4 ms·

I suspect we agree and are saying different things. Yes, people are fully justified in voting their conscience, based on whatever informs that conscience, relig

by nnf 3y ago

I suspect we agree and are saying different things. Yes, people are fully justified in voting their conscience, based on whatever informs that conscience, religious (even supernatural or doctrinal or otherwise). What is not ok is for a bill to be drafted that starts out with “Whereas the Christian Bible contains teachings implying pornography is against God, and Whereas we seek to glorify God…”. (This is just an example to illustrate the point. I’m not implying you or anyone who understands our constitution would think laws should be written this way, but this is what a non-secular law might look like.) Bills must be based on evidence. “Whereas scientific studies by competent and qualified scientists and researchers have recently concluded that exposure to pornography is harmful to children,…” Again, I think we were arguing related but distinctly different points about the original “most of the opposition to pornography is religious-based” and “What does that matter?” statements.

rayiner 3y ago
I disagree that “bills must be based on evidence” and in practice they are not. The Civil Rights Act doesn’t say “whereas scientific studies by competent and qualified scientists and researchers have recently concluded that human races, despite obvious, outward differences, are genetically all similar…” We had a moral belief in the equality of the races, rooted in Christianity, long before we had the scientific evidence to support that belief. Likewise, there is no scientific basis for saying that the rich should take care of the poor, of that young people should support old people. These are all moral judgments. Why don’t we just let old people die when they can’t work anymore? It would be much more efficient after all. It’s impossible to avoid basing laws on moral beliefs, because fundamentally, moral beliefs are directed to notions of what will make a better society. Your version of “secularism” doesn’t take non-falsifiable moral judgments out of lawmaking. It just gives preference to one set of non-falsifiable beliefs over another. For example, acceptance of pornography or sex work is heavily based on the idea that people should be able to do what they want sexually so long as there is consent. What is the scientific evidence behind that belief? There isn’t. It’s based on a moral belief about sexual satisfaction being an important part of the human experience, it’s based on a moral belief about individual freedom and the limits on it, etc. Ultimately, it’s a moral belief about what kind of society is better.
- nnf 3y ago
  > We had a moral belief in the equality of the races, rooted in Christianity, long before we had the scientific evidence to support that belief. Some Christians might have had that belief, but many racist (and, years earlier, slave-owning) Christians believed the opposite to be true, and used the Bible to justify slavery [1]. Jefferson Davis was quite explicit about it [2]: > [Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts. When I say "based on evidence" I mean that bills must have some basis that everyone can agree on. People may not agree with the conclusions, but there is a firm basis there nonetheless. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to consider the consequences of religiously based laws. Imagine you're a Christian in a small town, and for whatever reason, your town becomes a popular place for immigrants/refugees from the Middle East to settle, and all of a sudden your town has a slight Muslim majority. Would it be ok for them to vote to require all women in the town to wear hijabs in public because they believe God demands it? To such a proposal, you might say "that's absurd! God doesn't want us to wear hijabs!" There's no way to settle the argument, because there's no evidence for the claim one way or the other. That's the problem with laws based on religion, and that's why our constitution protects against them. [1] https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/ https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Opposition_to_abolitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Opp...

by nnf 3y ago

rayiner 3y ago

I disagree that “bills must be based on evidence” and in practice they are not. The Civil Rights Act doesn’t say “whereas scientific studies by competent and qualified scientists and researchers have recently concluded that human races, despite obvious, outward differences, are genetically all similar…” We had a moral belief in the equality of the races, rooted in Christianity, long before we had the scientific evidence to support that belief. Likewise, there is no scientific basis for saying that the rich should take care of the poor, of that young people should support old people. These are all moral judgments. Why don’t we just let old people die when they can’t work anymore? It would be much more efficient after all. It’s impossible to avoid basing laws on moral beliefs, because fundamentally, moral beliefs are directed to notions of what will make a better society. Your version of “secularism” doesn’t take non-falsifiable moral judgments out of lawmaking. It just gives preference to one set of non-falsifiable beliefs over another. For example, acceptance of pornography or sex work is heavily based on the idea that people should be able to do what they want sexually so long as there is consent. What is the scientific evidence behind that belief? There isn’t. It’s based on a moral belief about sexual satisfaction being an important part of the human experience, it’s based on a moral belief about individual freedom and the limits on it, etc. Ultimately, it’s a moral belief about what kind of society is better.

nnf 3y ago
> We had a moral belief in the equality of the races, rooted in Christianity, long before we had the scientific evidence to support that belief. Some Christians might have had that belief, but many racist (and, years earlier, slave-owning) Christians believed the opposite to be true, and used the Bible to justify slavery [1]. Jefferson Davis was quite explicit about it [2]: > [Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts. When I say "based on evidence" I mean that bills must have some basis that everyone can agree on. People may not agree with the conclusions, but there is a firm basis there nonetheless. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to consider the consequences of religiously based laws. Imagine you're a Christian in a small town, and for whatever reason, your town becomes a popular place for immigrants/refugees from the Middle East to settle, and all of a sudden your town has a slight Muslim majority. Would it be ok for them to vote to require all women in the town to wear hijabs in public because they believe God demands it? To such a proposal, you might say "that's absurd! God doesn't want us to wear hijabs!" There's no way to settle the argument, because there's no evidence for the claim one way or the other. That's the problem with laws based on religion, and that's why our constitution protects against them. [1] https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/ https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Opposition_to_abolitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Opp...