Religion's role

[TomF]

John, what you're not getting is the key point of my post. Your "Irrelevantist" premise is core to how you experience the world, and to how you believe decisions ought to be grounded in public policy. For you, those are issues which are in an entirelyseparate realm than what a person may do on a Sunday morning. That's fine, it's a legitimate view.

But a religious person's perspective is that the presence of God is fundamental to how the universe persists at all. That the notion that there's any sector of life, including public policy, which exists outside the universe of God's care and intention is like describing mammals breathing in the absence of air.

In a pluralistic society, it's not enough to permit people to spend Sundays as they'd wish, so long as God stays firmly out of civic affairs during the week. In a pluralistic society, of course nobody can impose their particular religious views - and I join you in condemning where it happens. But mutual respect means something much more engaging than allowing the kooks to be harmlessly kooky. It means understanding that religious and secular people think in different languages. It's important that I try to understand and value your way of thinking, but if we're to live well together in this pluralistic society it's also important that you reciprocate. Not just tolerate.

[RFNK]

Mutual respect, Tom? So, waving banners outside a movie theatre probably doesn't do real harm, so tolerable, so respecting that ought to be expected? But what about doing the same thing outside a clinic where abortions might be performed? A place where some poor kid, nervous as hell, has to run that gauntlet. Is it the same? I think not. I have no problem with protests outside a theatre. But protests outside a clinic? I strongly object to that.

[RFNK]

Mutual respect, Tom? So, waving banners outside a movie theatre probably doesn't do real harm, so tolerable, so respecting that ought to be expected? But what about doing the same thing outside a clinic where abortions might be performed? A place where some poor kid, nervous as hell, has to run that gauntlet. Is it the same? I think not. I have no problem with protests outside a theatre. But protests outside a clinic? I strongly object to that.

Let me point out, to stave off opportunists, that I don't think many truly spiritual people would do such a thing. But a tiny minority of very religious people do so, apparently.

[TomF]

100% that mutual respect means mutual. And that there are many, many examples of religious folks showing none.

I've already said that in a pluralistic society I find it unacceptable to force one's religious views on someone else, or write them into law. Pluralistic means plural.

I have a very hard time with anti-abortion folks holding gruesome signs outside clinics and harassing staff and clients. In my view such odious behavior still teeters just on the side of the free speech line, though when it topples into intimidation it's criminal.

How do you feel about secular people protesting outside such clinics, motivated by a belief that it's murder? They exist too, in smaller numbers. Is it the protest which bothers you, or the religious rationale behind much of it?

[TomF]

Full disclosure: the abortion clinic in my little town, (now closed due to the switch for 80% of abortions in my province to pharmaceutical) was on my walking route to work. For years I walked across the street from picketers holding the most grisly photos blown up to picket sign size. Most protesters were organized out of a local catholic church, but a dogged competing minority were loudly self proclaimed atheists.

[WI-Tom]

Since we have drifted, alot, I will restate my position.

Religion is not forcing views/ actions upon us.

All laws are backed by force. No other group is forcing laws/ beliefs upon us.

These beliefs, enshrined in law, whether pro gun, anti abortion, or ant-offshore oil drilling, arrive directly, or indirectly, through a democratic process. A good portion of our fellow citizens voted for these laws.

There will almost always be a good number of people dissatisfied with laws that are enacted. The source belief system of the people who voted Pro has no bearing on the actions and remedies available to those on the CON side.

Dont like anti-abortion laws? Hit the streets, knock on doors.
Dont like wind farms? March, picket.
Want stricter gun laws? Organize, lobby.

The source or reason for the oppositions viewpoint just doesnt matter. ( And, many cases, the voiced reason for the belief is just a story help divide and conquer people) The approaches available to citizens for dealing with it are the same.

As for non laws, coercing etc., these are largely subjective.

Though I agree it may be uncomfortable for some to cross a picket line or stand silent while your co-workers pray, or use a restroom with a person of different anatomy, this does not constitute forcing. We can choose to visit a non picketed business. We can excuse ourselves during the prayer, or, in the extreme, find another job. ( I would ask why one would surround onself with such a diametrically opposed group in the first place?) We can find another toilet, hold it or go pee in the woods.

We have choices. In all but the most extreme cases of actual coercion, for which legal remedy exists.

And, we can fight these things if we choose to. Regardless of their source.

