BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:06 AM

Steamin' Willie: "Thought it would happen..
The word "faith" has quietly slipped in.
Oh dear."

When people's 'faith' in the almighty dollar fails, you might just look to 'faith'...in something!..certainly not into your 'hipness'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:34 AM

"Law is conscience."   Drivel.   As any lawyer will tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:39 AM

Love is the law....Don't break it, keep it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:17 PM

Is that a slogan or just an aphorism?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:28 PM

I think you're missing the point, Goose Gander, we're talking about legal obligations here. We have no conscription in the UK, so no-one is obliged to serve in the armed forces or go to war. It would require an Act of Parliament to bring in such conscription and this act would probably provide for conscientious objectors - as in WW2. People have the right to believe what they like. What they do not have the right to do is infringe the rights of others by their actions - rights that are protected in law.I may have religious beliefs that require me to perform human sacrifices - are you saying that this would be OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 15 May 10 - 02:54 PM

I think you are missing the point, the wider point contained in the judge's logic. If the fool in question had refused to do his job, the job for which he was hired, that should have been reason enough for dismissal. But Laws went much further than that. The logic of his decision undermines the basis for any religious or - as I understand it - moral objection to the "legal obligations" that concern you so much.

"We have no conscription in the UK, so no-one is obliged to serve in the armed forces or go to war. It would require an Act of Parliament to bring in such conscription and this act would probably provide for conscientious objectors"

What would be the basis for conscientious objectors? Any reason put forward for refusal to serve would necessarily be subjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 15 May 10 - 04:18 PM

"The logic of his decision undermines the basis for any religious or - as I understand it - moral objection to the "legal obligations" that concern you so much."

Why? Are you saying that religious beliefs, which are subjective and cannot be substantiated, should override the law? Pretty much an argument for anarchy. As Hume said, "freedom of thought does not mean freedom of action" (or words to that effect).

"What would be the basis for conscientious objectors?"

Well, as no such law exists, that's pure conjecture.Let me state, once again, that where a person's belief leads to actions that infringe the right of others, they are unacceptable, but where they do not infringe the rights of others (such as refusal to kill another person no matter what the situation) then the law protects that right. You still haven't answered my last question in my previous post - if you're not missing the point you are certainly evading it.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Art Thieme
Date: 15 May 10 - 04:41 PM

As I have stated, it's the old leap of faith thing;---deja vu all over again. Applying all that I have learned and thought in this life, I cannot make the jump. This is why I think that religion, faith, all of it, all the dogmas, are nothing more than wishful thinking; designed, mostly, to strive to circumvent the fact that death is the one real ending a person can intellectually expect.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:55 PM

Bill D: "Is that a slogan or just an aphorism?"

The word 'religion' means, 'way of life'.

Slogan?? aphorism??

What is music?..another vehicle to get people to 'notice' you??..as if one deserves to be noticed for doing nothing but boring shit?

I guess, it's how much you 'believe' in what you are doing. From what I've seen, many of these so-called 'liberals', are not 'accomplishers' of anything much of value, but hide behind what they think is 'hip' to hide their self inadequacies!

To answer your question, Love is the reason, the motivator, and the objective of much anything worth accomplishing.

If you write a piece of music, is the objective to make people yawn? or feel nothing?....and what you want them to feel, is it anything more than just horny??(if they needed any help?) Is it to make them feel more greedy? More selfish? Inspired to become a serial murderer?

No,...it just a slogan...(rolls eyes).

Wink,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:16 PM

Regarding human sacrifice, don't be silly. There are perfectly good reasons why human sacrifice is not allowed by law. It is not necessary to assert that religion has no standing under the law to construct a legal prohibition against the practice. In the United States, religion does have standing under the law. The 1st amendment forbids both an establishment of religion and laws preventing the free exercise of religion. And yet human sacrifice is not legal in the United States. Go figure.

