Religion's role

[WI-Tom]

You were right when you said elsewhere that we aren't on the same page. Myself, and several others, have been attempting to promote Sound Logic regarding this topic... while you continue to spit in its face with blind Motivated Reasoning. I will point out that it's not just me trying to steer you right... it's a cadre of some of the most respected brains in the bilge. Ponder that when you choose which page to be on...

I have no clue what you're on about. Really.

My consistent argument on this thread has been that the Establishment Clause, as interpreted by the USSC, does not allow any laws or policies to be enacted solely for religious reasons. And that right-wing evangelical "Christians" often try to enact laws and policies for religious reasons anyway. And when that happens, the effect is that one set of religious beliefs and values is imposed on others, coercively. (Students must attend public schools. A school policy requiring "creation science" thus imposes religious beliefs on the students attending).

How in the world is that "spitting" in anyone's face? How is it motivated reasoning? It's just reality. Not even really open to question in rational discussion.

What's with the random Capital Letters, by the way? A little too much A.A. Milne lately? Do I qualify as one of the Fiercer Animals?

Tom

[WI-Tom]

It doesn't matter whether the beliefs come from religion

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. So your statement is (still) flatly contradicted by the law of the land.

Read up on the 3-part Lemon Test, which demands that any legislation must have a legitimate secular purpose:

If any of these prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Lemon Test was pretty much abandoned by the Trumpist Supreme Court in a 2022 decision regarding a football coach's public prayer sessions, but it has not yet been explicitly overruled.

The dissenting opinion (Sotomayor) in the 2022 case directly described the situation of a coach leading public prayers as "coercion"--i.e. imposing religious beliefs on others:

Sotomayor also described the implicit coercion from peer pressure that had been demonstrated in the lower courts' proceedings.

Tom

[Dikhaut]

I agree about 90%+, I'd say. But when people succeed in creating policy that has no legitimate secular purpose, I don't see how that isn'tforcing religious beliefs (well, religious behaviors) on others. Public schools are places people are required to attend, by law. And so they are in a situation where they must obey a religious policy that is not relevant to their beliefs. That's pure coercion.

Tom

All major religions, with one possible exception, condemn murder. Are laws against murder forcing these religious beliefs on us? Individual laws that may be related to religious beliefs are a long way from a state sponsored religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dikhaut]

I'm guessing all those I refer to call themselves Christians. I can't be sure.

Someone calling themselves a Christian doesn’t mean they are calling themselves perfect. Sometimes we all fall short of what we aspire to, Christians or not. You seem intent on condemning all religions and religious people which is certainly your privilege. But let’s just say it doesn’t make you look smart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Smith]

More of the same grade of bad logic. See... you've skipped a step.

People who make policy get elected based mostly upon their beliefs, allegiances, and/or character.

When they vote on policies, they do so with those various bases.

It doesn't matter whether the beliefs come from religion, a classical education in philosophy, or from long contemplation and introspection in a hermit's cave on a far mountaintop. Same with the origin of their allegiances, or the roots of their character. They vote how they vote based upon a variety of factors. They're no more 'imposing their religion' on you than they are imposing 'the results of classical education' on you. They are as legitimately able to base their votes on religion, atheism, the writings of Yeats, or an epiphany experienced while partaking of LSD.

The point is not what informs those votes. The point is HOW they vote. If you agree... work to re-elect them. If you don't... then work to get someone elected who is more sympatico, or with allegiances you agree with, or with overall better charter.

You can have your suspicions, and feelings, about what factors inform that voting... and you can comment about them ("I think....) but you don't get any say in those factors. Your legitimate interest kicks in when there is a vote. Or a pattern of voting.

If you don't agree with the policies, work to get them changed. Quit whining about how elected representatives are not deciding correctly -- and are 'imposing' their philosophy, knowledge of economics, gut feelings about foreign policy, religion, chemically induced insights, or whatever... ON YOU.

I can't disagree, BUT laws and policies are supposed to be things that in some way protect us, be they speed limits, age limits, requiring a license to do something, or labeling ingredients/prohibiting some ingredients, etc.........

[John Smith]

All major religions, with one possible exception, condemn murder. Are laws against murder forcing these religious beliefs on us? Individual laws that may be related to religious beliefs are a long way from a state sponsored religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, I hold no religious beliefs and you think I'm FOR murder?