Kevin

Your position seems to be that it's OK to disregard the Establishment Clause and pass laws that impose religious beliefs on others through legislation. That there is essentially no difference between religiously motivated legislation, and secularly motivated legislation.

The position of the constitution and the First Amendment is directly at odds with your position.

You also appear very dismissive of the real fears and objections people have about the effect of coercion on their "choices," and the effect that coercion has on individuals who suffer from it.

That has always been the perspective of the oppressor toward the oppressed.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

100% that mutual respect means mutual. And that there are many, many examples of religious folks showing none.

I've already said that in a pluralistic society I find it unacceptable to force one's religious views on someone else, or write them into law. Pluralistic means plural.

I have a very hard time with anti-abortion folks holding gruesome signs outside clinics and harassing staff and clients. In my view such odious behavior still teeters just on the side of the free speech line, though when it topples into intimidation it's criminal.

How do you feel about secular people protesting outside such clinics, motivated by a belief that it's murder? They exist too, in smaller numbers. Is it the protest which bothers you, or the religious rationale behind much of it?

It's a fair question.

But, contemptible as I find such protests, they are not government protests. And so, even when they are religiously motivated (as most are--you're stretching a bit to divert attention away from that in my opinion), they do not run afoul of the First Amendment's protections against laws that promote or encourage specific religions.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

John, what you're not getting is the key point of my post. Your "Irrelevantist" premise is core to how you experience the world, and to how you believe decisions ought to be grounded in public policy. For you, those are issues which are in an entirelyseparate realm than what a person may do on a Sunday morning. That's fine, it's a legitimate view.

But a religious person's perspective is that the presence of God is fundamental to how the universe persists at all. That the notion that there's any sector of life, including public policy, which exists outside the universe of God's care and intention is like describing mammals breathing in the absence of air.

In a pluralistic society, it's not enough to permit people to spend Sundays as they'd wish, so long as God stays firmly out of civic affairs during the week. In a pluralistic society, of course nobody can impose their particular religious views - and I join you in condemning where it happens. But mutual respect means something much more engaging than allowing the kooks to be harmlessly kooky. It means understanding that religious and secular people think in different languages. It's important that I try to understand and value your way of thinking, but if we're to live well together in this pluralistic society it's also important that you reciprocate. Not just tolerate.

That's a reasonable position, Tom, but I can't quite bring myself to agree fully. Again, for me the distinction hinges on the nature of a secular democracy.

With the Establishment Clause, the U.S. set into play a set of ideals and values of government in which a fundamental principle is: No one can be allowed to have their religious beliefs and values supported with the force of law. Because, as you've said, the nation is pluralistic (even at the time it was established, this was true; it's much more so now). And if equality and freedom mean anything, they mean something like "No one religious group can be allowed to give their beliefs, requirements, and restrictions the status of laws--because to do that would be to restrict the freedoms of those who do not share those beliefs.

I don't believe, under those conditions, that full reciprocation is intended, or even possible.

By definition, our nation has decreed that religious people are denied full participation in government, has it not? Because an atheist can put any of their beliefs into law without violating the Establishment Clause. But a religious person cannot. They are, in some instances, denied the right that every atheist enjoys. By design.

I am very skeptical of the idea that religion and secular democracy are entirely compatible. By design, religion is tolerated--largely on the basis of the undeniable social and physical benefits they bring to their communities--but it is also deliberately excluded from full participation in democratic governance. It must be very difficult for a person with sincere religious beliefs to resist the temptation to enshrine their beliefs into laws. Quite frequently, they do NOT resist that temptation. And that puts them into conflict with the rule of law, and erodes the trust that non-religious people have in their ability to accept the fundamental principles of our secular government.

The fact is, our government is designed with something less than full respect toward religion. It views religion, backed by the state, as a terrible danger. And if history has anything to say on that, it is correct to do so.

In effect, a secular democracy tolerates religion, but does not grant it the full reciprocation that you might like to see. It's going too far to say that, by design, religious people are second-class citizens. But it's also very true that they are not allowed to write their beliefs into law, which is a right that every non-religious person DOES have.

Tom

[skuthorp]

Everybody has that right, but not to the disadvantage of any other.

Part of the problem always is that the religious cannot comprehend an 'absence of belief', a 'nothing' and consequently often attempt to lump atheism in as a belief. I argued that one with SamF for a couple of years. Those with no belief have nothing to sell. Some of those with a religious belief most certainly do. I do not call myself any kind of 'theist' it's just not relevant.
However I do like to chip in occasionally in the perennial circular argument.

