Should religious belief inform public policy?

[grasping the after wind]

An example might be the gay marriage debate. Many Christians opposed gay marriage because it conflicted with their religious beliefs. However, those religious beliefs were not shared by everyone--not even all Christians. Should the broader population be required to live according to the religious instincts of some Christians in this case?

The broader population has often been made to live according to the instincts of a minority. Does it make it worse if that minority is a group of people that take that position based upon a religious belief instead of a secular belief? Law is based upon some form of a moral belief system. In every society I can think of , religion has informed almost every belief system in one way or the other. Even Marxism is based upon a biblical principal and not something Marx came up with outside of the Judeo Christian tradition. We want to keep the state and the organized church ( whatever religious organization one wants to consider) separate but the individual that is involved with both cannot separate their belief system into a state belief system and a church belief system. One has, or ought to have, some form of individual belief system that may or may not be to varying degrees based upon a religion or an ideology. If the consensus opinion of the individuals within the state happens to align with a religious belief that is perfectly acceptable as it is not the religion but the consensus of individuals that have come to that consensus. It becomes a problem if a minority imposes its will upon a population that mostly disagrees with that belief. It is a problem whether that belief is also a religious belief or if it is in contradiction to a religious belief. The less forcing of any kind the better IMO . Again, IMO We need law to keep order not to control people's lives.

 

[Caliban]

I think it all depends on what one is talking about. Many Christians of course oppose abortion but that DOESN'T MEAN they can't cite even a secular way of reasoning to be against it as well. So what do you end up doing to your citizenry? If you claim you can argue a secular reasoning to be for or against something and just because it reflects their religious view too that means what....sorry your vote doesn't count? You should have NO SAY? Seems like a convenient way to force direction of society not giving people the benefit of the doubt that they GENUINELY can cite various reasons.

So what do you have then....a society in which some citizens are more equal than other. This is so true with so many things. Many Christians support Israel due to a religious reason....but there can be non religious reasons to do so as well and there are non religious people who do support Israel too. So you end up with unfair critics claiming religious reasons are the basis for supporting that country when in all fairness there are a variety of reasons.

There is a difference in voting and politicians writing or supporting legislation. Everyone should feel free to vote their conscience--religious or not. I am more interested in whether religious reasons to support or oppose law should be considered for legislation. Many people do think so.

 

[istodolez]

I don't want religious preferences to set policy but I also understand that people's religious beliefs and moral system will make them more prone to support certain approaches to social issues and as such religious beliefs will have an impact, perhaps indirectly.

I think it should be like a "one-tailed test": if a religious concept requires OTHERS behave in accordance with the concept then it is not allowed to be part of policy. But if the policy constructed allows for all people to behave personally according to their beliefs it is fine.

Gay Marriage is a good example: A conservative religious person can safely and happily live in a society that allows for gay marriage so long as they are not, themselves, required to gay-marry. People who are NOT them can still get married if they are gay.

 

[dzheremi]

I am of the opinion yes. The myth of secular neutrality has lead gradually to the erosion of traditional Christian morals in western countries and a new morality which is enforced on us from an secular enlightenment perspective. It has contributed to the decline in religious participation and this overall is a bad thing.

I find the Idea of completely segregating religious principles in the private sphere absurd, as if the religious are expected when trying to advocate for certain laws or governance on grounds not of their faith. It concedes too much to secularism that I think no Christian should concede, especially if we actually believe Christianity to be true. Why subjugate divine authority to secular authority as if the latter needs to vindicate the former?

Let's take it out of the western context for a minute. What would you make of an officially secular confessional system, such as in Lebanon? It allows for 18 religious sects (so far), and does not give priority to any in terms of the law code. (Yes, as per the Ta'if Accords, the president must be a Maronite, but this is balanced by Islamic officials in other offices.)