Murder harms someone. Driving a car and having an accident while not being insured harms someone.

Ought not laws be based on whether an activity is harmful. to protect the innocent?

[John Smith]

Someone calling themselves a Christian doesn’t mean they are calling themselves perfect. Sometimes we all fall short of what we aspire to, Christians or not. You seem intent on condemning all religions and religious people which is certainly your privilege. But let’s just say it doesn’t make you look smart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then you've misconstrued my posts. I have no problem with people who hold religious beliefs UNTIL they try to force their beliefs on me. That would include coercive tactics.

Our laws ought not be based on the religious beliefs of some, but be, in some way, for the general welfare of the people.

[Dikhaut]

So, I hold no religious beliefs and you think I'm FOR murder?

Murder harms someone. Driving a car and having an accident while not being insured harms someone.

Ought not laws be based on whether an activity is harmful. to protect the innocent?

Suppose an activity is harmful, such as murder. It is also condemned by the Christian faith. Therefore, laws against murder would be forcing the Christian faith on you. At least this seems to be the logic you apply when it suits your agenda.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Smith]

Suppose an activity is harmful, such as murder. It is also condemned by the Christian faith. Therefore, laws against murder would be forcing the Christian faith on you. At least this seems to be the logic you apply when it suits your agenda.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's just dumb. Christians can support laws based on protecting people. It's when they pass, or try to pass, laws based upon their religious beliefs.

Suppose an activity is NOT harmful, but it violates one's religion, and that one whose religious beliefs it violates passes, or tries to pass, a law making that activity illegal. You'd support that?

Apparently, a lot of Christians have no problem with people shooting people, as they appear to vote for politicians who have no problem with this.

[Dikhaut]

That's just dumb. Christians can support laws based on protecting people. It's when they pass, or try to pass, laws based upon their religious beliefs.

Suppose an activity is NOT harmful, but it violates one's religion, and that one whose religious beliefs it violates passes, or tries to pass, a law making that activity illegal. You'd support that?

Apparently, a lot of Christians have no problem with people shooting people, as they appear to vote for politicians who have no problem with this.

Are you the judge of what is harmful or not?

When you vote for a politician does it indicate that you agree with every single thing they say and do? It seems that you believe whatever MSNBC has programmed you to believe.

You constantly complain about politicians lying. Yet you support Biden, who has a history of lying and cheating that goes back 60 years to when he was in college and law school and continues through today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RFNK]

You were right when you said elsewhere that we aren't on the same page. Myself, and several others, have been attempting to promote Sound Logic regarding this topic... while you continue to spit in its face with blind Motivated Reasoning. I will point out that it's not just me trying to steer you right... it's a cadre of some of the most respected brains in the bilge. Ponder that when you choose which page to be on...

Has Dikhaut been invited to join your Cadre yet?

[David G]

Has Dikhaut been invited to join your Cadre yet?

No membership required. But even a stopped clock can be right twice a day <G>

[WI-Tom]

All major religions, with one possible exception, condemn murder. Are laws against murder forcing these religious beliefs on us? Individual laws that may be related to religious beliefs are a long way from a state sponsored religion.

Read just a bit about the Lemon Test and your questions will be answered. Actually, they've already been answered in my posts if you do a little thinking about what I'm saying, and what I'm not saying.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Suppose an activity is harmful, such as murder. It is also condemned by the Christian faith. Therefore, laws against murder would be forcing the Christian faith on you. At least this seems to be the logic you apply when it suits your agenda.

That's just dumb.

Yes. Yes it is.

I think that those who want to defend religion have leaned a bit toward this line of thought. There have been a few posts on this thread trying to make a similar point, and failing in exactly the same way.

I can understand why people who are sincerely committed to their religion, and find great value in it, tend to get a little defensive about anything that sounds (to them) like a blanket condemnation of religion. But I'm not seeing any blanket condemnations on this thread. What I'm seeing is that John and I and perhaps others think that letting laws be enacted solely for religious reasons is dangerous, and interferes with the rights of others. But it still happens, primarily (in the U.S.) with laws related to right-wing evangelical "Christianity."

Since numerous court cases can be cited to show that this is, in fact, actually what often happens in the U.S., I find it odd that pointing it out gets such a hostile reaction from some here.

