[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Sep 16 2009, 08:07 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 16 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Sep 16 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

barmar, on Sep 16 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform?

So sorry but I can't stand not to butt in.

The statement made was "imposing their beliefs on others". That does not imply only moral beliefs.

What sorts of amoral beliefs do you have in mind that serve as an impetus for enacting laws?

Doesn't really change the nature of the question, though:

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that are grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that aren't grounded in religion?

Thanks for the change, but in my mind it is a quite different question now.

Religious beliefs can be extremely narrow and in fact may differ greatly from the best interests of the many, whereas a secular belief can only be based on a general agreement of many as to what is in the best interests of the many.

Example of a narrow belief: mandatory teaching in public school science classes of Intelligent Design as a viable alternative theory to that of the theory of evolution.

Edit: Btw, I don't think this narrow belief system is the sole exclusive property of the religious right - they simply are the ones making the most noise these days. There are plenty of self-interested secular groups who would not have the interests of the many at heart

[helene_t]

barmar, on Sep 16 2009, 09:49 PM, said:

I think the word that's often used to describe these "religious atheists" is "spiritual".

My impression is that the word "spiritual" can refer to a personal belief, as opposed to religion which is (per definition) based in a doctrine shared with other people. I may consider my belief in the law of total tricks parts of my spirituality. I may not. Depends how I perceive my belief.

If I invent my own secret belief system, I may describe it as spiritual (if that is the way I perceive it) but it wouldn't be a religion. If I convince thousands of people to adopt my belief system, it may have become a religion (if it contains the ingredients of a religion, I think it must have both a moral, a mythical and a ceremonial component, but maybe some would say that one or two of the criteria suffice).

The religious atheist may belong to some atheistic denomination (such as Kunfutsianism, Marxism, or some New Age cult), or he may believe in sufficient key elements of some theist religion to consider himself religious. For example he may worship Jesus and believe in miracles performed by Jesus, but not believe in God.

[barmar]

Lobowolf, on Sep 16 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 16 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Sep 16 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

barmar, on Sep 16 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform?

So sorry but I can't stand not to butt in.

The statement made was "imposing their beliefs on others". That does not imply only moral beliefs.

What sorts of amoral beliefs do you have in mind that serve as an impetus for enacting laws?

Doesn't really change the nature of the question, though:

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that are grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that aren't grounded in religion?

An example of beliefs unrelated to morality would be evolution vs. creationism. The groups trying to get Independent Design included in public school curricula are trying to enact laws based on religious beliefs.

There are also terrorist groups that play on religious beliefs to incite violence (e.g. the promise of an afterlife in paradise to suicide bombers).

There are certainly many cases where religious and secular morality coincide, e.g. both codes are against murder.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Sep 16 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

a secular belief can only be based on a general agreement of many as to what is in the best interests of the many.

Strongly disagree with this statement. I think it's logically a non-starter, as "general agreement" comes from the beliefs; beliefs don't come from agreement.

Moreover, secular beliefs don't have to be tied into "the best interests of the many." Lots of people have strong secular beliefs that are libertarian, or supportive of private property or autonomy rights, even if those are to the detriment of the many.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on Sep 16 2009, 09:33 PM, said:

Edit: Btw, I don't think this narrow belief system is the sole exclusive property of the religious right - they simply are the ones making the most noise these days. There are plenty of self-interested secular groups who would not have the interests of the many at heart

Of course, many people are narrow-minded for a wide variety of reasons. But when religion is invoked, it becomes very difficult to have a reasoned debate with them.

And not only are the religious groups the most noisy, but they're almost certainly the largest and best organized. You can't have a rational discussion with conspiracy theorists, but it doesn't matter much because there aren't so many of them and they don't have much influence. Between these two extremes there are groups like environmentalists -- while some of them may be extremists, they tend to be the exceptions, not the mainstream members.