It is the principle in Laws' decision that is dangerous, not the specific case. You apparently believe this is a progressive decision that will protect the rights of the weak. Well, if so, your faith is touching. Do you realize it would be very easy to apply the logic of this decision AGAINST religious minorities? Against ANY who object to a law based upon matters of conscience?

"Well, as no such law exists, that's pure conjecture." No, it isn't. It follows logically from Laws' decision. Just because there's no conscription law at present doesn't mean there never will be.

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am it stinks all around. This is simply a matter of someone refusing to do their job. Let's try a thought experiment: suppose the man in question was not a Christian but a Muslim. Suppose he got a job at a fast food restaurant and refused to make a bacon cheeseburger, based upon his religious beliefs, and for this he was fired (substitute any scenario you like: a Hindu on a cattle ranch; a Buddhist in a butcher shop; etc.). Suppose he "took his case to an industrial tribune" and invoked his religious beliefs. The judge would only need to remind him that this is not a matter of religion, but of meeting the terms of his employment. Complaint dismissed, case closed. Laws used a cannon when he should have used a flyswatter.

And, finally, let's be clear: Gary McFarlane certainly inconvenienced the couple and likely offended them, but he did not "infringe upon their rights." He did not prevent them from receiving therapy from another counselor. He did not physically attack them, or vandalize their property. He did not offer them up as human sacrifices to his god. He refused to do his job, and for this he was fired. The employer's decision was correct, Laws' decision was wrong. Wrong, and dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 16 May 10 - 12:28 AM

Back to the first amendment, two important points regarding religion - no established religion, and no laws preventing the free exercise of religion. The second premise flows from the first. Based upon this, religious beliefs have standing under US law. Of course there are limitations upon freedom of religion, just as there are limitations upon any freedom. You can't commit human sacrifice. Polygamy is still illegal as well. It's one thing to accept that there are limitations upon freedom of religion, and quite another to say that religious beliefs have no standing in law because they are subjective. The first is pragmatic, and reflects moderation and accommodation within a pluralistic society; the second not only fails to guarantee freedom of religion, it actually undermines the basis for the free exercise of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 16 May 10 - 12:35 AM

Yes, I am pointing out that American law on this subject is superior to British law and custom. You and your hoary, old established church. Bah!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 16 May 10 - 01:56 AM

If God doesn't exist in Britain, why do they have an established church?

We don't.

England and Wales do, but not Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 16 May 10 - 05:21 AM

Some pillock snorted at my comment about law being conscience, saying "ask any solicitor."

That's a bit like saying there is a God, ask any priest.

Solicitors would have you believe law is more than conscience. Ok, I will meet them half way. it is applied conscience.

Oh, something which Goose Gander may find interesting; Unlike The USA, we don't have a written constitution, so to say we have an established church here in Blighty is missing the point somewhat. We have a tradition of an established church and whilst it doesn't piss us off too much we put up with blokes in absurd hats rattling on about aspects of society they have no comprehension of.

But there is nothing in law or constitution other than we put up with Monarchy, and Monarchy holds the title of head of the establishment church. that makes the church of England by royal appointment, just like HP Sauce and Andrex Toilet paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 10 - 10:47 AM

"Some pillock..."

Temper, temper, little man.    Not getting enough sleep these days?

I note with interest that no one--particularly no lawyer-- has addressed the actual issue raised by GooseGander and me---that what is called God by some is called conscience by others.

So if God has no standing in law, all you have to do is call your reason for not obeying a law conscience, not God, and you'll be fine.

Unless of course conscience also has no standing in British or US law--and in that case conscientious objectors all lose their cases.

Those who so smugly applaud the official banning of God from the law are not considering the logical consequences of this--too broad--decision.   As GooseGander has pointed out.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 10 - 10:56 AM

And my understanding is that there have in fact been conscientious objectors in UK history.

There could be again.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 16 May 10 - 11:48 AM

Aye, and (wrongly) conchies were convicted of breaking the law.

