Should Religious Morality Make Its Way Into Political Discourse...

[Bikeemikey]

An ongoing conversation between me and Wade Englund on why religions, specifically my religion (the LDS church) should stop attempting to shape the legislative landscape on considerations of moral virture & vice:

Originally posted by bikeemikey (me):

None of this is easy to resolve. However there is a huge gap between the current conversations due to a foundational difference in the perspective of govt. one side believes the govt should be aggressively involved in moral considerations and the other believes the govt should circumscribe their sphere to that of rights.

I do not think that it is ever legitimate for the govt to be engaged in considerations of moral judgement ( except in those instances where a right has been violated; rights trump private morals). These rights are limited: rights to freedom from harm, rights to property being the two principle ones.

Ones private moral convictions would not allow them to steal from me or hurt me, though it would be permissible for them to do anything that does not harmfully impact another individual without consent.

This divide between these camps is interesting for te following reason: the less the govts has to do with legislating morality the better I think the world is, vs the other side who believes a lack of govt involvement on moral issues makes the world worse.

I am opposed in general to a key premise in the OP - the tolerance of gay marriage is in my book evidence of a better world, even if my personal belief is that both SSM and homosexuality are sin.

I believe religions, not govts, to be the most impt institutions in the world. Govts protect our rights, religions however protect out moral character by teaching us right from wrong.

Govts can never do this.

I will be the first to champion total freedom of religion and will be aggressively opposed to any attempt to control the moral judgements of religion by govt or enforce changes in religious belief through social force. However, I am also aggressively opposed to the govt attempting to legislate moral action.

I am constantly in awe of those who can reconcile a govt they wouldn't trust with their wallet with a govt they would trust with their conscience, moral beliefs and in their bedroom... That is not a leap of faith I can make.

Posted from my iphone ... Sorry for the typos.

Wade's reply

wenglund, on 08 March 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Since I have taken a vow of silence on the subject of SSM, let me address your comments generically by asking if you realize that there was and is a moral impetus behind drafting the Constitution, producing a system of laws, enforcing them, acknowledging and conferring rights, etc.? Do you realize that the notions of "do no harm" and "equal treatment" are morally based? In other words, do you realize how naive it is to assume that the Constitution and rights and laws are mutually exclusive of morality?

To see why, try explaining, in non-moral terms, why we should care about the rights of others or harming others such that we are motivated to create a binding constitution and develop a system of laws?

Also, can you show me anywhere in the Constitution and law where citizens are denied the right to vote according to the dictates of their moral conscience?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My reply to Wade:

Modern democratic govt, and general political liberalism (not to be confused with the idea of being a liberal or conflated with allegiance to the Democratic party), champions a key success of modern Western govt as the limitation of govt action to a specific sub-set of the "moral continuum". That is govts are concerned with legal rights, not moral rights.

I am not claiming that there is no moral concept behind "rights" or the Constitution. What I am stating is that since the formation of modern democracy (the US constitution being a key and important part of that) the notion of legal and moral rights has been dramatically advanced and now legal rights specifically are discussed as distinct from morality in general. For some they prefer to see legal rights (rights) as a limited subset of the general moral continuum. Legal rights are the sphere of responsibility of Govt and moral rights are not. Almost all would agree that legal rights are informed at some level by an appeal to some moral principle.

What does this have to do with Religion? Religions are extremely important in western democracies as there is now a vacuum; govt used to be in charge of morality, kings created morality etc (and religions used to be in charge of kings), but now are not. In my opinion religions should stop whining to the govt, effectively asking them to do religions job for them, and realize that if they want to impact the moral decision making of people they need to do a better job teaching and presenting their message. Not replacing a poor job at proselytizing with legislative activism.

Rather than seeing the govt unwilling to legislate around moral rights as a bad thing, religions should see it as an opportunity. This is a clear statement by govt. that they will not interfere with moral rights and will yield that realm to religions (or what ever social group or individual wishes to take up the topic). Never have religions had more freedom to believe as they see fit than they do now, granted, religious believers (myself included) are forced to live in a society that does not always share, support, respect or appreciate my beliefs, but I am allowed to have them. This is a new phenomenon that is itself an out-growth of modern democratic govts decision to move out of the moral right business. The fact that we can believe what ever we want and not need the govt to take steps to enforce out beliefs in legislation is the victory and crowning achievement of constitutional govt.

