3 ms·

This is pretty absurd position, it effectively pushes for disenfranchisement of religious people. Under your theory of the government, religious people are unab

by xyzzyz 3y ago

This is pretty absurd position, it effectively pushes for disenfranchisement of religious people. Under your theory of the government, religious people are unable to use democratic means to to further their policy goals, if these in any way stem from their religious beliefs. This is, of course, not how our legal and political system works. The “secular government” doesnt work this way. Imagine if Christians had a strong belief in tending the garden given to them by God, and it entailed a strong wish to fight climate change. It would be absurd to say that they cannot do anything in that direction, just because their reasons for this are religious in nature. If you don’t like majority imposing restrictions on minorities based on their moral theories, your problem is not with religion, but rather with democracy.

LocalH 3y ago
The vast majority of Christians that I've spoken to don't seem to understand one basic fact: If you allow religious belief to be the sole factor behind legislative action, then you also open the door to a different religion coming in and democratically taking the reins of that action. They also will heavily vocalize their opinion that no other religion should be able to come in and do exactly that. In the years after 9/11, they would harp about "Sharia law" and how it was allegedly "taking over parts of the US". It is very clear in the Constitution that the government may not favor one religion over another. Ergo, to open legislative action to religious motivation allows any religion to do the same, no matter what. The US is pretty open about what it considers to be a "religion" as well, we're one of the few countries that allow Scientology to be considered a religion. In the interest of identifying bias, I live in Tennessee, right in the middle of the bible belt. Thus, my opinion is indeed biased by experience in this area. I've seen how nasty and bigoted this neck of the woods can be, and these are the people that the region's politicians tend to pander to.
nnf 3y ago
I have no desire to disenfranchise religious people, and I have no problem with democracy. People should be able to vote how they want and seek government policies they want, based on their convictions, religious or otherwise. My point is that the government (in the U.S. at least) cannot make laws based on religion. If Christians want to fight climate change because they believe that's what God wants, great! They should seek policies to do just that. But what the lawmakers cannot do is write laws that say "the EPA must impose greenhouse gas limits because God commands it." The lawmakers can have their reasons for the bills they write (they can believe it's what God wants, or they can know it's what their voters believe it's what God wants), but the laws themselves cannot be based on religion.
- xyzzyz 3y ago
  Ok, if your point is that laws can very much be religiously motivated, as long as they simply don’t mention God in the text of the bill, then yeah, I’m fine with that. This is not a very consequential point.
  - LocalH 3y ago
    There must be sufficient secular reason to have a given law. There are people in this country who believe that this is a "Christian" nation, and even some deep in the bible belt who believe that it should be illegal to be "not Christian". You run the risk of handing the country to people like that, when you allow too much religion in your government. If you can't make secular decisions in your job representing all people in your constituency, if you can't separate your religious belief and personal morals from what is legislatively appropriate, then just maybe, you shouldn't be a politician. On the other hand, if you can act appropriately as a legislator, then I have no problem with a person who is personally deeply religious from holding elected office. If you are a Senator or Representative in the US, you also represent the atheists in your constituency, as well of those of all other religious beliefs than your own. You don't just represent the ones who align with your religious belief.
    - xyzzyz 3y ago
      > There must be sufficient secular reason to have a given law. There are people in this country who believe that this is a "Christian" nation, and even some deep in the bible belt who believe that it should be illegal to be "not Christian". You run the risk of handing the country to people like that, when you allow too much religion in your government. So yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about: this is disenfranchising people based on their religion. > If you can't make secular decisions in your job representing all people in your constituency, if you can't separate your religious belief and personal morals from what is legislatively appropriate, then just maybe, you shouldn't be a politician. (...) If you are a Senator or Representative in the US, you also represent the atheists in your constituency, as well of those of all other religious beliefs than your own. You don't just represent the ones who align with your religious belief. This is just an isolated demand of rigor, it's a standard that you would not apply in other circumstance. Try making the same argument, but replacing religion with political party. "Sure, you are personally deeply aligned with Democratic policy, but you also represent Republicans in your constituency, so you should separate your personal beliefs and morals from your politics, and don't push for policy that your Republican constituents would not agree with". This is of course ridiculous. You need to understand that what you proposing here is plainly disadvantaging (some) religious beliefs compared to other philosophies, and holding them to a different, higher standards. Why do majority of voters have to give "sufficient secular reason" for a given law? Constitution doesn't demand this sort of "parallel construction".