Conscience and morals are perhaps built into us, in the same way that pack animals look out for each other. Religion however is a man made abstract designed for plenty of reasons, but trying to explain what you don't yet understand and having power over others are two of the main reasons we have to put up with religion.

It is not a matter of being smug, (temper temper little pillock) more a matter of differentiating between conscience and religion. As I see it, one is weighing up the circumstances and coming to your own conclusion whereas the other is having somebody make your decision for you. Whatever floats your boat, but the law seems to have come down on the case for the former, not the latter. And that makes me just a little bit happier.

However, whilst it makes me happy, it doesn't make me smile more than is strictly necessary, and doesn't make me knock on peoples' doors asking if they would like to be told what to do.

God is not conscience. God may be what some people use as a proxy for conscience, but I can't help it if they are either tooo shallow or too thick to use their own judgement. Some people can't you know, and that is why the situation with priests buggering children is so tragic. Many people look up to religious leaders for their moral compass and prod towards conscience. Look where it gets them... No wonder the law is increasingly seeing religion as irrelevant.

After all, what is the difference between wanting a court to respect Christian values and people wanting sharia law to be used? Answer - none. If Christians want to be tried using the bible as a guide and Muslims want sharia law to apply to them, we would have a multi tier system for justice and that doesn't seem satisfactory on any level.

Therefore secular law is not anti religion, more recognising the irrelevance of it, and especially to the millions of rational people who don't have any belief whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 16 May 10 - 06:07 PM

knock on peoples' doors asking if they would like to be told what to do.

From an anti-religious screed of a post, this turn of phrase made me smile.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 10 - 09:07 PM

"From what I've seen, many of these so-called 'liberals', are not 'accomplishers' of anything much of value"

So...you have a list of who HAS accomplished something of value, along with their political affiliations? Maybe the Noble prize winners?

*shrug*...ok, a slogan. I don't necessarily agree that 'love' is that historically relevant as a driving force, though it is a very nice sentiment.
Greed & power and sex have motivated more folks than love, I'd guess...but I don't have any learned studies about it to quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 16 May 10 - 09:46 PM

"Conscience and morals are perhaps built into us, in the same way that pack animals look out for each other."

So is aggression. There are evolutionary advantages to both cooperation and competition, as there are to both compassion and aggression. To a certain degree, the capacity for religious belief may be built into us as well.

"Religion however is a man made abstract"

All moral codes are "man made abstract" in their specific details. Religious beliefs are simply moral codes with an overlay of the supernatural.

There is no definable distinction between between religious beliefs and moral conscience, and in practice they often blur together. Look into to the beliefs of Quakers and Buddhists if you need examples.

All moral codes and religious beliefs are subjective in this way. I believe it is right for society to look after the weak, but I can't offer objective proof for my beliefs. My beliefs developed out of my religious training, but while my faith has faded my beliefs remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 16 May 10 - 11:07 PM

We have free will, despite all the baggage of our upbringing, education, etc. One may choose to be compassionate and helpful, and cite religious reasons for doing so; one may be cruel and cite religious justification. One may be compassionate and helpful and cite secular philosophy to explain his or her actions; one may be cruel and justify one's actions as naturalistic, darwinistic in nature. Either way, one's beliefs are subjective. We can't know either way, so we choose based upon who we are and who we would like to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 10 - 11:24 PM

"We have free will, despite all the baggage of our upbringing, education, etc"

But that is one of the most disputed of the Philosophic conundrums. It is 'almost' unresolvable. (My partially done master's thesis was to have been on how it 'might' have been resolved.)

What is clear is that it 'feels' like we have free will, whether or not all these new DNA & chemical studies show that we are programmed in many ways. The criminal statutes are based on the idea the we have it....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 03:19 AM

What's the alternative, Bill? If we don't, then there is no freedom or dignity. The now-fashionable sociobiology reads (to me, anyway) like a bad sci-fi retread of miserable Calvinism.

Either way, it's still a man-made projection upon the universe. Freud used to be considered science. So was Marx, for fuck's sake.

