Should religious belief inform public policy?

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Policy is legislation.

Yes, I am aware. I don't think religious belief should shape policy.

 

[durangodawood]

...“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.”...

If you could show me this divine law, then yeah, I could see how it might restrain men.

But as it stands, there's nothing to distinguish it from secular morality in terms of authority. Its all just what people say law should be.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

*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?

I think you are thinking only of traditional, aka theistic religion. And not in the danger of what some call "secular religion" in the case of various ideologies that work as a kind of defacto religion giving people their reason for existence etc. Unless Islam takes over the US sometime in the near future, I actually think that is the biggest threat to liberty.


Georges Sorel, Prophet Without Honor, by Richard Humphrey

 

[Caliban]

If you could show me this divine law, then yeah, I could see how it might restrain men.

But as it stands, there's nothing to distinguish it from secular morality in terms of authority. Its all just what people say law should be.

I'm not sure why more people don't comprehend this. All morality comes from the minds and rational of humans. Saying it is biblical does nothing when people are unable to decide how to interpret religious texts or when they can't agree if "that was the Old Testament.

 

[Caliban]

I think you are thinking only of traditional, aka theistic religion. And not in the danger of what some call "secular religion" in the case of various ideologies that work as a kind of defacto religion giving people their reason for existence etc. Unless Islam takes over the US sometime in the near future, I actually think that is the biggest threat to liberty.


Georges Sorel, Prophet Without Honor, by Richard Humphrey

Yes, that's how I meant it. I made that assumption because this is a Christian forum and I expected to engage primarily with theists and one-time theists. But, your point is well taken, non theistic religions like Buddhism or Jainism might answer this question quite differently. There is one Buddhist I see on this forum often (I can't recall his/her name. I would be interested in reading their thoughts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Poll text: Should religious belief inform public policy?

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.

There is a lot of difference between religious belief and churches. As others have noted, lawmakers can't help but be guided by their religious beliefs, if any. I don't think anyone is advocating for people to try to do otherwise, even if that were possible.

At the same time, it would clearly be unconstitutional for a bunch of lawmakers to band together into a majority to enact a law that pertains to the dogma of some particular sect.

There are of course grey areas between legitimate personal religious beliefs and unconstitutional favoring or hindering of churches. And that's where the courts come in.

 

[Rachel20]

Votes should inform public policy. Doesn't matter what informs your vote, it's yours. 1 person, 1 vote - then the will of the majority wins. Best we can do with a man-made system. (I can just hear the arguments coming about the electoral system, but that's another debate).

 

[Caliban]

I don't think anyone is advocating for people to try to do otherwise, even if that were possible.

There are some Christian Reconstructionists and Theonomists who advocate for the implementation of biblical morality into law.

Some notable names in the movement:
Gary North
R.J. Rushdoony
Mark R. Rushdoony
Jeff Durbin (popular on YouTube)
Greg Bahnsen (already mentioned in post in Post #39)

Here is a Salon article
Here is a Leading website in the movement

 

[durangodawood]

There are some Christian Reconstructionists and Theonomists who advocate for the implementation of biblical morality into law.

Some notable names in the movement:
Gary North
R.J. Rushdoony
Mark R. Rushdoony
Jeff Durbin (popular on YouTube)
Greg Bahnsen (already mentioned in post in Post #39)

Here is a Salon article
Here is a Leading website in the movement

Yep. Plus we encounter Christians right here from time to time who want to make their idea of Christianity a literal state religion. Definitely a minority tho.

 

[Caliban]

Yep. Plus we encounter Christians right here from time to time who want to make their idea of Christianity a literal state religion. Definitely a minority tho.

Check out the docuseries The Family. They are a highly influential political religious right group. They are a minority, but politically powerful.

 

[Caliban]

Votes should inform public policy. Doesn't matter what informs your vote, it's yours. 1 person, 1 vote - then the will of the majority wins. Best we can do with a man-made system. (I can just hear the arguments coming about the electoral system, but that's another debate).

Votes are great--but legislation is another matter.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Yes, that's how I meant it. I made that assumption because this is a Christian forum and I expected to engage primarily with theists and one-time theists. But, your point is well taken, non theistic religions like Buddhism or Jainism might answer this question quite differently. There is one Buddhist I see on this forum often (I can't recall his/her name. I would be interested in reading their thoughts.

1) Its not just that stuff. I linked an article of French Socialist thinker Sorel who wrote a number of books that came to inspire the Fascist and young Communists of the previous century. He wrote about things like "the power of myth", etc. but in a political sense, basically even atheist governments can use various symbols, rituals, pageantry etc. in a kind of Jungian like unconscious way as far as motivating people. But it is something that is in play today, lots of progressives can use similar kind of things, Obama's political campaign especially..



2) Oh and their is also a related item. It is possible to view Science with a kind of view that is straight out of the Romantic era. Some might call it Scientism. I think of that somtimes when I see some people, especially AOC. But even someone who is pretty well put together like Sam Harris seems to have that, in that he thinks someday that Science will eventually solve most of our problems etc. even ethical and moral ones.

When I was an undergraduate taking Experimental Methods in Psychology their was a book that was mandatory reading called "Science and Human Values". Which was a classic back then, and now much more so being written in probably the early 1950s.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Values-Jacob-Bronowski/dp/0571241905


It was quite interesting on him talking about the level of statistical significance needed for an experiment to be a success looking at 95% level. Why was that selected is there something innate to statistics or demographics that would make you want to pick it. Nope that was just the optimum position picked by someone who was looking at trying to find a good compromise between false positives and false negatives. They picked it, and other's followed it and it became a statistical analysis gold standard.


