Moral Issues And The Secular Church Argument

[CASteinman]

Let's assume without debate that marijuana usage for recreational usage violates the W of W. So in this debate those who favor continued prohibition argue that it has been linked to serious mental illness if used by youth , it causes issues when operating motor vehicles, it is linked with use to harder drugs, etc etc. The other side argues that it is a softer drug than alcohol which is legal, that the studies showing its link to serious mental illness in youth were procedurally flawed, that because it is illegal the same sources selling it are the source for hard drugs, and because it is illegal adulterated mj is being marketed, etc etc. All these are secular arguments which either side can establish or discredit. However, if someone comes into the debate and simply says it violates the W of W and therefore God's law, what does that add to the debate for non-Mormons? Nothing. It just causes religious contention.

By this same logic -- what do the scientific arguments bring to the Mormon who does not believe in science? Nothing again. You secularists and atheists are also sowing contention.

The Secular Church with its brutal masters, wants to take over and denigrate religion and people who hold religious values with the kinds of arguments that you have just produced. One sided -- seemingly rational -- but actually just propaganda.

Edited April 8, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

By this same logic -- what do the scientific arguments bring to the Mormon who does not believe in science? Nothing again. You secularists and atheists are also sowing contention.

The Secular Church with its brutal masters, wants to take over and denigrate religion and people who hold religious values with the kinds of arguments that you have just produced. One sided -- seemingly rational -- but actually just propaganda.

Interesting, if someone rejects science, in other words the scientific method of testing facts by experiment and observation, then I guess there would in fact be a problem. If one terms from science and pragmatic policy discussion to strictly revealed knowledge -- then I suppose dialogue ceases altogether. I don't think it is the secularists who are sowing contention (atheists may be another matter and I don't consider the two terms synonymous as you can be religious and still believe in secular government for pragmatic reasons. But the specific contention that I am referring to is the type that is signified by "my religious beliefs are true, your religious beliefs are false and therefore of Satan" -- which then leads to, we should wipe out Satan and his earthly followers. I don't intend hyperbole, here, but that is why some Middle Eastern political leaders refer to the U.S. as the Great Satan because the majority of Americans do not share their religious beliefs. The example that I gave in the comment was intended to show that you can have a secular debate on both sides of an issue and that the assertions of both sides can be examined and tested on an objective observable basis and a conclusion reached without calling either sides religious beliefs into question. Now undoubtedly, a person's religious beliefs are going to influence someone to jump in on one side of the debate and push the secular arguments that they believe are in accordance with those beliefs, I don't doubt that religion is a powerful motivator in that regard and should always be so -- but I don't think we get anywhere by simply name calling.

[thesometimesaint]

Interesting, if someone rejects science, in other words the scientific method of testing facts by experiment and observation, then I guess there would in fact be a problem. If one terms from science and pragmatic policy discussion to strictly revealed knowledge -- then I suppose dialogue ceases altogether. I don't think it is the secularists who are sowing contention (atheists may be another matter and I don't consider the two terms synonymous as you can be religious and still believe in secular government for pragmatic reasons. But the specific contention that I am referring to is the type that is signified by "my religious beliefs are true, your religious beliefs are false and therefore of Satan" -- which then leads to, we should wipe out Satan and his earthly followers. I don't intend hyperbole, here, but that is why some Middle Eastern political leaders refer to the U.S. as the Great Satan because the majority of Americans do not share their religious beliefs. The example that I gave in the comment was intended to show that you can have a secular debate on both sides of an issue and that the assertions of both sides can be examined and tested on an objective observable basis and a conclusion reached without calling either sides religious beliefs into question. Now undoubtedly, a person's religious beliefs are going to influence someone to jump in on one side of the debate and push the secular arguments that they believe are in accordance with those beliefs, I don't doubt that religion is a powerful motivator in that regard and should always be so -- but I don't think we get anywhere by simply name calling.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

God certainly works in mysterious ways. It has always been a mystery to me how all that good Christian oil got under all that good Muslim sand.

But name calling is so much more religiously satisfying than actually dealing with the problem.

[Stone holm]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

God certainly works in mysterious ways. It has always been a mystery to me how all that good Christian oil got under all that good Muslim sand.

But name calling is so much more religiously satisfying than actually dealing with the problem.