But you're welcome to take that Soma holiday anytime you want. Don't bother to send me any postcards, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 17 May 10 - 03:24 AM

"Regarding human sacrifice, don't be silly."

I agree it's silly. But it's your argument that I'm taking to its logical conclusion.


It is the principle in Laws' decision that is dangerous, not the specific case. You apparently believe this is a progressive decision that will protect the rights of the weak. Well, if so, your faith is touching. Do you realize it would be very easy to apply the logic of this decision AGAINST religious minorities? Against ANY who object to a law based upon matters of conscience?

""Well, as no such law exists, that's pure conjecture." No, it isn't. It follows logically from Laws' decision. "

No it doesn't. In the UK the laws are made by Parliament and the legislature applies them. You can't apply the judge's decision in one case to a law that doesn't exist - unless you're claiming to be able to see into the future. Is that so? In which case, can you give me the exact wording a this future conscription legislation - oh and how about the winning numbers for next week's lottery?

"And, finally, let's be clear: Gary McFarlane certainly inconvenienced the couple and likely offended them, but he did not "infringe upon their rights.""

Wrong again. He infringed the right of his employer to expect an employee to meet his/her contractual commitments, and he infringed the right of the couple not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Pretty fundamental stuff - at least it is in UK law.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 03:53 AM

"But it's your argument that I'm taking to its logical conclusion."

No it isn't, because my argument was not for absolute freedom of religion. That should be clear enough if you've read my posts.

"You can't apply the judge's decision in one case to a law that doesn't exist - unless you're claiming to be able to see into the future."

The principle involved in Laws' decision is dangerous. Whether it will be applied to future cases remains to be seen. I don't know if it will, and neither do you, but it is a dangerous precedent and a wholly unnecessary one. McFarlane had no standing to sue, and the specifics of his case really had nothing to do with religion. He refused to do his job, and for this he was fired. That should have been the end of the story.

The couple in question had no right to counseling from McFarlane over any other (more qualified) counselor, any more than I have the 'right' to purchase a bacon cheeseburger from any specific individual at at restaurant. If an employee of a restaurant that has bacon cheesburgers on the menu refuses to sell me one based upon his religious beliefs, his employer has the right to fire that employee. McFarlane's employer had the right to fire him. End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 17 May 10 - 06:33 AM

I'm getting confused now.

I find myself agreeing with those who I disagreed with earlier..

1. have I misread either now or earlier?

2. Have some people changed their opinion based on debate?

3. Have I found religion and started blinkering myself from reality?

Ok, get a coffee and think this one over.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:58 AM

I would like to return to the language of Laws' decision, and that of Leveller's opening post. If the passages cited by Leveller and reported in several articles I've read on this case accurately reflect Laws' decision, then this was not so much a decision involving discrimination but rather a decision on the place of religious beliefs in law. Laws ruled that religious beliefs have no standing in law because religious beliefs are subjective. While neither Leveller nor I can know how this precedent will applied in future cases, Leveller clearly believes that it will be applied because he wrote in his opening post, "this is an excellent judgment, as to permit any antisocial actions, be they homophobic, racist, anti-feminist or whatever, on the grounds of religious belief would be the thin end of the wedge that would allow any bigot to defend the most loathsome of opinions by claiming that they were his/her religious views." I have tried to point out that Laws' decision, if it does apply to future cases, will not only apply to cases of the types listed by Leveller, but potentially to any case involving religious beliefs and, by extension, matters of conscience.

Leveller's argument is under-girded by an apparent belief that religion is by nature destructive and regressive. This is certainly true in many cases, and in other cases the exact opposite prevails. Agents of his own government murdered Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador as he celebrated mass because he spoke out against the oppression of the poor in his country by the government. Leveller reminded us in his opening post that "the bastion of South African apartheid for many years was the Dutch Reformed Church," but failed to recall that Bishop Desmond Tutu led the opposition to apartheid in South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 10 - 11:25 AM

""The couple in question had no right to counseling from McFarlane over any other (more qualified) counselor,""

While this would be true, had the couple insisted on being counselled by this particular man, as I understand it, such was not the case.