Perhaps a westerner would therefore say that it's a long way from being secular, but from where I'm sitting (informed by not a few actual Lebanese people) I don't see how such a religiously heterogeneous population could be otherwise governed without descending into Lebanese Civil War Pt. II or worse. Also, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, though he may be reviled in the West, is often held up as a secular leader, as is King Hussein of Jordan. It's not a coincidence that these two are also two of the Arab states more friendly to Christians in the Middle East (the Syrian Islamist takeover that's presented to us as a civil war in that country is of course an attempt to overthrow the secular leader, so it seems that secularism might be what's best there, given the alternatives).

With these kinds of situations in mind, and of course also Egypt (where secularism would be at least a bit better than article 2 of the constitution endorsing Shari'a, I'd bet), I don't know that secularism must entail any erosion of religious morality. At its worst it does that (and that is what we're seeing in the west, I agree), but at its best it actually does help make society better for people pretty much across the board. The only ones who don't agree to that, at least in a Middle Eastern context, seem to be those who are upset that they cannot use their numerical might to force others to convert to their religion or leave (which is sort of how the aggressively anti-religious secularism in the west also behaves). That doesn't mean secularism is an inherently bad idea, only that those people are idiots for thinking that they're so much more 'enlightened' while behaving in that fashion because after all they're not doing it in the name of anything they'd call a religion. (Recall here Chesterton's line about modern society being defined not by its lack of dogma, by its dogmas that it refuses to see.)

 

[dzheremi]

I would defend against the charge that this poll is simplistic. It presents a binary choice and it's a binary issue. If there is ever a time when religion should inform law, then the answer would be yes. There is no middle ground. It is a good example of the excluded middle.

Maybe you don't see a middle ground because you yourself appear to be something of an extremist regarding this particular issue. And before you reflexively answer no to that I want you to realize that you are now trying to tell me what should inform my vote that I'm not even casting in your poll.

 

[Caliban]

Maybe you don't see a middle ground because you yourself appear to be something of an extremist regarding this particular issue. And before you reflexively answer no to that I want you to realize that you are now trying to tell me what should inform my vote that I'm not even casting in your poll.

I'm not an extremist all--I'm just not religious.

I think you misunderstood my point about this poll. There is literally no middle ground for this poll. If someone's perspective is that it is sometimes good to use religious ideology to inform public policy, then that would be a YES answer on the poll. It is a binary vote. What isn't binary, are the variety of general opinions people have concerning morality, voting, politics, etc. The poll comes down to pure logic and the excluded middle.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm not an extremist all--I'm just not religious.

I think you misunderstood my point about this poll. There is literally no middle ground for this poll. If someone's perspective is that it is sometimes good to use religious ideology to inform public policy, then that would be a YES answer on the poll. It is a binary vote. What isn't binary, are the variety of general opinions people have concerning morality, voting, politics, etc. The poll comes down to pure logic and the excluded middle.

I am not accusing you of being an extremist myself, but I do not think most extremists, no matter how extreme their views, thinks of themselves as extremists. So a self rating on that point may not be authoritative.

 

[Caliban]

I am not accusing you of being an extremist myself, but I do not think most extremists, no matter how extreme their views, thinks of themselves as extremists. So a self rating on that point may not be authoritative.

True, but there is no justifiable reason for someone on this forum to be so lacking in charity as to call me an extremist without providing some evidence. This is a speculative slander. Can we get back on topic?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Let's take it out of the western context for a minute. What would you make of an officially secular confessional system, such as in Lebanon? It allows for 18 religious sects (so far), and does not give priority to any in terms of the law code. (Yes, as per the Ta'if Accords, the president must be a Maronite, but this is balanced by Islamic officials in other offices.)

Perhaps a westerner would therefore say that it's a long way from being secular, but from where I'm sitting (informed by not a few actual Lebanese people) I don't see how such a religiously heterogeneous population could be otherwise governed without descending into Lebanese Civil War Pt. II or worse. Also, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, though he may be reviled in the West, is often held up as a secular leader, as is King Hussein of Jordan. It's not a coincidence that these two are also two of the Arab states more friendly to Christians in the Middle East (the Syrian Islamist takeover that's presented to us as a civil war in that country is of course an attempt to overthrow the secular leader, so it seems that secularism might be what's best there, given the alternatives).