When those around us violate our moral rights (for mormons that may be someone smoking in front of us, that may be someones homosexuality being flouted in front of us) we have the right and freedom to express objections that behavior. We have the right to use persuasion to change that persons actions. For some people religions are considered the ultimate authority/tool in exerting such moral persuasion.

When those around us seek to violate our rights (legal rights) - that may be assaulting us, stealing our goods, causing physical harm - we have the right to use force to deter or mitigate those actions. The govt as the ultimate holder of the right to use force engages those who act against our legal rights as criminals.

Religion may not infringe people's legal rights. (Where "legal rights" are semantically considered distinct from "moral rights").

Govt may not infringe people's moral action. (Where "moral rights" are semantically considered distinct from "legal rights").

When someone violates our moral rights we may to ask them to leave or leave ourselves... No more.

When someone violates our legal rights we have legitimate cause to use force... Hence govt is a tool of force.

When someone violates morals rights we have legitimate cause to use persuasion... Hence religion is about teaching and education.

As for the issue with voting. Of course you can vote you religious conscience. But when a voting majority exert a religious/moral conscience that violates principles of legal rights such a vote will be rendered void by the Supreme Court, their job is to protect rights (narrow morality), not morality (general morality). This will be the case with the Prop 8 case and the DOMA case before the supreme court. The danger to the fabric of constitutional democracy in the USA is if the court protects the moral rights of specific citizens of the legal rights of other citizens... the constitution will hang by a thread.

Thoughts, ideas, and comment welcome...

For all - this is not to be a rehashing of previous discussion about SSM - if SSM is to be used as an example please avoid derailing the conversation on to that subset of this broader topic.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[BCSpace]

1) Politics is downstream from culture. Religion is part of culture. Thus one's religion has a direct effect on one's politics.

2) Religion guides our daily life and decisions. Religious principles or lack thereof are found directly in politics. Thus religion and politics are inseparable as the one affects the other. They are impossible to discuss separately without missing many truths.

3) Religion or lack thereof is going to affect all legislation. Hence it is important to know what religion(s) are found guiding political parties or individual candidates in order to make a value judgement. If a candidate espouses a religion, then it is also needful to know what branch of that religion if applicable or how much the candidate believes in that religion; if they are practicing or merely professing, etc.

As for the issue with voting. Of course you can vote you religious conscience. But when a voting majority exert a religious/moral conscience that violates principles of legal rights such a vote will be rendered void by the Supreme Court, their job is to protect rights (narrow morality), not morality (general morality). This will be the case with the Prop 8 case and the DOMA case before the supreme court. The danger to the fabric of constitutional democracy in the USA is if the court protects the moral rights of specific citizens of the legal rights of other citizens... the constitution will hang by a thread.

It's all about who controls the culture. It is not possible for no one to control it. It's not possible to not step on someone else's notion of what the culture should be. I would agree that we should step as lightly as possible, but I don't agree that one must always compromise values or principles. There is a certain point at which force is necessary to maintain the right culture and that will always lead to war which in fact is what we are in according to the Gospel.

Edited March 10, 2013 by BCSpace

[Bikeemikey]

1) Politics is downstream from culture. Religion is part of culture. Thus one's religion has a direct effect on one's politics.

2) Religion guides our daily life and decisions. Religious principles or lack thereof are found directly in politics. Thus religion and politics are inseparable as the one affects the other. They are impossible to discuss separately without missing many truths.

3) Religion or lack thereof is going to affect all legislation. Hence it is important to know what religion(s) are found guiding political parties or individual candidates in order to make a value judgement. If a candidate espouses a religion, then it is also needful to know what branch of that religion if applicable or how much the candidate believes in that religion; if they are practicing or merely professing, etc.

I don't think i disagree with any of that. I am also not suggesting that they can, should or ought be separated.

I am however asking the question about the specific narrow subset of morality that politics and govt. focus on as distinct from the broader spectrum of morality that religions focus on.

Is it time for religions in modern western democracies to realize that they have been given a huge opportunity in that they have had a space carved out for them which the govt has specifically stated they will not involve themselves in. Why are we upset with this? Shouldn't religions be happy about this?

[kenporay]

Every american has the right to form their political opinions on any basis they want. They can base it on their education, their religous or philosophical beliefs, the opinions of their friends, on the local weather forecasts, race or 'just like or dont like that person/idea" etc. Many of those are not how i do it, but it is our right.

An organization is a group of people. Before LBJ's leglislation in the late 50's religious organizations were not prohibited from expressing purely political opinions.

To take something that religions define as sin and prohibit a religious organiztion from expressing their opinion about it is just plain unconstitutional.