Apparently their sexual orientation became clear during counselling, after which McFarlane refused to continue.

That is prima facie discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

Secondly, the decision of the judge was based on the fact that he tried to offer his religious beliefs as a defence.

This is highly unlikely to make any serious change in future decisions, being a single decision in a particular set of circumstances, rather than a general legal precedent.

To me the whole damn thing is a storm in a teacup, which will be forgotten in the real world long before folks on here will stop arguing about it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 17 May 10 - 11:31 AM

"What's the alternative, Bill? If we don't, then there is no freedom or dignity. "

Yes...but then perhaps freedom & dignity are just artificial constructs also. It's a fine point, but what is ultimately the basis of experience 'could' be just complex causality. We just can't act that way.

"There was a faith-healer of Deal,
Who said, "Although pain isn't real,
When I sit on a pin.
And it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel."
---------------------------------------------------------------
But to also comment on the 'point of Law'..
...It is not necessary to assign ratings to religious beliefs in order to argue that they should not have independent standing in law. Because they are subjective and variable, they are subject to many interpretations and formats, and a single set of laws needs to be applicable to everyone. The law should take account of a person's motivations, but not be bound by them....else the oft-heard "God told me to do it" would become VERY popular.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 10 - 12:03 PM

There is no definable distinction between between religious beliefs and moral conscience, and in practice they often blur together. Look into to the beliefs of Quakers and Buddhists if you need examples.


I think this is sloppy thought, with all due respect. Moral conscience can be articulated perfectly well without any religious referent whatsoever, and using religious rationalization to frame it is actually (I believe) a copout and a failure to won one's personal ethical sense. The definable distinction you say does not exist is simple and readily available to anyone who wants his moral perception uncompromised by artificial constructs; for example, it could be structured by examining the relative "good" in consequences of any action in terms of bringing about future existence along various channels of creative work (such as families, other organizations, various forms of life, etc.)

It is also (IMHO) perfectly possible to construct a highly complete set of spiritual values without troubling oneself about theology (and Buddhism is a good example, in its original form).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:09 PM

"The definable distinction you say does not exist is simple and readily available to anyone who wants his moral perception uncompromised by artificial constructs; for example, it could be structured by examining the relative "good" in consequences of any action in terms of bringing about future existence along various channels of creative work (such as families, other organizations, various forms of life, etc.).

Good itself is a subjective term. Different people will have differing ideas about what is "good" regarding "families, other organizations, various forms of life". Moral perception itself is an artificial construct in the literal sense that it is constructed by humans, in social environments and as individuals. Let's face it, religion and moral perception are both human inventions. And both are subjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:13 PM

I did not say good was not subjective. I said it has no necessary coupling with what usually passes for religious ideation.

There is an infinite space for subjectivity to play out without invoking any religious idols of any sort.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:18 PM

One last question, then I'll take my marbles and go home: Was Bishop Desmond Tutu 'coping out' when he invoked the Gospel in opposition to apartheid?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:35 PM

Tutu was, after all, a bishop...he used what HE had, and knew who he was speaking to. *I* would argue that the moral principles he invoked were a logical subset of more general principles...such as Kant's Categorical Imperative. But since he knew that the idea "God says it's wrong" has more force with some than invoking a complex idea from Kant, he played the cards that he held.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:42 PM

"Was Bishop Desmond Tutu 'coping out' when he invoked the Gospel in opposition to apartheid?"

As a man of religion, Tutu was simply doing his job.

But I'd say anyone who believes an argument against apartheid actually *requires* invoking the Christian gospel, is indeed as Amos say's 'copping out' of making an otherwise well reasoned argument.