I do add though I have met Atheists (NB Capital letter) who are just as prothelising as any missionary on the street.

[RFNK]

100% that mutual respect means mutual. And that there are many, many examples of religious folks showing none.

I've already said that in a pluralistic society I find it unacceptable to force one's religious views on someone else, or write them into law. Pluralistic means plural.

I have a very hard time with anti-abortion folks holding gruesome signs outside clinics and harassing staff and clients. In my view such odious behavior still teeters just on the side of the free speech line, though when it topples into intimidation it's criminal.

How do you feel about secular people protesting outside such clinics, motivated by a belief that it's murder? They exist too, in smaller numbers. Is it the protest which bothers you, or the religious rationale behind much of it?

Yes, in that case, certainly it's the protest rather than the motivation. The motivation, though, although a separate issue, is a relevant issue. I mean, if a belief system, secular or religious, drives such insensitivity (at best) or malice (at worst), then the belief system (is it necessarily a system?) or at least the interpretation, is surely questionable.

Tom, my own view on this is that many of those who intimidate people at these clinics are not spiritual (I don't have a more suitable word) but, rather, use religion as an excuse for their bad behaviour.

[skuthorp]

That's a kind of psycholgical blackmail using fear as the hook. I am always surprised however how many people are 'shopping' and hence vulnerable to the religious charlatans as well as the political variety. Of course there's the fear of loss of face, admitting that you have been fooled in the first place.

[Keith Wilson]

Those with no belief have nothing to sell.

Oh, I dunno; Richard Dawkins sold a lot of copies of 'The God Delusion'. I do understand your point, though. Pretty good book, BTW.

[TomF]

..Tom, my own view on this is that many of those who intimidate people at these clinics are not spiritual (I don't have a more suitable word) but, rather, use religion as an excuse for their bad behaviour.

I really waffle on that. It's certainly not any spirituality that I personally participate in. But if I truly, in my heart of hearts thought that aborting a cluster of cells the size of a pencil tip was exactly equivalent to murder, that all life was as sacred, no matter what stage...?

And it isn't nothing. Herself miscarried twice, as has The Daughter. The stage at which they miscarried was pretty close to the stage where most abortions occur. The grief they felt (and still feel) is for the lives not lived, the futures not able to be pursued. I've long felt that we need to face the killing involved in abortions, and name it as killing; sometimes killing is justifiable, other times not. I don't want to get into the whole "who's the decision maker" thing, because frankly I think that's also more fraught than simply saying "a woman's body." She didn't get pregnant alone, and the life or death of the fetus has lifelong implications for the potential child, for her, and also for the guy.

That said, I also agree with you that many of these protests become places where people feel entirely justified in acting in incredibly awful ways. My religious sense says "sinful" ways. There's no scrap of Jesus' teaching which ever counsels the humiliation, public vilification, shaming, intimidation, and sometimes murder of anyone in such a situation. Zip. I'd argue that the face of Christ is the face of the women (and occasionally their male partners), and the face of the clinic staff who accompany the women through those lines. Sometimes the faces of the clinicians (though I'd argue not, in other cases). We know that Jesus would have had the backs of these women, because we've got instance after instance of Jesus having the backs of similar women who he actually spent time with in stories recorded in the Gospels.

This "righteous" shaming and hollering in the name of Christ ... oy. It's got a whole lot in common with how the Right has acted in its authoritarian turn recently - the justification of being dangerously offensive, the radicalization, the blindness to hypocrisy. It isn't Christlike, it's frequently closer to the demonic.

[L.W. Baxter]

I really waffle on that. It's certainly not any spirituality that I personally participate in. But if I truly, in my heart of hearts thought that aborting a cluster of cells the size of a pencil tip was exactly equivalent to murder, that all life was as sacred, no matter what stage...?

And it isn't nothing. Herself miscarried twice, as has The Daughter. The stage at which they miscarried was pretty close to the stage where most abortions occur. The grief they felt (and still feel) is for the lives not lived, the futures not able to be pursued. I've long felt that we need to face the killing involved in abortions, and name it as killing; sometimes killing is justifiable, other times not. I don't want to get into the whole "who's the decision maker" thing, because frankly I think that's also more fraught than simply saying "a woman's body." She didn't get pregnant alone, and the life or death of the fetus has lifelong implications for the potential child, for her, and also for the guy...

i feel much the same on all counts. in a better world, supporters of reproductive choice could afford such a subtle conversation. but, we are forced to traffic in absolutes in response to absolutes.