We should be a nation that is unafraid to face ideas, opinions and views. Hopefully we are wise enough at the ballot box that idiocracy fails to rule.

[Bikeemikey]

Every american has the right to form their political opinions on any basis they want. They can base it on their education, their religous or philosophical beliefs, the opinions of their friends, on the local weather forecasts, race or 'just like or dont like that person/idea" etc. Many of those are not how i do it, but it is our right.

An organization is a group of people. Before LBJ's leglislation in the late 50's religious organizations were not prohibited from expressing purely political opinions.

To take something that religions define as sin and prohibit a religious organiztion from expressing their opinion about it is just plain unconstitutional.

We should be a nation that is unafraid to face ideas, opinions and views. Hopefully we are wise enough at the ballot box that idiocracy fails to rule.

I don't disagree with any of that. The expression opinion is absolutely fine.

The question is whether it is fine to have religious expressions-sentiments become enforceable legislation. It is fine for all religious opinion to be expressed. It is not however, in keeping with the constitution for all expressed religious opinion to also be law.

[Bikeemikey]

It's all about who controls the culture. It is not possible for no one to control it. It's not possible to not step on someone else's notion of what the culture should be. I would agree that we should step as lightly as possible, but I don't agree that one must always compromise values or principles. There is a certain point at which force is necessary to maintain the right culture and that will always lead to war which in fact is what we are in according to the Gospel.

The idea that it is all about who controls culture is exactly what the constitution was meant to avoid. (Though it has only been partially successful.) One objective of modern democracy (the constitution included in this) was to reduce the sphere of govt decision making and focus to a narrow range of considerations (rights) that are more culture neutral.

They whole point of the emphasis on rights not culture, or broader moral considerations, was to resolve this issue. Again force to maintain culture in modern democracy is always wrong. Force must be limited to use when rights (not culture) are violated.

Since the introduction of modern democracy nations have slowly been moving govt to a smaller sphere of moral influence (something that i support). The end of prohibition is one example, the decision to not make adultery a crime is another, SSM is another. These are all marks of progress as they are officially making these issues non-govt, they are purely questions of moral character, something religion is designed to deal with very well.

As for the idea that we need to compromise, that is not what I am suggesting. I am saying that having religions and religious believers petition the govt or use their societal influence (majority) to demand that govt oversee the enforcement of all of their moral dictates is unacceptable (something the Supreme Court will be making rulings on later this year with regards to the Prop 8 case).

We do not need to compromise and accept bad behavior etc. We should oppose it through our religious institutions and through education and proselytizing. That does not mean we should be allowed to use the govts capacity to exert force and compel compliance through threat of force to demand broad adoption by all of our religious principles and moral beliefs.

The constitution is a safe guard against culture and the tyranny of the majority... it limits what govt can do to considerations of rights, thereby nullifying the will of the majority when they ask the govt to extend its reach beyond those considerations.

It is better than simple majority rules democracy as it limits the what the govt can do... even if the people want the govt can do it.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[blackstrap]

The government unfortunately can and does make laws which enforce against religious thought. If it were to avoid laws restricting some cultural idea,say euthanasia, that would be one thing. But it then can make laws that require it in some circumstance ,and so interfere with the ability of some religion to speak against the idea. Note the Human Rights Commission which trumps free speech in my country.

[Bikeemikey]

The government unfortunately can and does make laws which enforce against religious thought. If it were to avoid laws restricting some cultural idea,say euthanasia, that would be one thing. But it then can make laws that require it in some circumstance ,and so interfere with the ability of some religion to speak against the idea. Note the Human Rights Commission which trumps free speech in my country.

This is an example of a Govt that has not fully reached the ideal of rights based modern democratic rule. This is simply an example of the govt doing something it shouldn't. Not an argument for the govt to keep doing it.

Would you please expand on your example though. I dont think I have fully understood you description of cultural ideas vs religious ideas and the way you govt applies this to euthanasia. What country is this?

Cheers.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Alvino]

@Bikeemike:

As I see it, the dividing line is in what kind of evidence should be taken as valid to change laws. Religious believers like you may not take into consideration "Because God told me to" as valid to change laws but for other religious people this is enough to vote one way or another. It isn't only that religion will affect politics - that, I think, is a given- but whether it should and, for me, that comes down to what kind of evidence is acceptable in law.