An argument against an inhumanitarian practice, shouldn't require any superhuman basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:58 PM

His copout, in the sense I used the word, was long prior to the invocation of religion as the grounds for a moral stand against apartheid. Bill has summarized the matter most cogently. He was already a bishop in a Christian Church organization, so he had long since subordinated his personal moral clarity to the dance of the icons.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 06:54 PM

Then a final postscript to my last question - let's consider the case of Archbishop Romero of El Salvador, murdered because he spoke out against the oppression of the poor of his country. Was he a sell-out? Because it seems to me he could have saved his life by keeping his mouth shut, but that would have been, well, a sell-out.

See you all at the next get together.

Regards.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 07:03 PM

Sell out, cop out, whatever.

Bye, kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 10 - 07:52 PM

You're shifting the context here, GG--implying that the Bishops' moral fiber was due to their involvement with the Christian churches they belonged to, rather than in spite of it.

No-one is implying in any degree that these stands were less than moral. To the degree that they were projected on spiritual artifacts of problematic existence, yes.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 17 May 10 - 07:58 PM

he had long since subordinated his personal moral clarity to the dance of the icons.

Oh, brother.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 May 10 - 08:59 PM

Oh. c'mon, Amos et al.   Your convictions are clouding your judgment. "in spite of..."?

Religion has been the bulwark of many progressives for a long time--if you don't like Tutu, try Martin Luther King--and virtually all the abolitionists in the 19th century.   Sure it was also used by slavery defenders.   But only somebody with a bad case of tunnel vision will see only the conservative side of religion.

And if we are to believe that we are hard-wired for compassion--like other animals, it's been said-- then there is at least as much evidence that we are hard-wired for religion.

Name one major civilization that had no religion.

In fact, even when we try to get away from religion, we often wind up with a God-substitute.   Hasn't worked out very well:   Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 May 10 - 01:49 AM

"But only somebody with a bad case of tunnel vision will see only the conservative side of religion."

Ron I can't recall seeing arguments against the conservative side of religion on this thread (they may be there, but I've not kept up with this thread). I think the point is, that as hopefully an evolved society, we aught not need to call upon the supposed 'word' of any supernatural agency, in order to defend an ethical standpoint which plays out in this material world right here, among our fellow human beings.

I'd agree with you that there is an historical precedent for very good compassionate and humanitarian work being done by the Christian faithful in particular in the West, but that precedent IMO is equally balanced by the evil done in the name of religion.

When we stop invoking the word of any supposed God to support our actions and start relying on our own reasoning and moral compass, we cease abdicating personal responsibility for our choices and accept personal responsibility for both our reasoning behind those actions, and their consequences - be they helpful or harmful to our fellow man.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 May 10 - 02:01 AM

Take my two atheist vegan friends for example. There is nothing in the Christian gospel that demands we do not kill other creatures to consume. But my atheist friends came to their own ethical conclusions from (very broadly) Utilitarian reasoning: I do not need meat to survive and be healthy, so eating meat is merely a pleasure to me. Animals suffer in meat production and slaughter, so I choose to relinquish the pleasure of meat in order to prevent contributing to the unnecessary suffering of creatures weaker than I in this world.

Subjective yes, but perfectly logical and acknowledging direct responsibility for personal choices and their consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 18 May 10 - 03:29 AM

"Leveller's argument is under-girded by an apparent belief that religion is by nature destructive and regressive."

Wrong again! Your arguments really are built on sand, aren't they?

"Leveller reminded us in his opening post that "the bastion of South African apartheid for many years was the Dutch Reformed Church," but failed to recall that Bishop Desmond Tutu led the opposition to apartheid in South Africa."