[Breakaway]

Your position seems to be that it's OK to disregard the Establishment Clause and pass laws that impose religious beliefs on others through legislation. That there is essentially no difference between religiously motivated legislation, and secularly motivated legislation.

The position of the constitution and the First Amendment is directly at odds with your position.

You also appear very dismissive of the real fears and objections people have about the effect of coercion on their "choices," and the effect that coercion has on individuals who suffer from it.

That has always been the perspective of the oppressor toward the oppressed.

Tom

Tom, I am not in a position to quarrel about the Establishment Clause, though my rudimentary understanding of it differs from yours. I will need to bone up.

On coercion, I truly understand that we humans are a medley of bold, meek, strong, weak, young, old etc.

Some of us will be intimidated by the most peaceful and quiet marchers with signs. Others of us will not be daunted by the loudest and coarsest advocate for a cause. And, every flavor in between. Free speech and expression comes at some costs, and, Ill repeat, the system is not perfect.

Of course actual physical force applied is against the law and may be punished. Its good to remember that, often, laws do not so much prevent crime as they do offer a form of punishment. Its unfortunate, but broken people walk among us. Dealing with them is rarely pleasant or predictable.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[CWSmith]

I really waffle on that. It's certainly not any spirituality that I personally participate in. But if I truly, in my heart of hearts thought that aborting a cluster of cells the size of a pencil tip was exactly equivalent to murder, that all life was as sacred, no matter what stage...?

And it isn't nothing. Herself miscarried twice, as has The Daughter. The stage at which they miscarried was pretty close to the stage where most abortions occur. The grief they felt (and still feel) is for the lives not lived, the futures not able to be pursued. I've long felt that we need to face the killing involved in abortions, and name it as killing; sometimes killing is justifiable, other times not. I don't want to get into the whole "who's the decision maker" thing, because frankly I think that's also more fraught than simply saying "a woman's body." She didn't get pregnant alone, and the life or death of the fetus has lifelong implications for the potential child, for her, and also for the guy.

That said, I also agree with you that many of these protests become places where people feel entirely justified in acting in incredibly awful ways. My religious sense says "sinful" ways. There's no scrap of Jesus' teaching which ever counsels the humiliation, public vilification, shaming, intimidation, and sometimes murder of anyone in such a situation. Zip. I'd argue that the face of Christ is the face of the women (and occasionally their male partners), and the face of the clinic staff who accompany the women through those lines. Sometimes the faces of the clinicians (though I'd argue not, in other cases). We know that Jesus would have had the backs of these women, because we've got instance after instance of Jesus having the backs of similar women who he actually spent time with in stories recorded in the Gospels.

This "righteous" shaming and hollering in the name of Christ ... oy. It's got a whole lot in common with how the Right has acted in its authoritarian turn recently - the justification of being dangerously offensive, the radicalization, the blindness to hypocrisy. It isn't Christlike, it's frequently closer to the demonic.

A relative of mine had her water break early in the pregnancy (I think it was 4 months or so?) before the fetus was viable. The doctors said that the child was being crushed in the womb and if they did not do a D&C she ran the risk of infection that would render her sterile. It's a terrible situation to consider. Our Catholic priest (yes, Catholic) said to do what the doctors recommended and don't feel guilty about it. She did. She named and buried the fetus and two years later had a son.

Life is complicated and the big questions seldom result in simple answers. It's our job as people of faith to search out the morally correct answer and support others in their time of need. I suppose that's why I get tired of people who reject faith telling us what people of faith believe. They don't know. They are on the outside looking in and more than often they are not willing to listen.

[TomF]

Well said, CW.

[Keith Wilson]

I suppose that's why I get tired of people who reject faith telling us what people of faith believe. They don't know. They are on the outside looking in and more than often they are not willing to listen.

The problem is that there's not an answer to 'What do people of faith believe?' - at least not one answer, or even a hundred. And the loudest voices are, well, loudest, but not at all necessarily representative.

A thought experiment: What do 'people of faith' think about abortion?

[John Smith]

Since we have drifted, alot, I will restate my position.

Religion is not forcing views/ actions upon us.