BCSpace seems to go from the description - that our laws are influenced by aspects of our culture - to the normative - that a particular subset of our culture should reign. He also appears to not take into consideration the fact that not all aspects of 'culture' should influence laws. For example, that I am used to have neighbors from my own ethnic group and I really like this doesn't mean I should seek to make laws that, without more justification, exclude all other ethnic groups from the neighborhood. "Because I want to" isn't enough to make a case and it shouldn't. Why should "Because God told me to" be different?

[Bikeemikey]

@Bikeemike:

As I see it, the dividing line is in what kind of evidence should be taken as valid to change laws. Religious believers like you may not take into consideration "Because God told me to" as valid to change laws but for other religious people this is enough to vote one way or another. It isn't only that religion will affect politics - that, I think, is a given- but whether it should and, for me, that comes down to what kind of evidence is acceptable in law.

BCSpace seems to go from the description - that our laws are influenced by aspects of our culture - to the normative - that a particular subset of our culture should reign. He also appears to not take into consideration the fact that not all aspects of 'culture' should influence laws. For example, that I am used to have neighbors from my own ethnic group and I really like this doesn't mean I should seek to make laws that, without more justification, exclude all other ethnic groups from the neighborhood. "Because I want to" isn't enough to make a case and it shouldn't. Why should "Because God told me to" be different?

Thanks for you thoughts:

I have recently been considering the idea that part of the obligation religious believers take on in exchange for the religious freedoms we receive in modern democratic countries, (religious freedoms that are unparalleled in the history of the world, religious freedoms that exist not because they are under the protectorate of the govt, but out of an unrestrained "right" to what ever religious belief we fancy), is the obligation to consciously circumscribe the fact that if we so attempted we could create legislative constraints specific to our moral edicts.

I think we owe it to ourselves and the freedoms we have been given to recognize that we could cross this boundary but, as religious communities be respectful enough of the importance of true democratic principles that we opt not to. Only in choosing to not cross this boundary do we allow the longevity of true religious and democratic freedom.

[kenporay]

Pretty much we agree.

The only point I'd clarify is: if the voters voted something into law and some, many or all based it on religious beliefs, provided its constitutional, I'd say "it's law." For example making usury illegal would garner some religous belief based votes.

I don't disagree with any of that. The expression opinion is absolutely fine.

The question is whether it is fine to have religious expressions-sentiments become enforceable legislation. It is fine for all religious opinion to be expressed. It is not however, in keeping with the constitution for all expressed religious opinion to also be law.

[Bikeemikey]

Pretty much we agree.

The only point I'd clarify is: if the voters voted something into law and some, many or all based it on religious beliefs, provided its constitutional, I'd say "it's law." For example making usury illegal would garner some religous belief based votes.

Any thing voted into law that is constitution would be acceptable... this is always the case.

The issue is that I read the constitution is a narrowly focused "rights" driven document. As such, the only things that would pass the Supreme Courts constitutional test would be related to considerations of harm to others and violations of consent etc.

However, many religious communities would like the constitution to be tool to force on the nation as a whole, their broad moral beliefs. The constitution allows all religious/moral beliefs to be protected, but it only is interested in enforcing and supporting legislation that is related to a very narrow subset of the broader moral continuum.

We will see this year whether or not the US supreme court decides that US constitutional governance extends beyond narrow moral "rights" focus to a broader moral focus. The Prop 8 case will be a good indicator of this.

[kenporay]

I believe the courts swing and sway much as society does. It inteprets rights based upon current opinions. It one held slavery as constitutional, of couse its not now...neither is it desrable.

I think the court of the 1930's , for example, would uphold prop 8 marriage laws... oops , wait, there was only an implied and "everybody knows" definition of marriage.. it was inly after californis sought to explicitly clarify via ballot that the courts were called in.

Not really to bring up that issue as anything other than the court and public opinions change.

Any thing voted into law that is constitution would be acceptable... this is always the case.

The issue is that I read the constitution is a narrowly focused "rights" driven document. As such, the only things that would pass the Supreme Courts constitutional test would be related to considerations of harm to others and violations of consent etc.

However, many religious communities would like the constitution to be tool to force on the nation as a whole, their broad moral beliefs. The constitution allows all religious/moral beliefs to be protected, but it only is interested in enforcing and supporting legislation that is related to a very narrow subset of the broader moral continuum.

We will see this year whether or not the US supreme court decides that US constitutional governance extends beyond narrow moral "rights" focus to a broader moral focus. The Prop 8 case will be a good indicator of this.

