Laws influenced by religious opinion

Osgoodisgood

philologos wrote: »

What is true revisionism is that Jefferson wanted to stop Christians barred from political discourse.

Now that was dirty pool.
I didn't say that did I?

The fact that you have adopted the accomodationist position is hardly surprising and neither is your blinkered view of the creation of the Establishment Clause.

Honestly the positions that you'll contort yourself into for your god is alarming.

philologos

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Now that was dirty pool.
I didn't say that did I?

The fact that you have adopted the accomodationist position is hardly surprising and neither is your blinkered view of the creation of the Establishment Clause.

Honestly the positions that you'll contort yourself into for your god is alarming.

American history and the writings if the founding fathers make it clear that church-state separation was to ensure religious freedom. Look to Washington's letter to the Jews at Newport the first Jewish congregation in the US.

That's just historical fact. I can't honestly see your real objection to church - state separation being intended to bring better religious freedom in New England at that time given the history of each state having an established religion under the British bar Maryland I think.

wendell borton

Every law to some degree is influenced by religion back in the day religion was the only organised repository of knowledge and morals. There are good and bad aspects of every thing, lets not throw out the baby.

If it's wasn't for relgious laws I would be now coveting your wife and possesions!:rolleyes:

faceman

Not having to work on December 25th and 26th is influenced by religious opinion.

Damn those religious opinions, I LIKE WORK!

Shenshen

faceman wrote: »

Not having to work on December 25th and 26th is influenced by religious opinion.

Damn those religious opinions, I LIKE WORK!

I agree. I bloody HATE the packed shops, the traffic and the stupid expectation of your family that you are speding the day with them stuffing your face on food you can't stand.

I've had a few jobs in the past where I was working those days and absolutely loved it. No stress, no hassle, and the perfect excuse to the family.

Feathers

Shenshen wrote: »

Which is while there need to be processes and regulations in place to ensure that "democracy" doesn't turn into "tyranny of the majority".
In short, a democracy without a framework of laws guaranteeing the untouchable rights of minority groups would be a pretty nasty place to live.
Secularism is one of those frameworks.

Agreed, which is why secularism protects the right of people to vote for someone on the basis of their religion if they so choose, even though this logic would be rejected by the majority.

Secularism ensures there is no undue influence of religion on politics, its not about removing all religious voices from the room (as the idea the OP put forward with his open question). A religious person choosing to back a like-minded candidate isn't undue influence, it's simply democracy (unless there's gerrymandering involved, which is a different story).

Feathers

Shenshen wrote: »

and the stupid expectation of your family that you are speding the day with them stuffing your face on food you can't stand.

Well if you become a vegetarian, you get stuck with sprouts — you've no-one to blame but yourself

philologos

Feathers wrote: »

Agreed, which is why secularism protects the right of people to vote for someone on the basis of their religion if they so choose, even though this logic would be rejected by the majority.

Secularism ensures there is no undue influence of religion on politics, its not about removing all religious voices from the room (as the idea the OP put forward with his open question). A religious person choosing to back a like-minded candidate isn't undue influence, it's simply democracy (unless there's gerrymandering involved, which is a different story).

Good understanding of it. Some of the atheist posters think that secularism means that if you are a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu etc that you should shut up. Rather all it means is that proposals are considered on merit rather than which holy book they came from. It's not that faith-based views are banished, but rather that all views are considered on merit, and with no due deference to any particular religion.

Which in the US case clearly encouraged religious freedom rather than establishment Anglican led oppression.

Shenshen

Feathers wrote: »

Well if you become a vegetarian, you get stuck with sprouts — you've no-one to blame but yourself

I wish they made sprouts, I like sprouts

jill_valentine

Leftist wrote: »

tbf I assumed it was a religious protest based on an earlier comment. If it was a feminist protest I would respect that a lot more.

It was definitely a religious one, I remember seeing the biddies make a big show of praying out loud.

Shenshen

Feathers wrote: »

Agreed, which is why secularism protects the right of people to vote for someone on the basis of their religion if they so choose, even though this logic would be rejected by the majority.

Secularism ensures there is no undue influence of religion on politics, its not about removing all religious voices from the room (as the idea the OP put forward with his open question). A religious person choosing to back a like-minded candidate isn't undue influence, it's simply democracy (unless there's gerrymandering involved, which is a different story).