Society also grants an elevated status to religious groups and beliefs. If a parent refuses medical treatment for their child, it might be granted if they cited religious reasons, but not if they say it's because the drug cartels are peddling unnecessary treatments. The court would ask them for proof of the latter claim, but religious arguments are beyond such requirements.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Sep 17 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 16 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

a secular belief can only be based on a general agreement of many as to what is in the best interests of the many.

Strongly disagree with this statement. I think it's logically a non-starter, as "general agreement" comes from the beliefs; beliefs don't come from agreement.

Moreover, secular beliefs don't have to be tied into "the best interests of the many." Lots of people have strong secular beliefs that are libertarian, or supportive of private property or autonomy rights, even if those are to the detriment of the many.

O.K., that's fair enough. Then it might be better stated that a secular belief comes from independent thought while theist beliefs come from mandates.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Sep 18 2009, 01:35 AM, said:

O.K., that's fair enough.  Then it might be better stated that a secular belief comes from independent thought while theist beliefs come from mandates.

I don't think that is always the case.

Many people (I know you are one of them) have once had a religious belief, due to indoctrination, and have later in life come to a non-religious Worldview through more independent thought (although entirely independent thought probably does not exist, we usually if not always take inspiration from others).

But there are examples of the opposite. Fluffy, for example, came to a theist (though maybe not religious) belief by himself.

[barmar]

And if you go back far enough, someone had to have the first theist beliefs, which he then passed on as a mandate. Although another possibility is that he didn't really hold these beliefs; he was a charismatic man who realized that he could use these mandates as a way to control people. For instance, tribal witch doctors don't actually have to believe their voodoo for it to be effective, they just need their patients to believe it (one idea is that it's a combination of hypnotism and placebo effects).

[Lobowolf]

These are sort of interesting distinctions, but I don't find them very persuasive as far as the assertion that the religious right are any more inclined to impose their beliefs on others via leglislation than the non-religious-right (including "spiritual" people).

[barmar]

Lobowolf, on Sep 18 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

These are sort of interesting distinctions, but I don't find them very persuasive as far as the assertion that the religious right are any more inclined to impose their beliefs on others via leglislation than the non-religious-right (including "spiritual" people).

Of course, all legislation is some group imposing their beliefs on others.

The question is whether their reasons for imposing them are compelling enough that they should be permitted to.

[mike777]

barmar, on Sep 18 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Sep 18 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

These are sort of interesting distinctions, but I don't find them very persuasive as far as the assertion that the religious right are any more inclined to impose their beliefs on others via leglislation than the non-religious-right (including "spiritual" people).

Of course, all legislation is some group imposing their beliefs on others.

The question is whether their reasons for imposing them are compelling enough that they should be permitted to.

Who decides this?

[barmar]

mike777, on Sep 18 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

barmar, on Sep 18 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Sep 18 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

These are sort of interesting distinctions, but I don't find them very persuasive as far as the assertion that the religious right are any more inclined to impose their beliefs on others via leglislation than the non-religious-right (including "spiritual" people).

Of course, all legislation is some group imposing their beliefs on others.

The question is whether their reasons for imposing them are compelling enough that they should be permitted to.

Who decides this?

I'll volunteer.

More seriously, it should be subject to rational debate. And that's the problem with religion, you can't really debate it. What kind of argument can you make against "because God/Allah/Whoever said so in the Bible/Koran/Whatever"?

I'm not saying that we always get this right outside of religion. We invaded Iraq based on a number of false ideas (WMDs, harboring Al Qaeda terrorists, etc.), and that was bad. But religion has a track record of promoting many activities based on unfounded beliefs, yet it's afforded elevated status in society.

[Lobowolf]

barmar, on Sep 18 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

Of course, all legislation is some group imposing their beliefs on others.

The question is whether their reasons for imposing them are compelling enough that they should be permitted to.