With these kinds of situations in mind, and of course also Egypt (where secularism would be at least a bit better than article 2 of the constitution endorsing Shari'a, I'd bet), I don't know that secularism must entail any erosion of religious morality. At its worst it does that (and that is what we're seeing in the west, I agree), but at its best it actually does help make society better for people pretty much across the board. The only ones who don't agree to that, at least in a Middle Eastern context, seem to be those who are upset that they cannot use their numerical might to force others to convert to their religion or leave (which is sort of how the aggressively anti-religious secularism in the west also behaves). That doesn't mean secularism is an inherently bad idea, only that those people are idiots for thinking that they're so much more 'enlightened' while behaving in that fashion because after all they're not doing it in the name of anything they'd call a religion. (Recall here Chesterton's line about modern society being defined not by its lack of dogma, by its dogmas that it refuses to see.)

It's above my competence to judge how any political system would work in the Middle East, much less how effective it would be in securing the safety of it's people. That whole region is terminally unstable and defies my understanding. I'll take your word on Lebanon of Jordan. Yet the secularism there would hardly match anything we see in western countries like The UK or USA and I imagine many laws are still informed by the religious beliefs of those living there.

 

[grasping the after wind]

True, but there is no justifiable reason for someone on this forum to be so lacking in charity as to call me an extremist without providing some evidence. This is a speculative slander. Can we get back on topic?

I have noticed a number of people calling people things for no justifiable reason lately.

 

[Caliban]

We need law to keep order not to control people's lives.

Isn't law an attempt to control the lives of people in a society? I always struggle between libertarian and a more expansive politic that focuses on building and shaping public life. Legislation related to red lights and USDA restrictions are attempts to shape lives through controlling behavior.

 

[durangodawood]

The broader population has often been made to live according to the instincts of a minority. Does it make it worse if that minority is a group of people that take that position based upon a religious belief instead of a secular belief? Law is based upon some form of a moral belief system. In every society I can think of , religion has informed almost every belief system in one way or the other. Even Marxism is based upon a biblical principal and not something Marx came up with outside of the Judeo Christian tradition. We want to keep the state and the organized church ( whatever religious organization one wants to consider) separate but the individual that is involved with both cannot separate their belief system into a state belief system and a church belief system. One has, or ought to have, some form of individual belief system that may or may not be to varying degrees based upon a religion or an ideology. If the consensus opinion of the individuals within the state happens to align with a religious belief that is perfectly acceptable as it is not the religion but the consensus of individuals that have come to that consensus. It becomes a problem if a minority imposes its will upon a population that mostly disagrees with that belief. It is a problem whether that belief is also a religious belief or if it is in contradiction to a religious belief. The less forcing of any kind the better IMO . Again, IMO We need law to keep order not to control people's lives.

Yeah, religion has been a major "keeper of the moral code" for so long, that its impossible to avoid some overlap between religious secular motives.

 

[eleos1954]

*This is inherently a political issue and I think belongs in the Politics section of the forum.


Ever since Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, Americas have used the term, a "wall of separation between church and state.” This phrase is sometimes used in support of protecting churches from the state and also to ensure state policy is separate from religious influence. Opposing groups tend to emphasize one of these positions. How do you think it applies to public policy?

Our country was originally formed by people who were fleeing from religious persecution being "mandated" by the church/state of Rome.

... Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) - Wikipedia

The concept of a “separation of church and state” reinforces the legal right of a free people to freely live their faith, even in public; without fear of government coercion. Free exercise means you may have a faith and you may live it. People are not coerced by the government one way or the other ... freedom to practice religion ... freedom to have no religion at all.

so sure ... people of faith do stand up for their beliefs ... but that does not mean that is how public policy is necessarily made ... abortion is a good example ... against most religious beliefs ... yet is lawful to get one ... however no one is forced to get an abortion.