All laws are backed by force. No other group is forcing laws/ beliefs upon us.

These beliefs, enshrined in law, whether pro gun, anti abortion, or ant-offshore oil drilling, arrive directly, or indirectly, through a democratic process. A good portion of our fellow citizens voted for these laws.

There will almost always be a good number of people dissatisfied with laws that are enacted. The source belief system of the people who voted Pro has no bearing on the actions and remedies available to those on the CON side.

Dont like anti-abortion laws? Hit the streets, knock on doors.
Dont like wind farms? March, picket.
Want stricter gun laws? Organize, lobby.

The source or reason for the oppositions viewpoint just doesnt matter. ( And, many cases, the voiced reason for the belief is just a story help divide and conquer people) The approaches available to citizens for dealing with it are the same.

As for non laws, coercing etc., these are largely subjective.

Though I agree it may be uncomfortable for some to cross a picket line or stand silent while your co-workers pray, or use a restroom with a person of different anatomy, this does not constitute forcing. We can choose to visit a non picketed business. We can excuse ourselves during the prayer, or, in the extreme, find another job. ( I would ask why one would surround onself with such a diametrically opposed group in the first place?) We can find another toilet, hold it or go pee in the woods.

We have choices. In all but the most extreme cases of actual coercion, for which legal remedy exists.

And, we can fight these things if we choose to. Regardless of their source.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Had a conversation at lunch with a guy who's anti-gay and really anti-trans. His argument: Not what God intended. How is his efforts to prevent trans surgeries or deny gays any rights NOT religion being forced, if the can, on others?

[John Smith]

John, what you're not getting is the key point of my post. Your "Irrelevantist" premise is core to how you experience the world, and to how you believe decisions ought to be grounded in public policy. For you, those are issues which are in an entirelyseparate realm than what a person may do on a Sunday morning. That's fine, it's a legitimate view.

But a religious person's perspective is that the presence of God is fundamental to how the universe persists at all. That the notion that there's any sector of life, including public policy, which exists outside the universe of God's care and intention is like describing mammals breathing in the absence of air.

In a pluralistic society, it's not enough to permit people to spend Sundays as they'd wish, so long as God stays firmly out of civic affairs during the week. In a pluralistic society, of course nobody can impose their particular religious views - and I join you in condemning where it happens. But mutual respect means something much more engaging than allowing the kooks to be harmlessly kooky. It means understanding that religious and secular people think in different languages. It's important that I try to understand and value your way of thinking, but if we're to live well together in this pluralistic society it's also important that you reciprocate. Not just tolerate.

Public policy, which impacts all people of whatever, or no, faith, ought not be based upon someone's faith. Anyone, of any faith, is entitled to practice that faith. Others are entitled to not practice it.

That seems, to me, rather basic.

[John Smith]

I really waffle on that. It's certainly not any spirituality that I personally participate in. But if I truly, in my heart of hearts thought that aborting a cluster of cells the size of a pencil tip was exactly equivalent to murder, that all life was as sacred, no matter what stage...?

And it isn't nothing. Herself miscarried twice, as has The Daughter. The stage at which they miscarried was pretty close to the stage where most abortions occur. The grief they felt (and still feel) is for the lives not lived, the futures not able to be pursued. I've long felt that we need to face the killing involved in abortions, and name it as killing; sometimes killing is justifiable, other times not. I don't want to get into the whole "who's the decision maker" thing, because frankly I think that's also more fraught than simply saying "a woman's body." She didn't get pregnant alone, and the life or death of the fetus has lifelong implications for the potential child, for her, and also for the guy.

That said, I also agree with you that many of these protests become places where people feel entirely justified in acting in incredibly awful ways. My religious sense says "sinful" ways. There's no scrap of Jesus' teaching which ever counsels the humiliation, public vilification, shaming, intimidation, and sometimes murder of anyone in such a situation. Zip. I'd argue that the face of Christ is the face of the women (and occasionally their male partners), and the face of the clinic staff who accompany the women through those lines. Sometimes the faces of the clinicians (though I'd argue not, in other cases). We know that Jesus would have had the backs of these women, because we've got instance after instance of Jesus having the backs of similar women who he actually spent time with in stories recorded in the Gospels.

This "righteous" shaming and hollering in the name of Christ ... oy. It's got a whole lot in common with how the Right has acted in its authoritarian turn recently - the justification of being dangerously offensive, the radicalization, the blindness to hypocrisy. It isn't Christlike, it's frequently closer to the demonic.