Well it can be a way of dealing with problems and unifying communities. However, if it rejects that area of mental activity which comes with dialogue that can lead to some form of consensus without intruding in an aggressive way on the free exercise of religious belief, then it may not be helpful. I am not sure that we should simply dismiss an approach as propaganda. I also question where we wind up when we denounce secularism, what is the alternative to a secular government?

[thesometimesaint]

Well it can be a way of dealing with problems and unifying communities. However, if it rejects that area of mental activity which comes with dialogue that can lead to some form of consensus without intruding in an aggressive way on the free exercise of religious belief, then it may not be helpful. I am not sure that we should simply dismiss an approach as propaganda. I also question where we wind up when we denounce secularism, what is the alternative to a secular government?

I don't know what a secular church looks like, but I do know what a sectarian government looks like. I believe the Saints wouldn't like it. "No not one little bit".

[CASteinman]

Interesting, if someone rejects science, in other words the scientific method of testing facts by experiment and observation, then I guess there would in fact be a problem.

Maybe. It would depend on how things were handled. But here is part of my point: If there were contention, is it because the Religious Person disagreed with the Secular Atheist Person or would it be because the Secular Atheist Person disagreed with the Religious Person.

Your instinct is to blame the Religious Person. But we can be charitable and grant that they are only abiding by their best knowledge and beliefs. As also with the Secular Atheist. How does this then become anything but a Rorschach Test to determine whose side you are on?

If one terms from science and pragmatic policy discussion to strictly revealed knowledge -- then I suppose dialogue ceases altogether.

Again, this works both ways. You keep making it a one ways street and heaping coal and ashes on Religious People.

I don't think it is the secularists who are sowing contention '

Well, thats because you identify with them so strongly.

But the specific contention that I am referring to is the type that is signified by "my religious beliefs are true, your religious beliefs are false and therefore of Satan" -- which then leads to, we should wipe out Satan and his earthly followers.

And this gets to another big part of my objection: That you construct these invalid, hyperbolic hypotheticals. I don't think you actually intend this but its a sly way of creating a Strawman and putting the other person into that Strawman and then attacking.

I don't intend hyperbole, here, but that is why some Middle Eastern political leaders refer to the U.S. as the Great Satan because the majority of Americans do not share their religious beliefs.

No... That is not why. Its because they are our enemies and want to make it clear to their people that we are bad. This is 100% political and pragmatic.

The example that I gave in the comment was intended to show that you can have a secular debate on both sides of an issue and that the assertions of both sides can be examined and tested on an objective observable basis and a conclusion reached without calling either sides religious beliefs into question.

You can do that with Regular Religion too. As long as everyone agrees on what the rules are to start with. The advantage the Secular Church has is that the rules are well promulgated and generally well understood, even if not always adhered to. But it is a conceit to declare that it has superior rules and methods.

Now undoubtedly, a person's religious beliefs are going to influence someone to jump in on one side of the debate and push the secular arguments that they believe are in accordance with those beliefs, I don't doubt that religion is a powerful motivator in that regard and should always be so -- but I don't think we get anywhere by simply name calling.

Well, name calling is a new subject. And you do get places with it -- some leaders use it to good advantage. But its not helpful in other situations.

[Stone holm]

Maybe. It would depend on how things were handled. But here is part of my point: If there were contention, is it because the Religious Person disagreed with the Secular Atheist Person or would it be because the Secular Atheist Person disagreed with the Religious Person.

Your instinct is to blame the Religious Person. But we can be charitable and grant that they are only abiding by their best knowledge and beliefs. As also with the Secular Atheist. How does this then become anything but a Rorschach Test to determine whose side you are on?

Again, this works both ways. You keep making it a one ways street and heaping coal and ashes on Religious People.

Well, thats because you identify with them so strongly.

And this gets to another big part of my objection: That you construct these invalid, hyperbolic hypotheticals. I don't think you actually intend this but its a sly way of creating a Strawman and putting the other person into that Strawman and then attacking.

No... That is not why. Its because they are our enemies and want to make it clear to their people that we are bad. This is 100% political and pragmatic.

You can do that with Regular Religion too. As long as everyone agrees on what the rules are to start with. The advantage the Secular Church has is that the rules are well promulgated and generally well understood, even if not always adhered to. But it is a conceit to declare that it has superior rules and methods.