State policy is set for the people by the people (well supposed to be, nowadays politicians running amuck) ... may or may not include biblical principles ... such as our society is. ie ... most can agree with basic principles ... no to murder, no to stealing, no to bearing false witness.

The two must remain separate ... that is good policy.

 

[Caliban]

Our country was originally formed by people who were fleeing from religious persecution being "mandated" by the church/state of Rome.

... Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) - Wikipedia

The concept of a “separation of church and state” reinforces the legal right of a free people to freely live their faith, even in public; without fear of government coercion. Free exercise means you may have a faith and you may live it. People are not coerced by the government one way or the other ... freedom to practice religion ... freedom to have no religion at all.

so sure ... people of faith do stand up for their beliefs ... but that does not mean that is how public policy is necessarily made ... abortion is a good example ... against most religious beliefs ... yet is lawful to get one ... however no one is forced to get an abortion.

State policy is set for the people by the people (well supposed to be, nowadays politicians running amuck) ... may or may not include biblical principles ... such as our society is. ie ... most can agree with basic principles ... no to murder, no to stealing, no to bearing false witness.

The two must remain separate ... that is good policy.

I agree. I think there are policies many religious people value which can also be well argued from a secular perspective. If of religious principal is true, it will be supported by data. For example, nearly all people in the U.S. with religious instincts value strong marriages and families. The data surrounding financial success and emotional health also reveal statistically strong correlations. In this case, a religious person valuing policies that incentivises a strong family structure has secular data when making the argument.

 

[jayem]

I think it should be like a "one-tailed test": if a religious concept requires OTHERS behave in accordance with the concept then it is not allowed to be part of policy. But if the policy constructed allows for all people to behave personally according to their beliefs it is fine.

This should be obvious. But for the record, behaving personally according to one’s beliefs doesn’t apply if such behavior harms or endangers the welfare of others. Especially when minors are involved. Examples: observant Jehova’s Witness parents won’t be allowed to refuse blood products if their child is in hemorrhagic shock after an auto accident. Warren Jeff’s fundamentalist Mormon beliefs didn’t permit him to marry a 12 year old. And a devout Christian Scientist mom can’t withhold insulin from her Type 1 diabetic daughter who’s in ketoacidosis.

There have been other cases where legally allowable religious practices have been inconsistent. I believe courts have ruled that certain Native American tribes have a right to use peyote in their religious rituals. But that right has been denied to Rastafarians in regard to ganja. (At least in states where non-medical cannabis use hasn’t been decriminalized.) As I recall, there’s also been legal conflict with the Santerians over their ritual practice of animal sacrifice.

So it should be recognized that there are gray areas relating to religious freedom. Fortunately, they’re not terribly common.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm not an extremist all--I'm just not religious.

I think you misunderstood my point about this poll. There is literally no middle ground for this poll. If someone's perspective is that it is sometimes good to use religious ideology to inform public policy, then that would be a YES answer on the poll. It is a binary vote. What isn't binary, are the variety of general opinions people have concerning morality, voting, politics, etc. The poll comes down to pure logic and the excluded middle.

I think you are correct, I did misunderstand you. I apologize. I misunderstood what you meant by saying that it is a "binary issue". Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Caliban]

I think you are correct, I did misunderstand you. I apologize. I misunderstood what you meant by saying that it is a "binary issue". Thank you for clarifying.

No sweat. Thank for smoothing this over. A lot of times I misunderstand someones post because I am busy reading multiple threads and I hurry to respond. It happens--it's all good.

 

[Halbhh]

*This is inherently a political issue and I think belongs in the Politics section of the forum.


Ever since Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, Americas have used the term, a "wall of separation between church and state.” This phrase is sometimes used in support of protecting churches from the state and also to ensure state policy is separate from religious influence. Opposing groups tend to emphasize one of these positions. How do you think it applies to public policy?