Tom

[WX]

Nearly all religions espouse similar basic tenets, and these in themselves are fine. Where they fall down is in the add-ons...such as sub humanizing women and treating them as possessions. Treating pedophilia as a sin, rather than a crime. Religions should not have any say in common law, and religious law should not be able to dictate or override common law.

[TomF]

Laws which were once enacted solely within a religious context have since been grandfathered into a pluralistic society. Laws against theft and murder, or fraud, for instance, derive from religious codes which long predate any notion of the secular state.

What you're arguing by saying that any law must first and foremost serve a secular purpose in a pluralistic society isn't mistaken, in my view, but consistently ignores those laws' origins even within our society. You're asking for a silent statute of limitations, wherein Laws you like which were first enacted on a religious basis are quietly stripped of that origin story to make them seem acceptable. What I'm calling out is the inherent hypocrisy of that silent position.

[WI-Tom]

Laws which were once enacted solely within a religious context have since been grandfathered into a pluralistic society. Laws against theft and murder, or fraud, for instance, derive from religious codes which long predate any notion of the secular state.

What you're arguing by saying that any law must first and foremost serve a secular purpose in a pluralistic society isn't mistaken, in my view, but consistently ignores those laws' origins even within our society. You're asking for a silent statute of limitations, wherein Laws you like which were first enacted on a religious basis are quietly stripped of that origin story to make them seem acceptable. What I'm calling out is the inherent hypocrisy of that silent position.

Tom,

I don't agree with you at all that religion is the ultimate source of morality and ethics, and thus the root of modern secular laws. I think it's far more convincing to argue the opposite--that morality and ethics came first, probably for pragmatic reasons--can't have tribal members killing each other because it would be a threat to the entire tribe to lose members with special knowledge and expertise, not to mention simple labor force issues--and then religion was developed later, as a justification for, and as a reinforcement of, of those standards.

That's purely my own thinking, without doing any digging to see what the consensus might be among those who study this kind of thing. I gots no evidence, in other words.

Do you?

Because, when religion steps in to claim that all morality derives from religion, that seems pretty arrogant to me. It seems dismissive of the ethics and morals and values of those, like me, who don't feel a need for religion in their lives to be moral, ethical people (or to try to be, at least).

If a blanket condemnation of religion as a bad thing gets your goat, be aware that a blanket statement like "all morals and ethics ultimately derive from religion" is probably just as offensive to many non-religious people.

Tom

[John Smith]

Are you the judge of what is harmful or not?

When you vote for a politician does it indicate that you agree with every single thing they say and do? It seems that you believe whatever MSNBC has programmed you to believe.

You constantly complain about politicians lying. Yet you support Biden, who has a history of lying and cheating that goes back 60 years to when he was in college and law school and continues through today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a difference between, let's say working to get a traffic light at an intersection where accidents are overly frequent, which would be a safety issue, versus working to pass a law requiring everyone to attend church on Sunday.

I'm neither the judge or jury, but rules, laws, regulations designed to in some way protect the welfare/health of the people are NOT the same as laws based upon the religious beliefs of some group.

[John Smith]

Yes. Yes it is.

I think that those who want to defend religion have leaned a bit toward this line of thought. There have been a few posts on this thread trying to make a similar point, and failing in exactly the same way.

I can understand why people who are sincerely committed to their religion, and find great value in it, tend to get a little defensive about anything that sounds (to them) like a blanket condemnation of religion. But I'm not seeing any blanket condemnations on this thread. What I'm seeing is that John and I and perhaps others think that letting laws be enacted solely for religious reasons is dangerous, and interferes with the rights of others. But it still happens, primarily (in the U.S.) with laws related to right-wing evangelical "Christianity."

Since numerous court cases can be cited to show that this is, in fact, actually what often happens in the U.S., I find it odd that pointing it out gets such a hostile reaction from some here.

Tom

Well said. A good explanation of what I've apparently been unable to explain.

[John Smith]

Tom,

I don't agree with you at all that religion is the ultimate source of morality and ethics, and thus the root of modern secular laws. I think it's far more convincing to argue the opposite--that morality and ethics came first, probably for pragmatic reasons--can't have tribal members killing each other because it would be a threat to the entire tribe to lose members with special knowledge and expertise, not to mention simple labor force issues--and then religion was developed later, as a justification for, and as a reinforcement of, of those standards.