Interesting... I'm pretty sure most posters so far have said exactly that, including myself.
I'm not really sure what thread you were reading where people were suggested removing voting rights from religious people, or outlawing them from voicing their opinion?
What had been suggested was that an opinion with no other basis than religious scripture and no further merit should not carry weight in a secular society. Your own religion should not be an excuse to force all of society to live by the rules dictated by your god.

Zebra3

jill_valentine wrote: »

It was definitely a religious one, I remember seeing the biddies make a big show of praying out loud.

It's amazing the way all those religious nuts don't converge outside churches to protest against all the child abuse. :rolleyes:

mikemac1

jill_valentine wrote: »

It was definitely a religious one, I remember seeing the biddies make a big show of praying out loud.

And yet the Church and the Archbishop 2km up the road in Drumcondra stayed out of it

But the Catholic Church in Ireland remained silent. Individual priests and seminarians got involved with the campaign but the Irish hierarchy declined to comment. Maria admits she was disappointed.

“There was no message of support from the Church,” she says “and you can quote me on that.

http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/28th-july-2006/6/shamed-out-of-business

jill_valentine

mikemac1 wrote: »

And yet the Church and the Archbishop 2km up the road in Drumcondra stayed out of it

I can picture them having nightmares about the crowd of priests trapped in Ireland's Largest Lingerie section all of a sudden.

Feathers

Shenshen wrote: »

Interesting... I'm pretty sure most posters so far have said exactly that, including myself.

Well you posted in reply to a point I made talking about "tyranny of the majority" — I got the impression from your reply that you weren't agreeing with what I'd posted at the time, maybe I took you up wrong.

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm not really sure what thread you were reading where people were suggested removing voting rights from religious people, or outlawing them from voicing their opinion?

Feathers wrote: »

Secularism ensures there is no undue influence of religion on politics, its not about removing all religious voices from the room (as the idea the OP put forward with his open question).

From the original post:

Leftist wrote: »

And should religious groups be banned from lobbying the government on law making decisions?

Lobbying is a part of our political process.

Shenshen

Feathers wrote: »

Lobbying is a part of our political process.

I read that as a question more than as a suggestion, but I can see how you could understand it that way.

Feathers

Shenshen wrote: »

I read that as a question more than as a suggestion, but I can see how you could understand it that way.

Regardless, it still opened the discussion. & now you know which thread I was reading :P

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Good understanding of it. Some of the atheist posters think that secularism means that if you are a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu etc that you should shut up.

I have seen few, if any, people expressing or representing that kind of opinion. I fear this might be another in a long list of propaganda based misrepresentations that you use to tar people who do not hold the opinions you do.

Again all secularism demands, to borrow slightly from Obamas Keynote speech,
is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into arguments that are amenable to discourse and reason that are accessible to people of all faiths or no faith at all.

Leftist

Feathers wrote: »

Agreed, which is why secularism protects the right of people to vote for someone on the basis of their religion if they so choose, even though this logic would be rejected by the majority.

Secularism ensures there is no undue influence of religion on politics, its not about removing all religious voices from the room (as the idea the OP put forward with his open question). A religious person choosing to back a like-minded candidate isn't undue influence, it's simply democracy (unless there's gerrymandering involved, which is a different story).

Nope.

I don't recall saying that and if I did it wasn't my intention.

I specifically mean laws which are dictated by religious views.

I think I cleared that about a dozen times. If a christian has an opinion on divorce or gay marraige then they have a right to voice it, but if their opinion is based on a religious law, it should be discounted and that opinion should never influence democracy.
They can lie or they may even have another solid reason why they object, and that is perfectly fine.

PS anyone who thinks ireland is a secular country is kidding themselves. It's swiftly moving away from the influence of the church but you only have to look at the schools to see the old theocracy is still dwelling within our infrastructure.

philologos

Leftist wrote: »

Nope.

I don't recall saying that and if I did it wasn't my intention.

I specifically mean laws which are dictated by religious views.

I think I cleared that about a dozen times. If a christian has an opinion on divorce or gay marraige then they have a right to voice it, but if their opinion is based on a religious law, it should be discounted and that opinion should never influence democracy.
They can lie or they may even have another solid reason why they object, and that is perfectly fine.