Believers (and everyone, non believers too) are very fortunate to live in a nation where there is separation of church and state, and no established religion by the state, where they would likely as not be forced to support someone else's religion and/or lose part of their own freedom of conscience.

State power corrupts religion (if it's not already corrupt), also.

So, having no established religion is a win-win-win for believers.

 

[JM]

I may differ from 'some' of my Reformed Brothers and Sisters by assuming a presuppositional worldview. I think this is biblical and therefore Christian. Our politics need to be governed and ruled by scripture.

“By reversing the proper order of things, the non-presuppositional apologist sees submission to God's Word as secondary, rather than primary, sees demonstration as the basis for faith, sees independent argumentation rather than the Holy Spirit as the source of conviction, and therefore advances the destruction of his own defense of the faith.”

“If no divine law is recognized above the law of the State, then the law of man has become absolute in men's eyes--there is then no logical barrier to totalitarianism.”

“Those who wish to gain dignity in the eyes of the world’s intellectuals by wearing the badge of “neutrality” only do so at the expense of refusing to be set apart by God’s truth.”

“Neutrality is in actuality veiled agnosticism or unbelief—a failure to walk in Christ, an obscuring of Christian commitment and distinctives, a suppression of the truth (cf. Rom. 1:21, 25).”

“Without faith, there is no proper understanding by which a man can judge. As Augustine well said, 'I believe in order to understand'.”

“We must not be satisfied to present Christianity as the most reliable position to hold among the competing options available. Rather, the Christian faith is the only reasonable outlook available to men.”

“God either rules as sovereign in interpretation over *all* areas of life or none.”

“The teaching of Colossians 2:3-8 is unambiguous. ALL knowledge (note: not simply knowledge of "religious" matters is to be found in Christ.”

“Attempting to be neutral in one’s intellectual endeavors (whether research, argumentation, reasoning, or teaching) is tantamount to striving to erase the antithesis between the Christian and the unbeliever.”

“The civil magistrate cannot function without some ethical guidance, without some standard of good and evil. If that standard is not to be the revealed law of God… then what will it be? In some form or expression it will have to be the law of man (or men) - the standard of self-law or autonomy. And when autonomous laws come to govern a commonwealth, the sword is certainly wielded in vain, for it represents simply the brute force of some men’s will against the will of other men.”

All of the above quotes are from Greg L. Bahnsen.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Caliban]

The civil magistrate cannot function without some ethical guidance, without some standard of good and evil.

I agree with this, and much of Bahsen's quotes--although I come to a different conclusion. Secular law is based on ethics and morality--it just doesn't come from the Bible. Secular Humanism is a moral foundation without religion; so is a system based on well-being.

I don't think religious concepts of morality are objective at all. People often refer to the Bible as containing a moral foundation for ethics and morality--but that is not actually possible. Such a claim may be compelling if everyone read the Bible and came away with the same answers to what is morally good, but even a quick survey of this thread will demonstrate that not all who consider the Bible as authoritative agree on important moral issues.

Biblical passages dealing with morality and laws must be interpreted through human reasoning (even if you think the Bible is inerrant). Because of this, all morals must be reasoned by "men," as Bahsen puts it. When the Hebrew Bible says you shall not murder, it is not providing any real sense of morality that is absent anywhere in the world. Everyone know this because we a social species who has a strong distaste for anti social behavior.

Bahsen writes, “If no divine law is recognized above the law of the State, then the law of man has become absolute in men's eyes--there is then no logical barrier to totalitarianism.”
Here Bahsen makes a significant oversight; divine law is not democratic and has no criteria for buttressing against totalitarianism. He is also incorrect about the law being absolute in men's eyes. In what democratic society today do people argue this? His quotes are merely assertions as presented here. Maybe he provided evidence for them in the larger scope of the text the were sourced from, but they are ineffective here.