I don't think that's the question at all. I think the question is a (related) 2-parter: whether the proposed legislation is desirable, and whether it's legal. I don't find the motivations relevant (except to the extent that an improper motivation renders some legislation illegal, e.g. the motive to racially discriminate). I'm subject to all sorts of proposed and enacted legislation that attempts to impose others' beliefs on me. The fact that a great deal of it doesn't come from the right or have a religious motivation doesn't make it any more palatable, and it certainly doesn't stop it from happening.

[barmar]

But what constitutes "desirable"? The proponents of these laws claim that it's desirable because God says so.

And what do you mean by "whether it's legal"? Laws define what's legal. I guess you mean constitutional, but the Constitution can be amended. When the religious right discovered that the Constution doesn't prohibit gay marriage, and states were starting to take advantage of this, they started a campaign to amend it. Thankfully, they're not having much luck.

[Lobowolf]

barmar, on Sep 18 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

But what constitutes "desirable"? The proponents of these laws claim that it's desirable because God says so.

And what do you mean by "whether it's legal"? Laws define what's legal. I guess you mean constitutional, but the Constitution can be amended. When the religious right discovered that the Constution doesn't prohibit gay marriage, and states were starting to take advantage of this, they started a campaign to amend it. Thankfully, they're not having much luck.

To better state what I meant, I'd say that the ideas, that is the proposed legislation, stands or falls on its own merits. The motivation behind the person who drafted it is incidental.

Desirable is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't matter why any particular person thinks it's desirable. Ultimately, the question of desirability left to the voters directly, in the case of a ballot initiative, or to the legislators in deciding to pass a bill, or the voters in deciding whether to re-elect the legislators.

The proponents of some laws think that they're desirable because God says so. So what? Each voter decides for himself whether it's desirable or not based on his or her own criteria. Some people think that murder should be illegal on religious reasons, and some people think it should be illegal on purely pragmatic reasons completely divorced from not only religion, but morality. Does it matter?

Yes, by "legal" I meant constitutional; that is, even if a given proposed law is found "desirable," that's not enough if it's unconstitutional (e.g. racially segregated schools were "desirable" in some places prior to Brown vs. Board of Education).

Medical marijuana took a beating in the Raich case, and it came from the "secular left." Property rights took a beating in Kelo, and it came from the "secular left." Is it any better because the motivation is something other than "God says so"? I don't see how.

And living in California (let alone Los Angeles), I'm hard-pressed to believe that it's less common, too. We have a largely-non-religious-right legislature comprised of people who LOVE to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. And it's not just legislators (who sort of have to impose their beliefs on us, as part of their job description); it's the citizenry, too. When gay marriage got CRUSHED in California in 2000, registered Republicans (let alone religious ones) were outnumbered by registered Democrats by something like a million voters. But even on "lesser" issues like whether or not you can talk on a cell phone while you drive, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, let people smoke in the restaurant you own, drive your car without wearing a seat belt, etc. Someone else's belief about what's best for you is imposed on you, and "God says so" has nothing to do with it. If someone thinks God says it's ok to smoke pot in your house, more power to him; I'm in disagreement with the largely secular belief that you're subject to criminal sanctions if you do. The motivations are beside the point.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf,

You make some compelling arguments for your position and like all good arguments it makes me reconsider my position.

In my case it is not specifically the ideological Christian right I find so dismaying but any group (Obama apologists, for example) who adapts ideology above independent investigation if not complete independent thought.

It is just at this point in time the right has the money and organizational powers to orchestrate a tremendous amount of propaganda in favor of pet projects or against unfavorable projects.

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Sep 19 2009, 03:51 AM, said:

But even on "lesser" issues like whether or not you can talk on a cell phone while you drive, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, let people smoke in the restaurant you own, drive your car without wearing a seat belt, etc. Someone else's belief about what's best for you is imposed on you, and "God says so" has nothing to do with it. If someone thinks God says it's ok to smoke pot in your house, more power to him; I'm in disagreement with the largely secular belief that you're subject to criminal sanctions if you do. The motivations are beside the point.

