at all) However the pre-Augustine, and Aquinas/post-Aquinian, view did not agree with that. It believed in a neutral state or a state of natural happiness without God. Augustine's view is rare in the modern world, but in times past some Calvinists seemed to embrace parts of it.
The modern Catholic view that apparently rejects limbo would, I think, state that an aborted fetus would be in "invincible ignorance" like Pre-contact Maori or Hopi. Therefore they'd only be punished for whatever sin they commit and as fetuses haven't committed any sin they'd go to Heaven.
For many Evangelicals Baptism can just be a sign of being born-again and is not strictly necessary so does not need to be "worked around." Although presumably they think you have to accept Christ as your savior to go to Heaven and I'm not sure how they think fetuses do that. I think they do though.
For me that reconciliation is not too hard. I do carry my religious values with me into the voting booth and political sphere. In the voting booth I simply choose the politician whose values I feel represents most closely my own, and who will seemingly consider those same values when operating in government. As for the general political sphere, my values often can get me in trouble. Political liberals often use my Christian values to cajole me to agree with their positions on the nature of social safety nets and issues of crime and punishment. This drives some of my more arch conservative friends crazy!
What is disingenuous about the left's tactics are that they invoke religious values ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEIR PURPOSE!!! As I mentioned they gush on and on about those values when discussing the welfare state or capital punishment. But, that same fervor seems to vanish when the subject of abortion comes up. When they are busy, demonstratively heckling folks asking "what would Jesus do?” they should remember that fundamentally he took a very dim view of self righteous hypocrites.
Our nation has pretty much avoided any civil strife based on religion precisely because we have divorced it in many ways from the state; simply put, having no one state religion means that all are equally valid. And let's not forget that one of the things that the constitution seeks to protect the most is our rights to private property; what we lose sight of most in our world of material things is that the founders were speaking as much about ideals and values as they were real estate and wealth......
I would humbly suggest folks contemplate an episode from the bible, where the hypocritical Pharisee's were trying to achieve a "Gotcha" moment on Jesus while discussing the validity of Caesar’s image on a coin and the greater issue of taxes. The wisdom spoken by Christ here was; "Render unto Caesar what is Caeser’s, and unto God what is God's...”.
What I'm suggesting is that your statements, 1 & 2, are not necessarily well posed. I would suggest a slight modification:
1) There is an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent deity, and man's highest destiny is to fulfill His purpose
2) In the public sphere, I will follow agreed upon rules of society, even though they may not reflect my own religious beliefs, because my neighbors disagree with my personal religious values.
3) Within the constructs of my own home, life, and family I will use my personal guarantee of freedom to act, live, and worship in a fashion that is in line with my own religious beliefs.
This doesn't cause me any more Ideological problems than me reconciling my religious beliefs with my scientific educational background in aerospace sciences. I would suggest that our freedom in this country allows us great latitude. For instance, if I am a doctor I can choose not to be involved in Abortions. Or, if I am a lawyer, I can choose not to be involved in cases involving capitol crimes. While these choices may narrow or limit my professional career, it doesn't mean that I've had to surrender my beliefs in trade for operating in society.
Finally I believe the issue of prayer in school is a case of people trying to enforce their will on others. If your children attend a school where they are not lead in public prayer, what's the big deal? While I believe it would be good for everyone, everyone does not agree with me; the bottom line is your kids can pray quietly to themselves, either at their desks or perhaps in the restrooms if they need more privacy. Prayers are not more valid because of the place they are offered, nor any less sincere when done silently to ones self.
Religion is a construct whose underlying doctrine, in general, is supposed to foster the unconditional love of others. But in the hands of the demonstrative, and hypocritically proud, dogmatic practitioners, it becomes divisive as discussions degenerate into a contest over which party is "right". This is farthest from the point of it all, does not help us as a society, and is truly the devils pleasure.
I can't see how you can have any sort of meaningful faith and divorce it from your voting decisions.
Simple: One can believe that the duty to improve the world and do right and all that rests with individuals, not governments, and that governments are also really bad at doing good.
TR quotes and writes: ""And if aborted fetuses go to Heck, isn't your god really just the biggest piece of shit ever invented?" ML&J
TR: Augustine believed that baby's who die before baptism go to Hell, but that their punishment would be "so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable." (Which as someone who rather likes existing I would say this is not all that mild at all) However the pre-Augustine, and Aquinas/post-Aquinian, view did not agree with that. It believed in a neutral state or a state of natural happiness without God. Augustine's view is rare in the modern world, but in times past some Calvinists seemed to embrace parts of it. "
This is a further illustration that the purpose of theology is to sell religion by making it more palatable, and not to seek out truth or use actual logic. I wonder what the mild punishment was that Augustine envisioned for the Heckbabies. I just hope it didn't involve being "cared for" by Cardinal Bernard Law and his pals.