That's purely my own thinking, without doing any digging to see what the consensus might be among those who study this kind of thing. I gots no evidence, in other words.

Do you?

Because, when religion steps in to claim that all morality derives from religion, that seems pretty arrogant to me. It seems dismissive of the ethics and morals and values of those, like me, who don't feel a need for religion in their lives to be moral, ethical people (or to try to be, at least).

If a blanket condemnation of religion as a bad thing gets your goat, be aware that a blanket statement like "all morals and ethics ultimately derive from religion" is probably just as offensive to many non-religious people.

Tom

There is no actual connection between religious beliefs and being a moral person. I'm reminded of the breakfast when all the religious folk realized we were undercharged and were going to keep the money. I, the non believer, shamed them into correcting the math and paying the proper amount. Then there's my neighbor who's car got stolen who suddenly had an expensive set of golf clubs and an expensive camera in the car, when he had neither. Yet, he and his wife insisted his kids do the Sunday school thing, and they went to church fairly regularly.

[John Smith]

I'd suggest, if we look at recent history, that the courts decided the Hobby Lobby thing wrong. We have labor laws in this country, and they should override religious beliefs in a business.

Ponder the 'line' drawing. Should a religious organization be exempt from paying minimum wage? Or other laws that cover businesses employing people?

[TomF]

I haven't the energy today to argue all through this again.

[Dikhaut]

There is no actual connection between religious beliefs and being a moral person. I'm reminded of the breakfast when all the religious folk realized we were undercharged and were going to keep the money. I, the non believable, shamed them into correcting the math and paying the proper amount. Then there's my neighbor who's car got stolen who suddenly had an expensive set of golf clubs and an expensive camera in the car, when he had neither. Yet, he and his wife insisted his kids do the Sunday school thing, and they went to church fairly regularly.

Was it a Freudian slip calling yourself &ldquo;non believable&rdquo;?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Smith]

Was it a Freudian slip calling yourself “non believable”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OOPS! Thanks for noticing.

I was in a bit of a traffic jam this afternoon coming home from a trip to the Raritan Yacht Club (my old sailing port) as a cop was directing traffic as a large church was letting out. Given the number of cars and the number of pedestrians, that officer doing that job was a good thing. She kept some order and, probably saved some injuries. Safety is a good thing.

[Osborne Russell]

Because removing books in response to religious objectionsviolates the Establishment Clause as interpreted through the Lemon Test. Do try to keep up.

Well, first, they DON'T have the right to remove books for religious reasons.

Ok, so now you're talking about the Establishment Clause, and you're wrong. The Lemon test has to do with a law that has a religious purpose, not a religious motivation. A religious motivation for a law does not violate the Constitution. People have the right to have religious motivations, and to act on them.

In Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos (1987) the Supreme Court noted that the purpose prong's requirement of a secular legislative purpose doesn't mean that the law's purpose must be unrelated to religion, because this would amount to a requirement, in the words of Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952), at 314, "that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups." Instead, "Lemon's 'purpose' requirement aims at preventing the relevant governmental decisionmaker – here, Congress – from abandoning neutrality and acting with the intent of promoting a particular point of view in religious matters."

-- wikipedia

Second, you're stuck in binary thinking as usual. The usual "I'll defend to the death your right to say what you want, even (or perhaps especially) if I find it repugnant or offensive, because if we don't preserve the freedom for you to say whatever you want, all liberty disappears, game over, the republic dies, and liberalism fades away, its grand experiment failed."

The struggle is perpetual. The battles are won and lost a millimeter at a time.

Do you understand what a "ruling" is? One of the most binary things there is, and one of the most necessary.

Constitutional, or not, is a ruling.

[WI-Tom]

Ok, so now you're talking about the Establishment Clause, and you're wrong.

I was always talking about the Establishment Clause. I even used those words. Nice to see you've caught up.

As for the bolded bit:

Nope. I'm not. You misread me, or otherwise failed to understand what I'm saying. I'm not surprised. Hint: "legitimate secular purpose."

Under the current Trumpist USSC, the pendulum appears to be swinging toward accommodating the Free Exercise Clause and ignoring the Establishment Clause, but the Lemon Test has not yet been explicitly overruled.