Picketing a theater or an abortion clinic is an effort to intimidate or coerce based on beliefs, no?

I must be overly simplistic. If one does not believe in abortion, don't get one. If one does not wish to see a movie, don't enter the theater. If you wish to pray, pray. If you wish to attend church, attend. If you wish not to, don't attend.

I will be somewhat tolerant of your views, and would want you to be somewhat tolerant of mine. There are MANY different religions in the world; they cannot all the the one, the only, true religion, but people are free to believe as they wish.

I wonder what people of any faith in the US feel about how some religions treat women.

I've often said that my view is the existence, or non existence, of a God is irrelevant. That does NOT mean what people believe is not relevant.

[David G]

[TomF]

Public policy, which impacts all people of whatever, or no, faith, ought not be based upon someone's faith. Anyone, of any faith, is entitled to practice that faith. Others are entitled to not practice it.

That seems, to me, rather basic.

As I said earlier, John, while I'm not about to claim that being "An Irrelevantist" is your religion ... it is absolutely your baseline premise about religion. It is the foundational aspect of how you structure your every response when questions like the ones we're discussing arise.

Let's imagine for a moment that there's an election going on, and that you and I each support the same proposed policy (as in many cases we would). You for your set of "irrelevantist-informed" reasons and me for my set of reasons which include my Faith perspective. Should I be permitted to support the policy alongside you? Should I be permitted to vote for the candidate who'd try to implement it, as you would?

Is it acceptable to you that the Civil Rights movement was deeply grounded in the faith of members of the Black churches? Or should Dr. King have not been permitted to be part of the movement, or to have quoted various Biblical passages about justice?

[WI-Tom]

Let's imagine for a moment that there's an election going on, and that you and I each support the same proposed policy (as in many cases we would). You for your set of "irrelevantist-informed" reasons and me for my set of reasons which include my Faith perspective. Should I be permitted to support the policy alongside you? Should I be permitted to vote for the candidate who'd try to implement it, as you would?

Tom,

the point is, if a religious person AND an "irrelevantist" or an atheist or even a religious person from another tradition all support the same policy, as in your scenario, then that policy (if it became law) would not violate the Establishment Clause. Just as a policy against murder--common to many religious traditions, and ALSO common to secular traditions--is not an attempt to impose specific religious beliefs on others through legislation.

But when a religious group tries to pass anti-gay or anti-trans legislation almost entirely because their particular religious tradition demands it, well, then that's a big problem, and a violation of the constitution.

It's messy to sort out intentions and prove beyond all doubt that a proposed policy is primarily motivated by the concerns of a specific religious tradition. But can you show me significant support from groups other than right-wing evangelical Christians (and Catholics in Central/Eastern Europe, and parts of Africa) for anti-gay, anti-trans policies?

I think John and I see this along similar lines: a perspective that recognizes that religious beliefs, however sincere and beneficial, are not allowed to be supported by government action or legislation. You might think that's an arbitrary decision, or a bad one; you might think that religious people should have the right to enlist government support or write their beliefs into law.

But the way the law of the land currently stands, that is not allowed in the U.S. (Or should not be--the current USSC is changing that as quickly as they can, it seems). So the answer to your question is:

Yes, you can vote for any candidate you want. And no, your candidate cannot put your religious beliefs into law no matter how much you'd approve if she did so.

Tom

[TomF]

How about if a coalition of religious and "Irrelevantist" people decide to implement anti-trans or anti-gay policies?

Really. You actually think that every damned Republican lawmaker is Christian? Or just finds it useful to spout God language to curry votes.

My religious beliefs include full acceptance of LGBTQ people as citizens with rights, because they're as much created "in the image of God" as any of us. Am I not permitted to have those religious beliefs reflected in law? I'd refuse to vote for a candidate who wouldn't.

[David G]

Didn't someone mention 'pretzel logic'? They were right... it seems to be rampant.

[Keith Wilson]

But the way the law of the land currently stands, that is not allowed in the U.S. (Or should not be . . . .

Sorry, but this is simply not true. You really appear not to understand the Establishment Clause. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it; nothing more. This prohibits a state religion, and laws enforcing religious observance, but not much else. If someone has ethical ideas that derive from their religion (abortion is wrong, slavery should be prohibited, women should be subordinate, all people are created equal in God's image, take your pick) they have as much right as you or I do to vote for people that will try to write those ideas into law. This is not an 'establishment of religion'; it's every citizen's right.