Well, name calling is a new subject. And you do get places with it -- some leaders use it to good advantage. But its not helpful in other situations.

Our differences come down to a difference in opinion as to "secular" meaning something dogmatic so that it becomes something akin to a religion, and therefore anyone who advocates for a secular approach to something cannot be religious. I disagree, I believe that in many instances using a "secular" approach is the best way to protect "religious" belief -- so very religious people can be advocating for a secular approach to something because if you don't have a secular government then you have a religious government and a religious government at least any that I am aware of tends to be exclusively one religion. And thus for a Mormon to argue for religious based laws is to be advocating religious suicide since in America that religious government ain't gonna be Mormon.

[Alvino]

I don't see why. I don't believe them. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am just answering your question. Did you have some question about your views that you want my opinion about?

I didn't mean 'trying to convince' in any forceful way. 'Persuade' or 'help others see better reasons' are more fit, I suppose. Throughout this post you take me to be more aggressive than I am. We are talking about conversation and rationality in this thread, not about forcing people.

.

Sorry, but I have a hard time taking "Satan did it" as a good explanation for anything, even for religious issues. If we were to decide policy, for example, saying "You think like you do because Satan is working on you" is less helpful to intelligent discussion than walking out the door.

Yeah. I'm peculiar that way. I think what satan does is evil. But you are, I suppose, free to feel differently.

"Satan did it" is different from "Everything Satan does is evil", I hope you see. We needed to clarify that.

The words of the prophets have had a significant influence on my feelings about satan being evil. Also a book called "People of the Lie". And, I suppose "The Exorcist" didn't hurt.

That Satan does evil doesn't mean everything he does is evil, again. If we take results of actions to be marks of what counts as evil, tempting Adam and Eve or presenting sin to us so we know something we find necessary to know to progress doesn't seem so clear-cut bad.

You would be right in the way you have worded it.

All right.

So far so good. If I had seen sufficient scientific evidence to show that and no significant evidence to the contrary -- after such evidence was actually looked for -- then I would agree that it wouldn't seem to increase marijuana abuse among adults after being legalized.

noted.

No no no! As long as you are not out injuring people, you get to hold whatever position you want!

Of course we can but I was talking about norms of rationality and justification, not whether you should be allowed to think what you want.

No. What a strange idea.

Then, what changes by being secular/atheist or a believer when it comes to decide policy if both have to hold the same standards or rationality and evidence? Is "God told me to" good enough evidence for some when it comes to social policy? Doesn't seem it would, so, what does it matter if someone is a secular or not?

Because it drives out God and seeks to establish itself in power. You might profitably review this post, as it is the motivation for this thread:

Eyes on the prize, CASteinman. The issue under discussion are the norms of dialogue in intelligent debates regarding social policy. What should count as good evidence and what shouldn't.

Oh, if only the secularists and atheists would adhere to the same standards of rationality as I do, I would be satisfied. But they are not usually willing.. You could say.. I have gotten used to disappointment.

I'm not talking about whether secularists/atheists actually adhere to the same standards of rationality as you do or not.

Look, CASteinman, let's make things a bit simpler. Think of a religious claim that, if true, should determine whether we should go towards "Yes" on a given social policy measure or "No"; let's call this claim @. Then, think about an intelligent and rational court or a jury that should decide whether the best course of action is "Yes" or "No". What evidence for @ should be taken into account? "God said so"? "Satan is making us vote against the motion so we should vote for it"?

Edited April 8, 2013 by Alvino

[Stone holm]

I have a problem with seeing how we progress in a democratic society if at the front of the bus everyone is arguing about what their God told them or their minister. First of all it is pretty clear that humans have a very poor set of ears when it comes to God's voice, if that were not so, then we would not have thousands of religions. Secondly, I have a problem with seeing everyone that does not believe exactly as we do as the enemy -- that makes for adversarial relations at the get go. Thirdly, even we acknowledge that religious debate rarely persuades anyone that is why Missionaries are counseled to avoid relgious bashing -- so if we acknowledge that religious debate rarely brings anyone to a knowledge of religious truth -- how is it that we expect that religious arguments are going to ever achieve a consensus on a governmental policy?