by xyzzyz 3y ago

LocalH 3y ago

The vast majority of Christians that I've spoken to don't seem to understand one basic fact: If you allow religious belief to be the sole factor behind legislative action, then you also open the door to a different religion coming in and democratically taking the reins of that action. They also will heavily vocalize their opinion that no other religion should be able to come in and do exactly that. In the years after 9/11, they would harp about "Sharia law" and how it was allegedly "taking over parts of the US". It is very clear in the Constitution that the government may not favor one religion over another. Ergo, to open legislative action to religious motivation allows any religion to do the same, no matter what. The US is pretty open about what it considers to be a "religion" as well, we're one of the few countries that allow Scientology to be considered a religion. In the interest of identifying bias, I live in Tennessee, right in the middle of the bible belt. Thus, my opinion is indeed biased by experience in this area. I've seen how nasty and bigoted this neck of the woods can be, and these are the people that the region's politicians tend to pander to.

nnf 3y ago

I have no desire to disenfranchise religious people, and I have no problem with democracy. People should be able to vote how they want and seek government policies they want, based on their convictions, religious or otherwise. My point is that the government (in the U.S. at least) cannot make laws based on religion. If Christians want to fight climate change because they believe that's what God wants, great! They should seek policies to do just that. But what the lawmakers cannot do is write laws that say "the EPA must impose greenhouse gas limits because God commands it." The lawmakers can have their reasons for the bills they write (they can believe it's what God wants, or they can know it's what their voters believe it's what God wants), but the laws themselves cannot be based on religion.

xyzzyz 3y ago
Ok, if your point is that laws can very much be religiously motivated, as long as they simply don’t mention God in the text of the bill, then yeah, I’m fine with that. This is not a very consequential point.
- LocalH 3y ago
  There must be sufficient secular reason to have a given law. There are people in this country who believe that this is a "Christian" nation, and even some deep in the bible belt who believe that it should be illegal to be "not Christian". You run the risk of handing the country to people like that, when you allow too much religion in your government. If you can't make secular decisions in your job representing all people in your constituency, if you can't separate your religious belief and personal morals from what is legislatively appropriate, then just maybe, you shouldn't be a politician. On the other hand, if you can act appropriately as a legislator, then I have no problem with a person who is personally deeply religious from holding elected office. If you are a Senator or Representative in the US, you also represent the atheists in your constituency, as well of those of all other religious beliefs than your own. You don't just represent the ones who align with your religious belief.
  - xyzzyz 3y ago
    > There must be sufficient secular reason to have a given law. There are people in this country who believe that this is a "Christian" nation, and even some deep in the bible belt who believe that it should be illegal to be "not Christian". You run the risk of handing the country to people like that, when you allow too much religion in your government. So yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about: this is disenfranchising people based on their religion. > If you can't make secular decisions in your job representing all people in your constituency, if you can't separate your religious belief and personal morals from what is legislatively appropriate, then just maybe, you shouldn't be a politician. (...) If you are a Senator or Representative in the US, you also represent the atheists in your constituency, as well of those of all other religious beliefs than your own. You don't just represent the ones who align with your religious belief. This is just an isolated demand of rigor, it's a standard that you would not apply in other circumstance. Try making the same argument, but replacing religion with political party. "Sure, you are personally deeply aligned with Democratic policy, but you also represent Republicans in your constituency, so you should separate your personal beliefs and morals from your politics, and don't push for policy that your Republican constituents would not agree with". This is of course ridiculous. You need to understand that what you proposing here is plainly disadvantaging (some) religious beliefs compared to other philosophies, and holding them to a different, higher standards. Why do majority of voters have to give "sufficient secular reason" for a given law? Constitution doesn't demand this sort of "parallel construction".