The examples that you are citing all seem to be (obliquely) related to health care.

When you talk on a cell phone while driving, your chance of getting in an accident goes up by some horrific amount. In turn, this imposes enormous external costs on society as a whole. In contrast, its hard to understand how gay marriage imposes any real external costs. (BTW, using "Republicans versus Democrats" as a lens to explain voting patterns on gay marriage has very little explanatory power. The high leverage variables are age and religion)

Arguably, the laws regarding motorcycle helmets fall into a different category since this cancellation this regulation could very well decrease overall health care expenditures while, simultaneously, ensure a nice steady supply of high quality organs for needy recipients.

Regardless, I think that motivations are VERY MUCH the point. When your behavior starts imposing very real burdens on the rest of society it becomes entirely appropriate for society to start restricting your actions.

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Sep 19 2009, 05:03 AM, said:

Regardless, I think that motivations are VERY MUCH the point. When your behavior starts imposing very real burdens on the rest of society it becomes entirely appropriate for society to start restricting your actions.

Irrespective of the degree to which one agrees with this statement, the analysis of the burdens one's behavior poses on society is entirely distinct from the motivation of the legislators or voters supporting or opposing the legislation. If you support motorcycle helmet laws from a "burden on public health care" perspective, then what does it matter if the law was introduced by a "nanny state" type of legislator who had a competely different motivation?

[Winstonm]

Quote

I don't think that's the question at all. I think the question is a (related) 2-parter: whether the proposed legislation is desirable, and whether it's legal. I don't find the motivations relevant (except to the extent that an improper motivation renders some legislation illegal, e.g. the motive to racially discriminate). I'm subject to all sorts of proposed and enacted legislation that attempts to impose others' beliefs on me. The fact that a great deal of it doesn't come from the right or have a religious motivation doesn't make it any more palatable, and it certainly doesn't stop it from happening.

I believe you are kidding yourself if you believe that improper motivations cannot lead to legislation that legalizes the illegal. There is a high degree of illegal anti-Muslim discrimination motivation behind the Patriot Act and behind the legal analysis that "legalized" the torture of terrorist suspects.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Sep 19 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

Quote

I don't think that's the question at all. I think the question is a (related) 2-parter: whether the proposed legislation is desirable, and whether it's legal. I don't find the motivations relevant (except to the extent that an improper motivation renders some legislation illegal, e.g. the motive to racially discriminate). I'm subject to all sorts of proposed and enacted legislation that attempts to impose others' beliefs on me. The fact that a great deal of it doesn't come from the right or have a religious motivation doesn't make it any more palatable, and it certainly doesn't stop it from happening.

I believe you are kidding yourself if you believe that improper motivations cannot lead to legislation that legalizes the illegal. There is a high degree of illegal anti-Muslim discrimination motivation behind the Patriot Act and behind the legal analysis that "legalized" the torture of terrorist suspects.

I don't believe that.

I believe that:

1) Members of the group "non-religious right" are every bit as interested in imposing their beliefs on everyone else, through legislation, as members of the group "religious right";

2) The fact that their motivations for doing so are not religious doesn't make their efforts any more (or less; it depends on the particular bill) palatable; and

3) Legislation can and should be judged (almost) always on its own merits.

If you're opposed to torture in all cases, and think that action X constitutes torture, then you're going to be opposed to all legislation that defines it as legal, regardless of the motivation of the person who introduced it, or the motivations of anyone and everyone who voted for it.

If you're in favor of torture in a "ticking bomb" scenario, then you're going to be in favor of it even if the person who introduced the bill making it legal did so only because he hates Muslims.

A bill provides for, or prohibits, certain things. If you read the bill, or get an objective explanation of what those things are (or a good subjective explanation on each side), you pretty much know whether or not it's a good idea. Knowing whether the author of the bill is a Christian, an atheist, or a Buddhist shouldn't make the bill any more or less attractive.