[cdowis]

Everyone is guided by a sense of right and wrong. It is "wrong" to charge higher taxes to the poor, relative to the rich, for example. Certain types of discrimination is "wrong".

Therefore, Religion also has a form of right and wrong, and has an equal seat at the table in political discourse. Even if nonbelievers would often deny it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't disagree with any of that. The expression opinion is absolutely fine.

The question is whether it is fine to have religious expressions-sentiments become enforceable legislation. It is fine for all religious opinion to be expressed. It is not however, in keeping with the constitution for all expressed religious opinion to also be law.

Not so...you can have faith based standards without adopting all their doctrines as law. Or am I making your point?

[Bikeemikey]

I believe the courts swing and sway much as society does. It inteprets rights based upon current opinions. It one held slavery as constitutional, of couse its not now...neither is it desrable.

I think the court of the 1930's , for example, would uphold prop 8 marriage laws... oops , wait, there was only an implied and "everybody knows" definition of marriage.. it was inly after californis sought to explicitly clarify via ballot that the courts were called in.

Not really to bring up that issue as anything other than the court and public opinions change.

I agree with this. It is also the case that the court matures as our understanding of how to operate a modern democratic society changes. The fact that the court failed to understand how slavery was a direct violation of the constitution is a blot on our history and the merit of constitutional governance. We have also learned a lot from that experience.

The swings ans sways are following a trend whereby the govt is consistently limiting their conversations to considerations of rights... social and moral considerations of the time are simply deciding which issues to bring to the supreme court...

What we need to be careful as religious believers is the idea that the court allowing something like SSM is a huge step backwards. Such a step would in fact be a step forward. All it does is place all citizens on equal footing with govt. Religions capacity to proclaim, profess and teach our principles remains the same.

[Bikeemikey]

Everyone is guided by a sense of right and wrong. It is "wrong" to charge higher taxes to the poor, relative to the rich, for example. Certain types of discrimination is "wrong".

Therefore, Religion also has a form of right and wrong, and has an equal seat at the table in political discourse. Even if nonbelievers would often deny it.

Did you read the opening post?

This is not about who gets to talk... it is about what gets legislated.

The whole point is the modern democracy does not tackle the broader question of right and wrong... rather it tackles a very small subset of that question currently referred to as "rights". The rest of the moral sphere is left to religions or individuals to tackle.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm for the absolute separation of church and state.

[kenporay]

I maintain that democracies have been expanding their influence on what the citizenry can hold as "morally right." And have done so in a most fascit manner.

The idea that it is all about who controls culture is exactly what the constitution was meant to avoid. (Though it has only been partially successful.) One objective of modern democracy (the constitution included in this) was to reduce the sphere of govt decision making and focus to a narrow range of considerations (rights) that are more culture neutral.

They whole point of the emphasis on rights not culture, or broader moral considerations, was to resolve this issue. Again force to maintain culture in modern democracy is always wrong. Force must be limited to use when rights (not culture) are violated.

Since the introduction of modern democracy nations have slowly been moving govt to a smaller sphere of moral influence (something that i support). The end of prohibition is one example, the decision to not make adultery a crime is another, SSM is another. These are all marks of progress as they are officially making these issues non-govt, they are purely questions of moral character, something religion is designed to deal with very well.

As for the idea that we need to compromise, that is not what I am suggesting. I am saying that having religions and religious believers petition the govt or use their societal influence (majority) to demand that govt oversee the enforcement of all of their moral dictates is unacceptable (something the Supreme Court will be making rulings on later this year with regards to the Prop 8 case).

We do not need to compromise and accept bad behavior etc. We should oppose it through our religious institutions and through education and proselytizing. That does not mean we should be allowed to use the govts capacity to exert force and compel compliance through threat of force to demand broad adoption by all of our religious principles and moral beliefs.

The constitution is a safe guard against culture and the tyranny of the majority... it limits what govt can do to considerations of rights, thereby nullifying the will of the majority when they ask the govt to extend its reach beyond those considerations.

It is better than simple majority rules democracy as it limits the what the govt can do... even if the people want the govt can do it.

[thesometimesaint]

I maintain that democracies have been expanding their influence on what the citizenry can hold as "morally right." And have done so in a most fascit manner.

You have a moral right to swing your arm, until it meets my nose.

[Bikeemikey]

I maintain that democracies have been expanding their influence on what the citizenry can hold as "morally right." And have done so in a most fascit manner.

Citizens are able to hold any beliefs regarding what is morally right that they wish, they are restricted from acting on those beliefs only when such actions impact the rights of others.