But exactly what did Elder Maxwell mean by a "secular church"? Who belongs to this Church? Would say the Jesuits who were part of the Christian Left during the Viet Nam war era, would they be part of the Secular Church? Would Rev. Martin Luther King have been a part of the Secular Church? How about Thomas Jefferson who edited out all references to Christ's Divinity and then used the New Testament as a testament on human ethics would he be a member of the Secular Church? And exactly what pew would we assign to people like Abraham Lincoln?

If the Church is only willing to get into the political fray on a very limited range of issues, then how does a person become involved in political life without becoming a member of the secular church. Are you either a secularist or worse yet an atheist if say you take a political stance that appears to be in the eyes of the majority in a religion to be contrary to that religion? Remembering that Christ aimed the vast majority of his criticism at....the common people? No? Then who did he aim his criticism at? The secular authority, the Romans? No, he barely ever mentioned the Romans. This whole secular conspiracy thing sounds really good...if it is aimed at "them". "Them" being anybody who doesn't quite believe the same as you do, or perhaps doesn't quite believe in the same tactics as you do. But beyond that it isn't very helpful at all and what it really does is discourage debate and discussion altogether.

So if you really want religious discussion in politics, which I am not sure is wise, then it seems you have to start debating religion because you have to tear into religion and try to glean from it every possible drop of information that you can come up with in order to apply it to a fast changing huge spectrum of issues. That means you have to thoroughly politicize religion, it also means that in a democratic society there can be no individual with "authority" because you are by definition expecting every citizen to tear into his or her religion and come up with answers to contribute to the poltical debate. And wouldn't that be a wonderful way to promote peace and harmony in a religious community. And if you are fearful that paying attention to science, might push you over into that "great and spacious building" mob, well you would tend to shy away from it, in fact you might tend to stifle it. These are some of the problems that are just ignored by that kind of "secular church" argument.

[CASteinman]

Our differences come down to a difference in opinion as to "secular" meaning something dogmatic so that it becomes something akin to a religion, and therefore anyone who advocates for a secular approach to something cannot be religious. I disagree, I believe that in many instances using a "secular" approach is the best way to protect "religious" belief -- so very religious people can be advocating for a secular approach to something because if you don't have a secular government then you have a religious government and a religious government at least any that I am aware of tends to be exclusively one religion. And thus for a Mormon to argue for religious based laws is to be advocating religious suicide since in America that religious government ain't gonna be Mormon.

I believe you have fallen for a falsehood. And this is the falsehood:

Secularism is Superior and you should obey it.

If you do then Secularism will love you and protect you better than your puny god.

Your argument seems to come out of the shadows of Maxwell's talk: "What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs."

How much would you agree with these statements?:

• When necessary religion should yield to secularism in the public debate
  
• Generally, religious ideas have no proper bearing on public policy
  
• Religious people are welcome in public office but need to leave religion at the door and act on a secular basis
  

[CASteinman]

"Satan did it" is different from "Everything Satan does is evil", I hope you see. We needed to clarify that.

OK, but we should also clarify that I never said "Satan did it". That was your re-casting of what I said.

I'm not talking about whether secularists/atheists actually adhere to the same standards of rationality as you do or not.

OK... but are you talking about whether I adhere to the standards of secularism/atheism? If not.. then what standards should I adhere to? Religion?

Look, CASteinman, let's make things a bit simpler. Think of a religious claim that, if true, should determine whether we should go towards "Yes" on a given social policy measure or "No"; let's call this claim @. Then, think about an intelligent and rational court or a jury that should decide whether the best course of action is "Yes" or "No". What evidence for @ should be taken into account? "God said so"? "Satan is making us vote against the motion so we should vote for it"?

This is an extremely confusing question. Its a question of public policy put to a jury that is taking evidence as a trier of fact?

Public Policies are based upon notions people have about what would be good or bad. Evidence is not important except to either create the idea in someone's mind or to sway people. Otherwise it is irrelevant. What is important is whether people believe it will result in what they think of as good or what they think of as bad.

