Add a Comment
Email This
you're making up your own definition
I don't need a fake definition to be able to identify with how someone might see religious morality as a required basis for democracy.
You understand my point, though, and you still seem to think this is worthy of your reaction, so I'll move on.
said, as an example of "the kind of decision we should expect to get from a judge who regularly consults the bible." Why should I not?
Because you cannot show a cause and effect relationship.
How can he not consider be more lenient towards a devout Christian in his court than towards a non-believer?
That's quite a ridiculous question. The answer: The same way an atheist could not be less lenient towards a believer.
So clearly there must be some consideration as to what forms of "acknowledging the gods" are permissible.
Agreed.
Who benefits from them?
I don't think I can answer this in a general sense. Even if I could, I don't think it matters.
What I see is how secular society is hurt by them. They establish an undeserved bias in favor of religion.
Hurting secular society? Establishing a bias in favor of religion? It's like you're speaking a different language - like there is some world-wide game/contest going on.
Wow. I swear some days you just get intentionally obtuse.
I don't need a fake definition to be able to identify with how someone might see religious morality as a required basis for democracy.
Yet you invented one. You took "freedom requires religion" and turned the meaning of "requires" into something like "can peacefully coexist with".
The statements "freedom requires religion" and "freedom does not require religion" cannot both be true. I assert that the latter is the true statement, and the former is a falsehood, designed to show the speaker's willingness to align himself politically with those religious extremists in America who have deluded themselves into thinking that secular ideals are bad.
Because you cannot show a cause and effect relationship.
I needn't show its existence, only its plausibility. If it's plausible, it could happen, and if it does happen, it's a bad thing. If we prohibit the scenario in which it's plausible, we're better off.
That's quite a ridiculous question. The answer: The same way an atheist could not be less lenient towards a believer.
Not the same. Christianity believes that the gods show preference towards believers, and that those who support the faith are rewarded. Atheists do not.
In my case, I probably would be somewhat biased against a believer, on the grounds that their rationality is somewhat questionable, but I'm a particularly strong form of atheist. That's not necessarily true of atheists in general. Nor does the rationality of the defendant have a great deal to do with most cases.
I certainly wouldn't consider an atheist to be inherently of better moral character than a believer - but I certainly expect a strongly theist judge, one who consults scripture for guidance in court, to do so. And the moral character of the defendant is a factor in virtually every sentencing decision. Defendants who are given the benefit of the doubt because they're thought to be generally good people who've made a bad mistake are given leniency. Those who are thought to be incorrigible are given harsher treatment. I would expect the bias of the theist judge to show in his sentencing.
So clearly there must be some consideration as to what forms of "acknowledging the gods" are permissible.
Agreed.
Except that you missed the conclusion that none of them should be permissible.
I don't think I can answer this in a general sense. Even if I could, I don't think it matters.
I can, and did answer it. Who benefits are the believers, at the expense of the non-believers. When a pro-choice speaker must make his case standing in front of a religious symbol, he's starting from a disadvantage. An anti-abortionist in the same position gains an advantage. That advantage is inappropriate. The symbol has hurt our secular ideals.
Hurting secular society? Establishing a bias in favor of religion? It's like you're speaking a different language - like there is some world-wide game/contest going on.
Absolutely. The fact that almost 80% of Americans claim to be Christians gives an inherent bias towards Christianity in many things. It's why prayer in school is such a contentious issue, for example. Why should we not be able to hold a short prayer before the public high school's football game? After all, most of the people here are Christians? That's the line of thought - but that's exactly the line of thought that the Supreme Court dismissed as invalid.
The football game at a public high school is a community event. To hold a specifically Christian ceremony at the start is to explicitly exclude the non-Christians from the community. It sends a clear signal that the Christians are part of a special "in" group, and that the others are outsiders. That's how the court saw the issue.
The reasoning is much broader, though. When the government chooses to display Christian symbolism in courtrooms or legislature halls, or really any official venue, it's acting in a way that excludes non-Christians from full participation in government.
When you see a statue representing the ten commandments, apparently, you see something you agree with wholeheartedly. When I see them, I see something that I think is 50% bad advice, 20% indifferent, and the other 30% is something that's already represented in government without the statue.
There is a strong bias in favor of Christianity in America - simply because there are a lot of Christians. But it's a significant part of the government's role to protect the rest of us from that bias.
Today, the non-Christian segment of society is finally growing large enough that we're really heard when we complain. When you hear the neo-con pundits whining about how Christians are being persecuted in modern society, and how there's a "war on Christmas", and that kind of nonsense, what you're really hearing is that people are finally rejecting the dominance that Christianity has had on the public sphere for so long, and they're afraid of that.
Secular society is hurt when we require that high school students be indoctrinated with useless rubbish like "intelligent design", simply to placate the absurd dogmas of the religious. It's hurt when bible thumping judge is lenient towards a violent criminal because he comes to court with a crucifix and a bible and praises Jesus in every other sentence. And it's hurt when the government displays the symbols and icons of a religion.
RSS
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk
I think you are oversimplifying the definition of "required."
And I think you're making up your own definition to defend this guy just because he's a Mormon.
the recognition of inherent worth in a person to the degree necessary for the freedom we enjoy requires some sort of religious belief.
This is exactly the belief for which I condemned him. It's not necessary, and declaring it so is an attempt to marginalizes the one in five Americans who claim no such belief.
It's the same sentiment George H.W. Bush's expressed, during his campaign, when he said, "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Romney may very well have meant, as you say, that "the recognition of inherent worth in a person ... requires ... religious belief." That's not deserving of my vote. Scorn, yes. Opprobrium, yes. In other words, it's deserving of exactly the reaction I had.
Talk about not being able to distinguish the exception from the rule...
I didn't say that the judge in question had consulted the bible. I offered that case, as I said, as an example of "the kind of decision we should expect to get from a judge who regularly consults the bible."
Why should I not? What distinguishes the bible-loving judge from a proper, secular judge? What distinguishes religious morality from secular morality?
A judge who does not consult his bible, and sticks to the law, will punish murderers, thieves and frauds, together with many sorts of offenders not indicated in scriptures. With a bible-consulting judge, the best we could hope for is that he'd do the same.
However, if he's really consulting that thing for guidance, then how can he not treat Christians who come before him differently than non-Christians? After all, how can he be impartial towards someone who flagrantly chooses not to "honor the Sabbath and keep it holy"? Or one who has a statue of Ganesha in his home?
How can he not consider be more lenient towards a devout Christian in his court than towards a non-believer?
It could be something as simple as displaying a traditional celebratory emblem on a religious holiday, or a snippet of text reminding a judge of some principle or tenant. Neither is a claim to be an instrument of God.
Nobody would really care if the judge consulted the tenet "thou shalt not murder", but one questions why he's consulting that instead of the relevant statute. But the judge who consults "you shall have no other gods before me" must be condemned in the harshest terms.
So clearly there must be some consideration as to what forms of "acknowledging the gods" are permissible. And guess which ones make the cut? The ones that are clearly secular values co-opted by religion - like prohibitions against murder, and efforts to foster community cooperation (the whole community, not just the community of believers). So why should we want the religious expression of these things, when we have perfectly good secular ones?
Put it another way, what is the secular value of these "acknowledgements"? Why should I value them? Why should a Buddhist value a statue commemorating the ten commandments?
Who benefits from them? I can clearly see how religion benefits, but I don't see how secular society benefits. What I see is how secular society is hurt by them. They establish an undeserved bias in favor of religion.
View Full Discussion