Would be please offer some examples of what you mean by your comment above so i can better understand your thoughts on the matter.

[Bikeemikey]

Not so...you can have faith based standards without adopting all their doctrines as law. Or am I making your point?

Thanks for you input.

I think that you are reinforcing my point. I just don't think that the govt should engage in faith based monitoring of moral action that is not part of the narrow moral area of rights.

For example: it is appropriate for religious communities to express the moral standard that drunkenness is bad. It would be wrong for the govt to make drunkenness illegal. However, it is acceptable to make drunk driving illegal as that becomes a violation of rights to safety and protection from harm. The implementation by the govt. of broader moral values must be constrained to the sphere of rights, not simply creating legislation against actions because it is a violation of moral religious principles in and of it self.

There is a healthy moral overlap between broader religious morality and the govts narrow focus on rights. It is not the case however that we should attempt to use the govt as a tool to constrain adherence to all our religious moral principles. The role of govt is to focus on only a small subset of the moral continuum.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

There is a semantical problem here with the use of the word "moral" and also the term "rights". Taking up the term "rights" first. Although in the American Declaration of Independence Jefferson speaks of "inalienable rights", it is pretty clear that rights are what we as people have decided shall be rights and have set down in writing. Thus in America until after the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution Black Americans had few rights in many States. Likewise women also were limited in their rights until even later. There are certain rights, however, that have become recognised as essential to a functional society, the premier among these is the rule of law. Namely, people have the right to know what the rules are and that the rules will be followed. This is the only truly essential law for a functional society. Everything else is a matter of the distribution of power. In a truly free country that power is dispersed as widely as possible. Given that fact, then a say in making the rules is the ultimate right. But since in a country of any appreciable size not everyone can have a direct say in making the laws, it is important that one group not have the right to subordinate or eliminate another group's access to power or to have its voice heard. This protection is what we call "rights". Religion has in the past been a part of government and was heavily involved in the distribution of power. It has done this in a variety of ways. When it does so in a manner which arbitrarily restricts the access to power then it normally is the agent of mischief, however, when it broadens the access to power it is generally beneficial. However, in modern American Christianity it seems to have become, when speaking of morality, obsessed with sex. That is unfortunate because it could be strongly argued that morality as taught by Christ during His mortal ministry had very little to do with sex, and had very much to do with how we treated each other with respect to their livelihoods, fair treatment under the law, and seeing to to the sick and oppressed. This type of religious morality is still very important and still has a role to play. However, the false morality or prudery that is currently enjoying the overemphasis by certain groups is destructive because it is aimed actually at limiting the access to power.

[Nathair/|\]

I'm too tired to think it through right now, but this post, and especially the first paragraph seems relevant.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/aidankelly/2013/03/divinity-infinity-and-infinitesimals/

No one can be absolutely objective about religion, because every person must have a set of values that enable one to make life decisions. Those values always serve as the equivalent of a religion, no matter what they are called. A person who was truly neutral and value-free would experience life as being meaningless and would be in a state called anomie, which is a late and usually lethal stage of clinical depression. The best one can do is to be consciously aware of and candid about all one’s values, not have any unexamined assumptions, and try to compensate for all that when dealing with someone else’s values, religion, etc. It follows that religion is always personal, not abstract, and always about what is personal.

[ERayR]

Thanks for you input.

I think that you are reinforcing my point. I just don't think that the govt should engage in faith based monitoring of moral action that is not part of the narrow moral area of rights.

For example: it is appropriate for religious communities to express the moral standard that drunkenness is bad. It would be wrong for the govt to make drunkenness illegal. However, it is acceptable to make drunk driving illegal as that becomes a violation of rights to safety and protection from harm. The implementation by the govt. of broader moral values must be constrained to the sphere of rights, not simply creating legislation against actions because it is a violation of moral religious principles in and of it self.

There is a healthy moral overlap between broader religious morality and the govts narrow focus on rights. It is not the case however that we should attempt to use the govt as a tool to constrain adherence to all our religious moral principles. The role of govt is to focus on only a small subset of the moral continuum.

Of course moral principles have a place in public discourse whether the come from a religious conviction or not. In the case of your example, public drunkenness, it is probably a religious moral principle but it is also a moral concern which affects the body politic in a non religious way. Public drunkenness upsets good public order and disturbs the tranquility of a community so it is a serious concern for the political body as well as the religious body. There are numerous such examples but your example serves well, So yes religious moral values have a place in public discussion.