[TomF]

Does anyone actually think that Trump's a "Christian," for instance? There are many "accidentally open microphone" episodes where before or after his cadre of Nationalist "ministers" prayed over him or laid hands on him, he let fly with comments like "can you believe this bullsh#t?"

It's certainly cult-like, populist Nationalism - but it isn't religious any more than the Nazis or Italian Fascists were religious. Trump is a con man, believing essentially in nothing at all. I'm convinced that many around him are no different - Alex Jones? Stephen Miller? Steve Bannon? These are not "religious" people, whatever pose they take. But absolutely they're racists, homophobes etc., and couch their encouragements to people to unleash their inner hatreds in Religious terminology.

But it would be as foolish and inaccurate to describe them as "Christians" as to describe them as "Constitution-loving Patriots." It floors me that folks have zero difficulty getting incensed by the perversion of the latter term, but feel essentially nothing but confirmation with their perversion of the former.

[WI-Tom]

How about if a coalition of religious and "Irrelevantist" people decide to implement anti-trans or anti-gay policies?

Show me any meaningful level of support for anti-trans/anti-gay policy from non-religious groups or individuals, and then we can decide if that question is worth answering. Because I don't think you'll find any basis other than religious belief and dogma--much of it Christian--for that kind of thing.

Really. You actually think that every damned Republican lawmaker is Christian? Or just finds it useful to spout God language to curry votes.

How on earth did you get the idea that I think every Republican lawmaker is a Christian, Tom? I've made no such statement (though as it turns out, 88.1% of all current lawmakers, R and D, do identify as Christian according to Pew Research--and only 3 total Republicans do NOT identify as Christian).

I think probably all of that 88.1% find it useful in vote-getting.

But that's not the point. Not at all.

My religious beliefs include full acceptance of LGBTQ people as citizens with rights, because they're as much created "in the image of God" as any of us. Am I not permitted to have those religious beliefs reflected in law? I'd refuse to vote for a candidate who wouldn't.

The point is, the First Amendment absolutely prohibits Congress from passing any laws "respecting an establishment of religion." Cornell Law's website explains it this way:

This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.

While your religious views might include LGBTQ+ rights, acknowledging those rights is a shared set of values with other religions, and other secular groups, across a wide cross section of society. The Central Conference of American Rabbis. The Union for Reform Judaism. Buddhism. Atheists. In just the same way, prohibitions against murder, while certainly a part of your religious beliefs, are widespread--so laws against murder do not unduly favor one religion over another.

But if your religious beliefs included a belief that men must wear beards, then having that belief reflected in the law would likely NOT be permissible. Because many religions and secular groups do NOT share that belief; enshrining it in law would unduly favor your religion over other religions and also over non-religious people.

Sure, it can be messy to sort out particulars. But the principle is easy: No. You are NOT permitted to have any and all of your religious beliefs reflected in law. But yes, you CAN vote for whoever you want. (They can't pass the beard law either, though).

Religion and secular democracy really don't seem to be a good fit to me. Nor to the founders of the U.S. That's why they restricted their rights to impose their beliefs on others.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

You really appear not to understand the Establishment Clause.

Quite the opposite, Keith. I understand it. And if you think it does not prohibit laws that unduly favor one religion over another, you have completely missed the boat on that one.

There are ABSOLUTELY laws that cannot be passed, if the First Amendment were taken seriously. A law that all women must wear burkas. Or all men must wear beards. Or all men must be polygamists.

Once the principle is understood, and granted, then all that remains is the messy and inexact process of reasoning out which laws unduly favor certain religions over other belief sets, and which do not. I have a hard time believing that you have any rational grounds on which to disagree.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Does anyone actually think that Trump's a "Christian," for instance? There are many "accidentally open microphone" episodes where before or after his cadre of Nationalist "ministers" prayed over him or laid hands on him, he let fly with comments like "can you believe this bullsh#t?"

It's certainly cult-like, populist Nationalism - but it isn't religious any more than the Nazis or Italian Fascists were religious. Trump is a con man, believing essentially in nothing at all. I'm convinced that many around him are no different - Alex Jones? Stephen Miller? Steve Bannon? These are not "religious" people, whatever pose they take. But absolutely they're racists, homophobes etc., and couch their encouragements to people to unleash their inner hatreds in Religious terminology.