And that last bit is where lots of things get swirled around. For example, one of them might say "Good will come from this policy because then I will see $22,000 in a gift flower pot delivered by party X. That will be VERY GOOD... That is how I will vote". Another will say, "My Brother in Law is a creep and works for that company that will go out of business if we award the contract to the other guys. It will be so GOOD to see him suffer. That's how I will vote" And other might say, "This is a very tight vote. If we try to work through this we might be here until 3 in the Morning and my girlfriend is waiting for me at home. If I switch my vote we can get out of here by 7:30. That would be SO GOOD." And another might say, "My Sister's son got killed in an intersection that had no stop light. We need to have stop lights at every intersection so that never happens again. His death was BAD, but having stop lights everywhere is GOOD."

We live in a world of people. People who are constantly beset upon by spiritual forces that want to tear them and the world down. Religion helps fight those evil influences and when people act on true religious impulses then tend to do better things.

[Stone holm]

I believe you have fallen for a falsehood. And this is the falsehood:

Secularism is Superior and you should obey it.

If you do then Secularism will love you and protect you better than your puny god.

Your argument seems to come out of the shadows of Maxwell's talk: "What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs."

How much would you agree with these statements?:

• When necessary religion should yield to secularism in the public debate
  
• Generally, religious ideas have no proper bearing on public policy
  
• Religious people are welcome in public office but need to leave religion at the door and act on a secular basis
  

I believe that when we are talking about general laws that they need to have a secular basis, however, that religious rights of the individual should be protected -- so if you are about to infringe on someone's right of free exercise then the secular reason should normally fail, if, however the general law has solely a religious basis then it cannot in a free society be imposed upon the general populace.

Religious ideas have a bearing on public policy in two ways, one they are a motivator for people and two restraint should be exercised if the public policy is going to infringe upon religious exercise.

Religious people are welcome in public office, but they also have to recognize that when holding public office in a democracy they represent all the people who voted in the election, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Atheist, and the best way to do that is to make sure that their actions do not take into account solely the religious beliefs or religious non-beliefs of the people they represent but rather what is in their best common interest, which may include making sure that the Christian, Muslim, Jew or Atheist is protected in their right to be such and not forced to conform to the tenets of the other unless it can be clearly established that there is a sound logical reason for them to do so.

Ultimately, however, public policy in a democratic society must be based upon principles of consensus derived from vigorous public discussion and not on ultimatums, it must be based on a dialogue which involves give and take based on such reason as is available to all humans. Now if you believe that God is a god of reason, than one would accept that God will generally and ultimately prevail. I do not believe in a God who behaves arbitrarily, but one that acts upon the human mind and inspires the human imagination and the human ability to reason. Whenever, something interferes with the ability of humans to sit down and reason together and work out their differences by debate and discussion, then, in my humble undocumented opinion, then that is not of God but of some other source like tradition, culture, or possibly in extreme cases Satan.

[CASteinman]

I believe that when we are talking about general laws that they need to have a secular basis, however, that religious rights of the individual should be protected -- so if you are about to infringe on someone's right of free exercise then the secular reason should normally fail, if, however the general law has solely a religious basis then it cannot in a free society be imposed upon the general populace.

Religious ideas have a bearing on public policy in two ways, one they are a motivator for people and two restraint should be exercised if the public policy is going to infringe upon religious exercise.

Religious people are welcome in public office, but they also have to recognize that when holding public office in a democracy they represent all the people who voted in the election, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Atheist, and the best way to do that is to make sure that their actions do not take into account solely the religious beliefs or religious non-beliefs of the people they represent but rather what is in their best common interest, which may include making sure that the Christian, Muslim, Jew or Atheist is protected in their right to be such and not forced to conform to the tenets of the other unless it can be clearly established that there is a sound logical reason for them to do so.

Ultimately, however, public policy in a democratic society must be based upon principles of consensus derived from vigorous public discussion and not on ultimatums, it must be based on a dialogue which involves give and take based on such reason as is available to all humans. Now if you believe that God is a god of reason, than one would accept that God will generally and ultimately prevail. I do not believe in a God who behaves arbitrarily, but one that acts upon the human mind and inspires the human imagination and the human ability to reason. Whenever, something interferes with the ability of humans to sit down and reason together and work out their differences by debate and discussion, then, in my humble undocumented opinion, then that is not of God but of some other source like tradition, culture, or possibly in extreme cases Satan.

I am pretty much good with all of this except for the bit I bolded.

[Stone holm]

I am pretty much good with all of this except for the bit I bolded.