And much the same thing could be said for research design. There are obvious problems or pitfalls why certain research methods are chosen. Like studies wanting random assignment to groups rather than a human picking is a methodology to weed out selection bias etc. but many methods are about looking for a feasible way that you hope to test something. And that their might be numerous different ways of doing that, just like if you were to write an essay or article etc.


But the one thing really driven home is that values and science are pretty much separate. A lot of morals is about making personal decisions of right and wrong and that is something that Science cannot deliberate on because it is subjective rather than objective.


e.g. on a topic like animal research science can't say whether it is right or wrong to experiment on a monkey for the good of humanity. At best science can tell you the pain the monkey might feel based on increase heart beat etc., and if the level of tech is right scientists might suggest their is a plausible way of getting at the information using some kind of alternate technology and some scientists can insist on using that instead to be compassionate.

 

[keith99]

Yep. Plus we encounter Christians right here from time to time who want to make their idea of Christianity a literal state religion. Definitely a minority tho.

Hopefully none from Danbury.

 

[dzheremi]

Some notable names in the movement:

R.J. Rushdoony

Here is a Leading website in the movement

An Armenian starting something called "Chalcedon"?

Ohhh...so these people are just nuts.

 

[Caliban]

Its not just that stuff. I linked an article of French Socialist thinker Sorel who wrote a number of books that came to inspire the Fascist and young Communists of the previous century.

This sounds really interesting--thanks for bringing it up. I'll read about it.

I disagree with characterizing Sam Harris as someone who would be negatively classified by the label scientism. I never hear that term outside of religious circles and I really don't think it is an important idea. Like Harris, I think methodological naturalism is the only possible way to solve the worlds problems. The scientific method is the only reliable system humans have to investigate the universe and our problems. Some think that such a view unjustifyably neglects metaphysics, but even if a metaphysical reality does exist, it is undetectable and therefore out of the purview of measurement and analysis. Given that, methodological naturalism is our only practical recourse.

Maybe someday the supernatural or the metaphysical will be demonstrated, but if it is, won't it then be part of our known and measurable reality? Until then, I think Harris is right and scientism is only a pejorative for those who highly value the scientific method.

 

[Caliban]

An Armenian starting something called "Chalcedon"?

Ohhh...so these people are just nuts.

I think most of the folks are Reformed, but there is some overlap because they share a common politic. But ya, strange bedfellows.

 

[FireDragon76]

*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?

How can religious beliefs not potentially inform public policy in some way, since they are so deeply personal to so many people? Does some kind of neutrality actually exist? Those are important philosophical questions, and perhaps people are choosing what amounts to euphemisms to describe theocratic impulses implicit within many Christians.

I think there's a distinction between religious beliefs informing public policy, and the priviliging of a particular religious viewpoints and making them political orthodoxy. But maybe other people see it otherwise.

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.

What exactly is a "secular way". People disagree profoundly about the nature of human life, and where exactly it begins. Some Christians believe it begins at conception. Other, less religious individuals believe consciousness emerges as the brain develops, in a way that isn't discrete. Others, such as Hindus or Buddhists, believe consciousness exists before even the conception of an organism. How exactly are all these people supposed to come to a common understanding of something that's tied into ones philosophical assumptions and metaphysics?

 

[FireDragon76]

It would still have to be filtered through the secular pluralism underpinning our government. Where I would most like to see these religious views be manifest is in how we treat each other and in how we value or prioritize elements of our society. It's not hard to develop a secular society that fosters a totally amoral, winner-take-all outlook where losers and criminals are crushed and the powerful are free to seek more power. The better parts of religion fight against that sort of carnality and admonish us to exhibit self-control and extend grace and mercy to others.

Religion and secularism can fall prey to many of the same temptations and human faults. When either one seeks to care for and protect others, things get better; when they seek to protect themselves and enshrine their own power, things get worse.

One doesn't have to be religious to appreciate those sort of things. In fact, Dr. Valerie Tarico, who describes herself as a freethinker, has an organization called Wisdom Commons that is devoted to cultivating that sort of thing.

In my experience, sometimes institutional religion in the US actually works against the sort of thing you are suggesting. In fact I would say it happens all too often. That's because of fundamental impulses within the Christian tradition going back to at least Constantine. State religions are all the same the world round, they are all about helping us hairless apes to be better, more fecund hairless apes that obey the established hierarchies. They are not necessarily about expanding ones wisdom and compassion.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's a tricky question...

As an atheist, I answered "No", but I'll clarify my answer...

1st amendment case law would dictate that acts of government must pass the "Lemon Test", which is in reference to this case:
Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia

...a law/act/etc can be perhaps rooted in a religious view of the one making it, however, it must serve a compelling secular purpose.

For instance, laws against stealing/murder/rape/etc may have been rooted in the legislator's religious values, but those laws do serve a secular purpose.

Laws that serve no other compelling secular purpose (which can be summarized as laws protecting life, liberty, property), and only serve a religious ideal, should not be injected into public policy.

 

[Caliban]

How can religious beliefs not potentially inform public policy in some way, since they are so deeply personal to so many people? Does some kind of neutrality actually exist?

I think people set aside their religious instincts when deciding whether to support a particular issue, vote a certain way, or write legislation. An example is when a Democrat who is personally against abortion decides to vote pro choice because he or she doesn't feel they can legislate their spiritual concern and compelling others through the law to conform to it. If we take that example as an honest position and are not cynical when politicians claim this, it is clear that such a proposition is possible. Some Republicans have voted for gay rights issues even thought they oppose homosexuality. I know Christians who did not support Prop 8 in California because of this reason.