But it would be as foolish and inaccurate to describe them as "Christians" as to describe them as "Constitution-loving Patriots." It floors me that folks have zero difficulty getting incensed by the perversion of the latter term, but feel essentially nothing but confirmation with their perversion of the former.

At the risk of misinterpreting his stance, I believe Keith has posted numerous times that he believes anyone who calls themselves a Christian IS a Christian. And I have posted numerous times to disagree with him about that.

Tom

[John Smith]

As I said earlier, John, while I'm not about to claim that being "An Irrelevantist" is your religion ... it is absolutely your baseline premise about religion. It is the foundational aspect of how you structure your every response when questions like the ones we're discussing arise.

Let's imagine for a moment that there's an election going on, and that you and I each support the same proposed policy (as in many cases we would). You for your set of "irrelevantist-informed" reasons and me for my set of reasons which include my Faith perspective. Should I be permitted to support the policy alongside you? Should I be permitted to vote for the candidate who'd try to implement it, as you would?

Is it acceptable to you that the Civil Rights movement was deeply grounded in the faith of members of the Black churches? Or should Dr. King have not been permitted to be part of the movement, or to have quoted various Biblical passages about justice?

Vote for whom you wish for whatever reasons you wish. That said, elected people represent ALL of us, or are supposed to. If they pass laws based upon their religious beliefs rather than the welfare of the people, I think they've overstepped. If you, and your wife, are of a faith that requires women to wear some form of head covering, that's fine, but it would be wrong to pass that requirement of your religion onto all the women of the country regardless of what their beliefs are.

Above I referenced a conversation where a gentleman is opposed to gay/trans based on his belief the God doesn't make anyone that way. Wasn't all that long ago that many religious people didn't believe God made lefties, and many lefties were forced to write with their right hand.

What people believe IS relevant: if enough believe the same thing they can force others to comply. That's where they lose me. The right to hold beliefs is not the right to force others to hold those beliefs.

[John Smith]

How about if a coalition of religious and "Irrelevantist" people decide to implement anti-trans or anti-gay policies?

Really. You actually think that every damned Republican lawmaker is Christian? Or just finds it useful to spout God language to curry votes.

My religious beliefs include full acceptance of LGBTQ people as citizens with rights, because they're as much created "in the image of God" as any of us. Am I not permitted to have those religious beliefs reflected in law? I'd refuse to vote for a candidate who wouldn't.

Speaking for myself, I cannot put myself in another's body. YOUR religion may accept these people. I may accept these people. However, the only people I've ever met who do not accept these people cite GOD as their reason; it's against God's will.

[John Smith]

Sorry, but this is simply not true. You really appear not to understand the Establishment Clause. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it; nothing more. This prohibits a state religion, and laws enforcing religious observance, but not much else. If someone has ethical ideas that derive from their religion (abortion is wrong, slavery should be prohibited, women should be subordinate, all people are created equal in God's image, take your pick) they have as much right as you or I do to vote for people that will try to write those ideas into law. This is not an 'establishment of religion'; it's every citizen's right.

I agree with all of that. And as long as they write no laws based upon religious beliefs, I'm fine.

[John Smith]

Does anyone actually think that Trump's a "Christian," for instance? There are many "accidentally open microphone" episodes where before or after his cadre of Nationalist "ministers" prayed over him or laid hands on him, he let fly with comments like "can you believe this bullsh#t?"

It's certainly cult-like, populist Nationalism - but it isn't religious any more than the Nazis or Italian Fascists were religious. Trump is a con man, believing essentially in nothing at all. I'm convinced that many around him are no different - Alex Jones? Stephen Miller? Steve Bannon? These are not "religious" people, whatever pose they take. But absolutely they're racists, homophobes etc., and couch their encouragements to people to unleash their inner hatreds in Religious terminology.

But it would be as foolish and inaccurate to describe them as "Christians" as to describe them as "Constitution-loving Patriots." It floors me that folks have zero difficulty getting incensed by the perversion of the latter term, but feel essentially nothing but confirmation with their perversion of the former.

Seems to me anyone can call themselves a Christian. Who gets to decide if they are or not? How would you, or whomever, determine whether or not someone's a Christian? Obviously people can claim that label, but not live by it. Others may not claim that label but live a more honest life.......