Yeah, I think that we rarely actually encounter a general law that doesn't have at least some secular justification. Although I guess one of the Carolinas has a bill pending to establish a State religion, but then that's the former Confederacy and they were always kind of marching to the voices in their heads.

[Alvino]

OK... but are you talking about whether I adhere to the standards of secularism/atheism? If not.. then what standards should I adhere to? Religion?

No. To standards of rationality and scientific evidence when pertinent. If those happen to be the same as your religion's (something unprecedented) then so be it.

This is an extremely confusing question. Its a question of public policy put to a jury that is taking evidence as a trier of fact?

That may be part of it. Facts aren't the only thing, though. Once we decide on the facts or on the best evidence (even if they aren't strictly facts) we still have to weigh it and think about it's implications.

Public Policies are based upon notions people have about what would be good or bad. Evidence is not important except to either create the idea in someone's mind or to sway people. Otherwise it is irrelevant. What is important is whether people believe it will result in what they think of as good or what they think of as bad.

But I'm not asking you if evidence is relevant or not but whether it should. That someone is too stubborn to accept clearly defined evidence is not the kind of action an "intelligent and rational court" would do. Eyes on the prize, CAS.

And that last bit is where lots of things get swirled around.

But we don't care about them. We care about thinking what an intelligent and rational court would do.

We live in a world of people. People who are constantly beset upon by spiritual forces that want to tear them and the world down. Religion helps fight those evil influences and when people act on true religious impulses then tend to do better things.

You didn't provide religious claims you thought should be taken as evidence by a court with the characteristics I mentioned.

As an example of what I'm talking about, let's take these last statements of yours to be religious claims under scrutiny. Should a court accept those claims? What evidence should you present given that the issue, as you put it, seems to be so relevant to the well-being of the people? Is there any evidence of those spiritual forces you want to present to the court you think they should accept? Evidence that those forces want to bring us and the world down? Evidence that religion helps fight those forces? Evidence that when people act on 'true religious impulses' (by which I take you mean more than just good intentions) they tend to do better things or to behave better?

[CASteinman]

No. To standards of rationality and scientific evidence when pertinent. If those happen to be the same as your religion's (something unprecedented) then so be it.

So I should not adhere to standards that I believe in, but rather I should obey the principles expounded by the Secular Church.

But I'm not asking you if evidence is relevant or not but whether it should.

People should be people. Not machines.

But we don't care about them. We care about thinking what an intelligent and rational court would do.

Well, that's something else. As I said, jury's do not make legislation.

You didn't provide religious claims you thought should be taken as evidence by a court with the characteristics I mentioned.

That's because courts are not places that create legislation. You have conflated two concepts -- a court -- and passage of law. I have decided to take the two and combine them into the notion of a city council awarding a contract or something like that. Evidence may not be relevant and anyway whatever evidence is offered will probably not be scientific.

As an example of what I'm talking about, let's take these last statements of yours to be religious claims under scrutiny. Should a court accept those claims?

Sure. If they pertain to the issue at hand. But why are we talking about courts again?

What evidence should you present given that the issue, as you put it, seems to be so relevant to the well-being of the people?

Pragmatically, any evidence that will support my view in the eyes of whoever I am presenting it to -- if my goal is some sort of winning. This is salesmanship.

Is there any evidence of those spiritual forces you want to present to the court you think they should accept?

They should accept the statements at face value. That is what I think. If they don't then I would have to go further.

Evidence that those forces want to bring us and the world down? Evidence that religion helps fight those forces? Evidence that when people act on 'true religious impulses' (by which I take you mean more than just good intentions) they tend to do better things or to behave better?

Pragmatically Any evidence that would convince them.. whether I believed it or not. Because, after all, you have postulated a court of flawed people and I want to win.

Why are we dealing with a court when the issue was what laws should be enacted or something like that?

[thesometimesaint]

I believe you have fallen for a falsehood. And this is the falsehood:

Secularism is Superior and you should obey it.

If you do then Secularism will love you and protect you better than your puny god.

Your argument seems to come out of the shadows of Maxwell's talk: "What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs."