PS anyone who thinks ireland is a secular country is kidding themselves. It's swiftly moving away from the influence of the church but you only have to look at the schools to see the old theocracy is still dwelling within our infrastructure.

You might want to read the OP. This could be useful for people who claim it is a misconception that atheists often confuse secularism with shutting people of faith out of politics.

Are there any current laws in irish society that are influenced specifically by a religious group?

for instance we all know about the former ban on contraception and divorce, the former was obviously a religious law.

And should religious groups be banned from lobbying the government on law making decisions?

The answer is of course not any more than Atheist Ireland shouldn't be banned from lobbying on the basis of atheism.

I don't think you understand the concept of secularism very much. It doesn't mean that people can't advocate X or Y even on the basis of a religious text, what it does mean is that all political decision making should be based on merit not no holy book X or Y.

As for schools, I'd be an advocate of the Irish system making more secular schools as is the case in Britain (66% secular 33% faith schools) to allow choice to parents.

The problem is when some atheists insist that secularism means stamping out faith from society when it clearly never has done if we look back to the early years of the United States for example.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

You might want to read the OP. This could be useful for people who claim it is a misconception that atheists often confuse secularism with shutting people of faith out of politics.

Yes because one single post bolsters the use of the word "often".

Even then your claim is made weaker by the fact that the OP does not express any such thing. Note the Question marks. They look like this: "?". Using it he is raiding the topic for discussion, not expressly espousing that question. If I said "Should women pregnant with DS babies be forced to abort them?" I would be raising that as a conversation topic, not suggesting that that is the position I myself hold.

So you are wrong on two counts:

1) The OP is not saying what you claim he is saying and
2) One single OP post does not mean "often".

But do not let that stop you on your usual campaign of tarring people you disagree with with propaganda straw men of your own construction.

Feathers

Leftist wrote: »

Are there any current laws in irish society that are influenced specifically by a religious group?

for instance we all know about the former ban on contraception and divorce, the former was obviously a religious law.

And should religious groups be banned from lobbying the government on law making decisions?

for instance gay marraige?

Imo, I can't really see how person A can expect person B to live by their religious rules? surely you can see that it's a belief? it's your right to have that belief but how can anyone expect others to live by that doctrine?

Discuss.

Feathers wrote: »

Its not about removing all religious voices from the room (as the idea the OP put forward with his open question).

Leftist wrote: »

Nope.

I don't recall saying that and if I did it wasn't my intention.

I specifically mean laws which are dictated by religious views.

I think I cleared that about a dozen times.

Please tell me how I could've phrased this less controversially to avoid the backlash, I'd love to know. I didn't say it was what you were saying, which is why I deliberately tried to soften the language I used — I said that you 'put the idea forward' with an 'open question'.

If you didn't want the point discussed, don't post it

Leftist

philologos wrote: »

You might want to read the OP. This could be useful for people who claim it is a misconception that atheists often confuse secularism with shutting people of faith out of politics.



The answer is of course not any more than Atheist Ireland shouldn't be banned from lobbying on the basis of atheism.

I don't think you understand the concept of secularism very much. It doesn't mean that people can't advocate X or Y even on the basis of a religious text, what it does mean is that all political decision making should be based on merit not no holy book X or Y.

As for schools, I'd be an advocate of the Irish system making more secular schools as is the case in Britain (66% secular 33% faith schools) to allow choice to parents.

The problem is when some atheists insist that secularism means stamping out faith from society when it clearly never has done if we look back to the early years of the United States for example.

While the original question is open for interpretation I have made it clear, to you on various occassions, that my opinion that appealing or influencing law on religious grounds should be discounted and rejected.

As for secularism, I don't care what america did in the late 18th century. It's not a guidance for me.

I agree that the majority of schools should be non-denominational. If religious families want to send their children to religious schools then they should also have that right.

Leftist

Feathers wrote: »

Please tell me how I could've phrased this less controversially to avoid the backlash, I'd love to know. I didn't say it was what you were saying, which is why I deliberately tried to soften the language I used — I said that you 'put the idea forward' with an 'open question'.

if you didn't want the point discussed, don't post it

fair enough, I misinterpreted your post.