Tom

[Osborne Russell]

Tom,

I don't agree with you at all that religion is the ultimate source of morality and ethics, and thus the root of modern secular laws. I think it's far more convincing to argue the opposite--that morality and ethics came first, probably for pragmatic reasons--can't have tribal members killing each other because it would be a threat to the entire tribe to lose members with special knowledge and expertise, not to mention simple labor force issues--and then religion was developed later, as a justification for, and as a reinforcement of, of those standards.

Whatever or whenever the origin, much law was made during the religious-rule period. If it was secular, it became religious. Now it can become secular again. Same law, verbatim, down the centuries. It's not invalid for having been law during a period of religious rule. In theory, the USA, in rejecting religion as a basis of sovereignty, laundered all existing law, as it were. English law no longer being the basis, everything had to be re-enacted on the new basis. That was often done wholesale, whole volumes at a time, just change the names. Occasionally a clinker, a holdover, may be found.

All but one state declared the English common law to be the law of the state unless and until altered by the state. That plainly didn't amount to a re-"establishment" of English rule; and if that law had a religious purpose in England, it wasn't ipso facto a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, as well as the precedents originating from it, as the default law because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state.

All US states have either implemented reception statutes or adopted the common law by judicial opinion, but there is a special case of partial reception for Louisiana.

-- wikipedia

[John Smith]

I fear we've wondered a bit.

Is it so 'off the wall' to think a law requiring a store to close on Sunday because opening violates the religious belief of some, even most, people in that community, is simply wrong? Is that not imposing one's religious views on others?

[skuthorp]

If a store is open every day of the week the employees get no days off, just some hours here and there depending on current industrial rules, or maybe the stores owners.
Doesn't have to be Sunday……….. but you cannot rely on a business to look after it's employees welfare, in America in particular. Of course family businesses have been a different matter forever, and if you are a subsistence farmer no one get's a day off ever.

[CWSmith]

I fear we've wondered a bit.

Is it so 'off the wall' to think a law requiring a store to close on Sunday because opening violates the religious belief of some, even most, people in that community, is simply wrong? Is that not imposing one's religious views on others?

Okay, John, you surprised me. I googled "Blue Laws" and there are still states that have them in effect (mostly hard liquor).

What's more uncomfortable is that Texas is now considering a law that requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom. This is one topic I can agree with you on although I happen to think that the Ten Commandments are a very good idea to live by.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/te...8d642d27&ei=43

[RFNK]

There's a world beyond ...

Religious interference extends well beyond banning books and picketing theatres. Taking action also often requires a lot more than voting.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tim...sh-school/amp/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-...rael/102153654

[WX]

No membership required. But even a stopped clock can be right twice a day <G>

[John Smith]

If a store is open every day of the week the employees get no days off, just some hours here and there depending on current industrial rules, or maybe the stores owners.
Doesn't have to be Sunday……….. but you cannot rely on a business to look after it's employees welfare, in America in particular. Of course family businesses have been a different matter forever, and if you are a subsistence farmer no one get's a day off ever.

Lot of assumptions in there, including the country worrying about labor as the minimum wage is still $7.25 an hour.

I get, from your post, that you, based on your religion, have the right to tell me when I can open or close my store.

[John Smith]

Okay, John, you surprised me. I googled "Blue Laws" and there are still states that have them in effect (mostly hard liquor).

What's more uncomfortable is that Texas is now considering a law that requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom. This is one topic I can agree with you on although I happen to think that the Ten Commandments are a very good idea to live by.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/te...8d642d27&ei=43

Unless it's changed recently, Bergen County in NJ still has blue laws. Used to be pretty wide spread. One could buy a record on Sunday, but not a pair of shoes.

That said, these laws were/are based on the religious beliefs of, I suppose, the majority of the people in Bergen County. I also suppose those people drive to other counties to shop on Sunday.

To me, it's kind of basic: You own a store and you have the right to open it whenever you wish. I'm sure your customers will decide what the best times are.

[John Smith]

That was quite cute. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. The way I learned it was our right to express our opinions is protected speech. Some speech is not protected; fraud, libel, slander, or inciting violence. The line is often fuzzy, but a car dealer to misrepresents a used car in some meaningful way, such as how many miles are on it, had violated the law. Inciting violence (Beat the hell out of him. I'll pay your legal fees) is not free speech.

We give politicians and "news" some kind of unwritten exemption, and we do so at our peril.