Should religious belief inform public policy?

[ZNP]

my point was that the Civil Rights Act is a good thing because it ensures that racists engaged in serving the public must not discriminate. They can have all the little racist and underdeveloped thoughts they want floating around in their head; but they cannot act on them when engaged in business.

To care for the poor, the widows and the orphans is a religious belief, so then you agree that our religious beliefs should inform our policies.

 

[ZNP]

Should religious belief inform public policy? No. Christians and other religious need to worry about themselves . Instead of forcing the moral belief on the rest us. They should set a good example.

Would a good example include programs that help the poor and efforts to root out corruption from government? Because the definition of religion is to care for the poor and to deal with corruption.

 

[istodolez]

To care for the poor, the widows and the orphans is a religious belief,

ONLY insofar as religious people think they have a corner on the market of being decent.

It is essentially telling us atheists that we are evil and want to hurt people all the time.

That is extremely insulting. I would ask that you moderate this position but it is still a common thought.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, I already told you that isn't how I'm using the term. You can continue making a straw man out of my argument, but I will just dismiss it.

I will continue to dismiss the misuse of the word "control".

 

[ZNP]

ONLY insofar as religious people think they have a corner on the market of being decent.

It is essentially telling us atheists that we are evil and want to hurt people all the time.

That is extremely insulting. I would ask that you moderate this position but it is still a common thought.

Wow! How? Religion is simply a word with a definition. When you say "religion" I understand a concern for the poor and to eliminate corruption from the world. I do not define religion based on theist, or pan theist, or atheist.

I guess what I am really telling atheists is stop projecting your paranoia on others. We are speaking english, define the terms. You have created a definition of religion that is full of biases, I don't have that definition, nor does the Bible.

 

[istodolez]

Wow! How? Religion is simply a word with a definition.

You said clearly that care for the poor is a religious idea. It is not. It is a HUMAN idea. Yes, most religions also have that as part of their dogma, but it is a pretty common thought among Christians that those how lack faith lack morality.

I guess what I am really telling atheists is stop projecting your paranoia on others.

Then stop acting like all the "virtues" are yours alone.

 

[Speedwell]

The Bible definition of religion is to care for widows and orphans in their affliction and to be free of the world's corruption.

Anyone who thinks we need to deal with corruption in government, that is a religious belief. Anyone who thinks we need to have social policies that help the poor, that is a religious belief. If you don't think we should, that also is a religious belief.

Anyone who voted that these beliefs should not inform your policies is clueless about what religion is.

Nobody is suggesting that the government should reject a useful policy just because it is also a religious belief. On the other hand, being a religious belief is not sufficient reason in itself to adopt a policy.

 

[istodolez]

I understand a concern for the poor and to eliminate corruption from the world. I do not define religion based on theist, or pan theist, or atheist.

So your definition of religion has nothing to do with religion per se? Got it. My apologies. I am still stuck using terms as they are normally understood.

You just decided to "make up" a definition of religion that is sui generis and you tell me I'm biased because I didn't read your mind and use your unique-to-you definition?

Got it!

Brilliant, by the way. I need to take this approach. It'll make conversation MUCH more difficult, but communication is so "passe".

 

[ZNP]

You said clearly that care for the poor is a religious idea. It is not. It is a HUMAN idea. Yes, most religions also have that as part of their dogma, but it is a pretty common thought among Christians that those how lack faith lack morality.



Then stop acting like all the "virtues" are yours alone.

Pure religion is to care for the poor and to deal with corruption. That is the definition in the book of James, that is the Biblical definition. He does not say it is a Christian idea, or a Jewish idea, or God's idea. All people have religion, this is what it is. You cannot define religion as being Christian, or Buddhist, or Pantheist, or even Atheist because all people have religion, it is an essential element of what it is to be human. Mankind is the only species on this planet that is "Eusocial" as defined by Dr. E.O. Wilson that has to teach itself to be Eusocial. Bumble bees, Ants, termites, it is programmed into their DNA, but we are descended from Apes who are not Eusocial. We have to teach ourselves to be, and that education is referred to as "religion".

Once again you are projecting your paranoia on others.

 

[ZNP]

So your definition of religion has nothing to do with religion per se? Got it. My apologies. I am still stuck using terms as they are normally understood.

I get it, you don't know the Bible. James defined religion in his book, generally considered the first book of the New Testament that was written. "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." This is not my definition.

You just decided to "make up" a definition of religion that is sui generis and you tell me I'm biased because I didn't read your mind and use your unique-to-you definition?

Got it!

Brilliant, by the way. I need to take this approach. It'll make conversation MUCH more difficult, but communication is so "passe".

Perhaps the approach you should take is to become more educated and less arrogant. Once again, not my definition, the person who just decided to make up a definition is you.

Buddhism and Confucianism are considered two of the major religions in the world, the only thing common between these two and Islam and Christianity (two other major religions) is the definition that James gives -- care of the poor and dealing with corruption from the world.

 

[Speedwell]

But look at the public policies we are being urged to adopt because they are religious issues:
No abortion.
No "out" LGBTs
No gun control.
No amnesty for Central American Refugees.
No action on global warming.
and lately,
No wearing masks in public.
These issues are painted as being entirely polarized, with all real true and genuine Christians on one side and nobody but evil atheistic socialists on the other.
How does your "pure" religion justify that?

 

[ZNP]

But look at the public policies we are being urged to adopt because they are religious issues:
No abortion.
No "out" LGBTs
No gun control.
No amnesty for Central American Refugees.
No action on global warming.
and lately,
No wearing masks in public.
How does your "pure" religion justify that?

There are two categories of "pure religion".

You are for policies that help widows and orphans. I don't think any of the talking points you have given are "for" rather they are against.