Eh? Tutu was not a member of the Dutch Reformed Church. You're getting a bit tied up in knots here, Goose. I suggest you find out a bit more about S African politics before you try to use that as an argument against mine - I was there and I was involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 10 - 03:41 AM

In another thread, I have my disagreements with Ron Davies, but in this matter, he is correct in his post to Amos. The very concept of our Bill of Rights, and Constitution, is predicated on "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" and to not have your wills intrude on other's rights...whether you like it or not!..and NO amount of spin, will re-write that FACT...as much as you might have to grind your teeth, to wrap your little political minds around that! That being said, there is no 'conservative side', nor 'liberal side' to God...maybe religion..but not to God...and those two things are light years apart from each other! Defining God into political sides is like trying to stuff the whole of existence, into a 30 second commercial. Politics are just too small...but then, little things amuse little minds!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 May 10 - 04:05 AM

"That being said, there is no 'conservative side', nor 'liberal side' to God...maybe religion..but not to God...and those two things are light years apart from each other!"

Which one? Some Gods (like the old testament one for example) are not exactly 'liberal' in their dealings with mankind. Others (like Buddha for example) are highly compassionate and 'liberal' by nature. As far as making a unilateral objective and generalised statement about the nature of 'God', I'm afraid you're not the first to be so presumptuous - lots of prophets and religions got there a long time before you. You need to get in line I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 18 May 10 - 04:15 AM

Right! Back onto familiar territory.

Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King and many other good and great people who believe in God. All invoked their belief to bolster their humanitarian message.

Well, if I believed in God, it would not be much of a mental effort to believe that God gave me my moral compass. I don't believe in fairy stories yet I try to be one of the good guys, lame dogs helped over stiles, that sort of thing. If I were superstitious, I might believe my volunteering / community work etc was somehow interweaved with my belief. Perhaps pack animals can't help looking out for the pack after all.

I can't help wondering if some people here are trying to say that if these great people weren't religious they would not have felt as strongly about social justice. I would concede they (especially Tutu) wouldn't have found themselves in a position to influence. After all, many political leaders are either superstitious or like to give the impression they are, so a religious leader questioning them can be useful in putting pressure to bear. Hoist by their own petard as it were.

I just get a bit hot under the collar when people seem to think that if it wasn't for religious superstition, we would all act like anarchic savages with no moral code whatsoever. They seem to think religion should interfere in the lives of normal people, and then call us trolls when we politely ask them to bugger off.

And that it what this thread is about, or I'm being thick again.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 May 10 - 04:26 AM

I remember a passage from one of the "Doctor" books of the fifties, where the director of surgery, a pillar of the local church, was checking out a young houseman, for potential to be a surgeon.

From memory, the coversation went:-

DOS   "Supposing you were operating and you suddenly found you had produced a serious bleed, what would you do?"

HOUSEMAN "I would have suction applied to clear the field, then repair the bleed"

DOS   "Vey well, but what if the bleed were unstoppable?"

HOUSEMAN (mindful of the DOS's religious leanings) "I would pray to the almighty for guidance Sir."

DOS "Do you not think, Doctor, that it might be in the patient's best interests to call in a consultant surgeon, before seeking the advice of an unqualified practitioner?"

Apposite, I think, in ths case where the discussion hinges on whether religion should be allowed to influence legal process. Law has its place, and so does religion, but "God told me to do it" quite rightly cannot stand in a court of law. If it were a court of morals, the situation might be different, as there both sides would be dealing in the abstract.

Don T.

Do T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 10 - 09:01 AM

Look, it is totally pointless to speculate whether Martin Luther King and other evangelists would have been good people without religion. That is an absurd blind alley.

The fact is:   they cited it constantly--and doing so was very useful in convincing others to do the same. So it has been a great force for good.   Sure it's been abused--as has patriotism, capitalism, and even, dare I say it, the idea of "socialism".   That does not negate the good of any of these.

And somehow it seems we've been over this ground before.   Wonder why it seems so.




Also, in an attempt to discredit religion, it was theorized that conscience is not the same as religion since we are "hard-wired" for it.

As I said, every major civilization has had religion. Therefore it's as least as likely that we are "hard-wired" for religion.

If not, I'm still waiting for--anybody--to cite a major civilization. without religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 10 - 09:04 AM

And by the way, I am not in the slightest religious--I just believe in fair play--including for religion and the religious.    Not the desperate smearing of all religion which goes on around here sometimes.

WMMV.