How much would you agree with these statements?:

• When necessary religion should yield to secularism in the public debate
  
• Generally, religious ideas have no proper bearing on public policy
  
• Religious people are welcome in public office but need to leave religion at the door and act on a secular basis
  

1. The problem with that philosophy is that any number of religions are categorically false to an equal number of other religions. IE: I can believe that my God has told me that the earth is flat and at the center of the solar system. Someone else can believe their God has told them that is it basically round and it is not the center of the solar system. An appeal to religion is valid for both arguments, but an appeal to the secular argument is the reality of the situation.

2. The problem with that philosophy is which one of the competing religious views should the public be required to submit to? IE; Is the earth flat and at the center of the solar system or not?

3. The problem with that philosophy is I am not arguing that religious people leave their religion at the door of public debate. But that a religious person's argument must serve a secular purpose and not an overtly sectarian one. IE; I can believe that we should eat fish on Friday. But unless that serves a secular purpose(lack of Iodine in the diet) then it is merely an appeal to sectarian religion and of equal or no weight to the person whom gets Iodine from other sources.

[Stone holm]

So what is this Church? Other than people who don't see the world as we do? People of many different Faiths and some of no Faith who are seeking a common ground to have a discussion so that they can enact laws and teach their kids the basic skills needed to function. Respecting each others right to worship and set their own personal standards in accordance with their own beliefs without molestation or coercion. Is that what we are denouncing as some evil mythical entity?

[Alvino]

So I should not adhere to standards that I believe in, but rather I should obey the principles expounded by the Secular Church.

We agreed a standard you believe in is that of rationality. That's all I'm talking about.

People should be people. Not machines.

Are you joking now?

Well, that's something else. As I said, jury's do not make legislation.

That's because courts are not places that create legislation. You have conflated two concepts -- a court -- and passage of law. I have decided to take the two and combine them into the notion of a city council awarding a contract or something like that. Evidence may not be relevant and anyway whatever evidence is offered will probably not be scientific.

I never said they were "creating" legislation. Read it again.

Sure. If they pertain to the issue at hand. But why are we talking about courts again?

yes.

Pragmatically, any evidence that will support my view in the eyes of whoever I am presenting it to -- if my goal is some sort of winning. This is salesmanship.

We are not talking about 'any evidence that will support my view' unless you think intelligent and rational courts should accept any evidence that supports their view.

They should accept the statements at face value. That is what I think. If they don't then I would have to go further.

Should they accept the statement that "There are no spiritual forces at work" at face value, too?

Pragmatically Any evidence that would convince them.. whether I believed it or not.

And what kind of evidence should the court accept? Taking your statements at face value? That seems disastrous because all it takes to counteract your statement is for the other side to state the negation of yours.

Why are we dealing with a court when the issue was what laws should be enacted or something like that?

The issue was never "what laws should be enacted". It's amazing to me you still don't even get what the thesis is so I give up.

[CASteinman]

We agreed a standard you believe in is that of rationality. That's all I'm talking about.

But I also have other standards. I am to ignore them?

And no, I was not joking. People are not "rational machines". They are people. They are emotional. This is important.

If they are not legislating, what are they doing?

We are not talking about 'any evidence that will support my view' unless you think intelligent and rational courts should accept any evidence that supports their view.

Well, maybe you aren't. But I am.

Should they accept the statement that "There are no spiritual forces at work" at face value, too?

No, they shouldn't. But many will.

And what kind of evidence should the court accept? Taking your statements at face value? That seems disastrous because all it takes to counteract your statement is for the other side to state the negation of yours.

And that is pretty much what happens anyway.

The issue was never "what laws should be enacted". It's amazing to me you still don't even get what the thesis is so I give up.

That's fine with me. You seemed to want to make this a court case and I was talking about what standards people should have in making laws.

[Stone holm]

But I also have other standards. I am to ignore them?

And no, I was not joking. People are not "rational machines". They are people. They are emotional. This is important.

If they are not legislating, what are they doing?

Well, maybe you aren't. But I am.

No, they shouldn't. But many will.

And that is pretty much what happens anyway.

That's fine with me. You seemed to want to make this a court case and I was talking about what standards people should have in making laws.