The other category is to be against corruption. I suspect that "no action on global warming" is in fact due to corruption, government being in bed with the biggest polluters. I also suspect that the "no wearing masks in public" is a misguided policy of trying to support business in the midst of a pandemic. Again, a policy that is due to corruption rather than being against corruption.

The gun control issue requires much more discussion than I will do here, but suffice it to say I believe the policy here is greatly influenced by gun dealers wanting to sell as many guns as possible, they use the 2nd amendment as a fig leaf, but if I had 2,000 words I could destroy that argument. I would not argue to repeal the amendment, only show how many of the laws are perverted and have been corrupted by the world. Once again, pure religion would be against those corrupt laws.

Clearly the "no amnesty for Central American Refugees" flies in the face of the helping widows and orphans.

So for those policies I would say they all violate pure religion.

For abortion I would want to again have 2,000 words, but in short I can see someone being for helping widows and orphans and that stance not being in opposition to them also being against abortion.

Finally the LGBTQ one, not sure what you are saying. I suspect the Bible was 2,000 years ahead of its time when Paul said in the church there is no male or female.

 

[istodolez]

Pure religion is to care for the poor and to deal with corruption. That is the definition in the book of James, that is the Biblical definition.

So it is your opinion that the Book of James' definition of religion is simply care for the poor and deal with corruption and you are of the opinion that that is the usual definition? Bereft of anything even remotely related to the "supernatural" or God or dieties?

I'm going to assume you have taken your lead from this quote. Which, to your credit, is a rather unique read on what the word "religion" usually means.

James 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

Once again you are projecting your paranoia on others.

No, YOU are cherry picking a particular rhetorical phrase from your personal favorite HOLY BOOK to rewrite the standard understanding of the word "religion". It comes from YOUR faith, so it's all good.

My apologies for not reading your mind but rather relying on my 56 years of speaking English natively, reading extensively in English to leverage the common parlance understanding of a term.

As I said, it is understandable that communication must go out the window when people use "niche" lexicography.

 

[istodolez]

I get it, you don't know the Bible. James defined religion in his book, generally considered the first book of the New Testament that was written. "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." This is not my definition.
Perhaps the approach you should take is to become more educated and less arrogant. Once again, not my definition, the person who just decided to make up a definition is you.

I actually DO know the bible, I just have not memorized YOUR preferred verses. Thanks, though.

Buddhism and Confucianism are considered two of the major religions in the world, the only thing common between these two and Islam and Christianity (two other major religions) is the definition that James gives -- care of the poor and dealing with corruption from the world.

But that is faulty reasoning. It presupposes that if multiple religions (as the term is COMMONLY understood) share a belief that it must be a "religious" belief.

All dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs.

And you leverage one quote from one book of YOUR faith's holy writ to support a non-standard definition of religion which EXPLICITLY invokes and presupposes GOD and DIETY. I don't see a translation of that verse in which God is not EXPLICITLY part of the description. "Religion acceptable to God".

Now I'm actually going to be generous and note this is a nice way to define religion but it's mostly a rhetorical word game as you are using it.

So let us agree: care for the poor is a good thing that can be wholly independent of anyone's belief of lack thereof in any diety and that, indeed, it doesn't matter if you think it pleases God or not (per the James definition).

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I will continue to dismiss the misuse of the word "control".

But that's what all religions want, especially Conservative Christians.

 

[Caliban]

The Bible definition of religion is to care for widows and orphans in their affliction and to be free of the world's corruption.

Anyone who thinks we need to deal with corruption in government, that is a religious belief. Anyone who thinks we need to have social policies that help the poor, that is a religious belief. If you don't think we should, that also is a religious belief.

Anyone who voted that these beliefs should not inform your policies is clueless about what religion is.

That is a personal definition inion that is non-standard. I don't agree at all.

When one defines religion in a way that everything becomes religion, they have lost the thread.

Religion Definition:
The definitive Oxford English Dictionary:

Other Dictionaries

Mirian Webster:
1. the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2. commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Cambridge:
the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.

 

[grasping the after wind]

But that's what all religions want, especially Conservative Christians.

Conservative Christians want to misuse the word control? You will have to show me some evidence of that for me to believe it.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Would a good example include programs that help the poor and efforts to root out corruption from government? Because the definition of religion is to care for the poor and to deal with corruption.

There are programs for the poor. That Republicans like to pull funding away. For greed. Conservative are part of this problem. They are free to go to church. But not force their moral laws on us. Catholics and other religions do charities. So they are free to do that all ready.

 

[ZNP]

I actually DO know the bible, I just have not memorized YOUR preferred verses. Thanks, though.



But that is faulty reasoning.

Instead of wasting my time what is your definition of religion that would be true of all religions in the world?

 

[ZNP]

That is a personal definition inion that is non-standard. I don't agree at all.

When one defines religion in a way that everything becomes religion, they have lost the thread.

Religion Definition:
The definitive Oxford English Dictionary:

Other Dictionaries

Mirian Webster:
1. the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2. commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Cambridge:
the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.

That definition does not apply to some of the religions and is extremely vague. For example, Confucianism doesn't have anything to do with the service, worship of God or the supernatural.

Second, what does it mean to be devoted to the "religious faith or observance"?

I suppose many would say the Golden rule -- treat others the way you would have them treat you.
So then, even if we use your definition I would argue that for a Christian it is referring to the golden rule given by Jesus. For Jews it would refer to the "two greatest commandments" expounded on by Jesus.

I don't think that is fair to all religions but it doesn't matter to me. I was simply taking the more inclusive definition.

Besides, there is no conflict. If you ask me, a Bible believing Christian, if I should use my religious beliefs to inform my political decisions then what does that mean? Why wouldn't I refer to James and Jesus?