Well it seems to me that the decision making process is very similar whether you are before the legislature or before the Court. The legislature should not be enacting legislation which they know violates the Constitution and the President should not be signing or enforcing legislation he or she believes to violate the Constitution. Courts are more accustomed to shedding emotions when making decisions than are legislatures in their reasoning since when they act, especially at the Appellate level, but even more so of late at the trial level they have to spell out their reasons, whereas the legislator just flips a switch yea or nay or abstains. But in theory, the mental process should be similar. We are motivated in many instances by our religious beliefs and values, however, when it comes to setting standards which the entire community must abide, then for it to work there must be a dialogue process. That dialogue process must include a basis which may be analyzed and tested according to logic and reason. Thus both sides must, at least in theory, have access to the facts or evidence by normal means. In other words, if someone asserts that something is a health hazard, then they should state why and then people can either agree or disagree putting forth their reasons as to why it is or isn't. These then can be tested in debate, along with the implications of doing something about it as far as whether doing something about it would violate or cause problems from other perspectives such as being to limiting upon lifestyle or too intrusive into an individual's life, etc. This is what we call political dialogue. However, religion to the extent it is not connected with something otherwise observable or possible of being tested does not lead to dialogue, it leads to declarations -- "God said don't do it." We might say, well God is available to everyone through prayer -- which is true, except for some strange reason we have people engaging in prayer all the time and coming up with different answers -- so there is no method of achieving a consensus on what "God has said" . Whereas, if we feed the stuff to rats and they die, well you can gather people around and say, now what this -- and the rats either live or sicken and die.

[CASteinman]

Well it seems to me that the decision making process is very similar whether you are before the legislature or before the Court.

That I do not agree with at all. Zero. The court does not have a blank empty slate. The legislature does. The court is the slave to the words of the legislatures. The legislatures have broad discretion. This makes the decision process entirely different right from the start.

In particular, Courts seek to answer "What happened?" while Legislatures see to answer "What should we do?".

[Stone holm]

That I do not agree with at all. Zero. The court does not have a blank empty slate. The legislature does. The court is the slave to the words of the legislatures. The legislatures have broad discretion. This makes the decision process entirely different right from the start.

In particular, Courts seek to answer "What happened?" while Legislatures see to answer "What should we do?".

Oh I agree with you that the legislature has broader discretion. It does not start, however, with a blank slate. The reasoning process surrounding standards, however, is similar. The first rule of legislative interpretation is legislative intent. So there is a weird form of psycholigical analysis involved.

[thesometimesaint]

That I do not agree with at all. Zero. The court does not have a blank empty slate. The legislature does. The court is the slave to the words of the legislatures. The legislatures have broad discretion. This makes the decision process entirely different right from the start.

In particular, Courts seek to answer "What happened?" while Legislatures see to answer "What should we do?".

Incorrect. The courts are the independent third co-equal branch of government. They function of precedent, due process, and how they, at the USSC level understand the Constitution. The legislatures are also bound by the Constitution, and the USSC interpretation of it.

Courts in addition to establishing what happened at the appellate level determine if the executive/legislative branch followed the Constitution.

[Stone holm]

Incorrect. The courts are the independent third co-equal branch of government. They function of precedent, due process, and how they, at the USSC level understand the Constitution. The legislatures are also bound by the Constitution, and the USSC interpretation of it.

Courts in addition to establishing what happened at the appellate level determine if the executive/legislative branch followed the Constitution.

But he is correct in a sense. The Court does not legislate in the sense that the Court must be presented with a question by someone, they can't just wake up one day and say well today we are going to set some standards, whereas the legislature can. In addition, when a Court does set a standard, it only applies to certain facts before it. The judicial system with its common law precedent system always works by analogy. For example a + b = c, Then does a + b + d also equal c or not. As we build up more precedent, however, in the Court system on Constitutional matters the discretion of the legislature may in some instances shrink. When it comes to purely statutory law, however, the legislature is free to do an etch a sketch type thing a ignore what it has done or not done in the past. The Courts occasionally do that as well, and reverse or severely limit prior decisions. But in this thread, I am not sure the distinction makes any difference. Because when the legislature makes a decision to pass or not pass a law it is always assumed that it had a reason for doing so and was not just throwing a verbiage dart at a dartboard called a code book. And, if it is going to be effective its reasons need to be clear and Constitutionally valid. The question then always comes back to whether in a free country it is ever legitimate to legislate standards based solely on religious belief. If the answer is no. Then what is the point of complaining about secularization. And, if it is legitimate to legislate based solely on religious belief, what impact does that have on our notion of religious freedom.