Our justice system should put in safeguards against what happens if we accidentally appoint ungodly people.
Currently, we still have some safeguards in place that ensure that we don’t accidentally appoint godly people. Our First Amendment, for example, is one of such safeguards, and I believe it to be a very good thing.
The problem with using religion as a basis for public policy is that there’s no way to know (or even estimate), objectively, which religion is right. For example, would you be comfortable if our country officially adopted Sharia law, put Muslim clerics in all the key government positions, and mandated that Islam be taught in schools (*) ? Most Christians would answer “no”, but why not ? Is it because Christianity is the one true religion, whereas Islam is not ? But Muslims say the exact same thing, only in reverse; and so does every other major religion, and there’s no way to know whether any of them are right (other than after death, I suppose, which isn’t very useful). Meanwhile, there are atheists such as myself who believe that the very idea of religion is deeply flawed; where do we fit into this proposed theocracy ?
This is why I believe that decoupling religion from government was an excellent move. If the government is entirely secular, then every person is free to worship the god or gods they believe in, and no person has the right to impose their faith onto others. This system of government protects everyone, Christians included.
(*) I realize that the chances of this actually happening are pretty much nonexistent, but it’s still a useful hypothetical example.
If the government is entirely secular, then every person is free to worship the god or gods they believe in, and no person has the right to impose their faith onto others.
I don’t think that one can say a government is entirely secular, nor can it reasonably be an ideal endlessly striven for. A political apparatus would have to determine what is and isn’t permissible, and any line drawn would be arbitrary.
Suppose a law is passed by a coalition of theist and environmentalist politicians banning eating whales, where the theists think it is wrong for people (in that country) to eat whales as a matter of religious law. A court deciding whether or not the law was impermissibly religiously motivated not only has to try and divine the motives of those involved in passing the law, it would have to decide what probability of passing it would have had, what to counterfactually replace the theists’ values with, etc. and then compare that to some standard.
Currently, we still have some safeguards in place that ensure that we don’t accidentally appoint godly people. Our First Amendment, for example, is one of such safeguards, and I believe it to be a very good thing.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Which part of this is intended to prevent the appointment of godly judges? The guarantee that we won’t go killing people for heresy? Or the guarantee that you have freedom of speech and the freedom to tell the government you’d like it to do a better job on something?
Unless by “godly” you mean “fanatical extremists who approve of terrorism and/or fail to understand why theocracies only work in theory and not in practice”. In which case I agree, but that wasn’t my definition of that word.
For example, would you be comfortable if our country officially adopted Sharia law, put Muslim clerics in all the key government positions, and mandated that Islam be taught in schools (*) ?
No. You predict correctly.
Most Christians would answer “no”, but why not ? Is it because Christianity is the one true religion, whereas Islam is not ?
Yes. And because I expect Sharia law to directly impinge on the freedoms that I rightly enjoy in secular society and would also enjoy if godly and sensible people (here meaning moral Christians who have a basic grasp of history, human nature, politics and rationality) were running things. And because I disapprove of female circumcision and the death penalty for gays. And because I think all the clothing I’d have to wear would be uncomfortable, I don’t like gloves, black is nice but summer in California calls for something other than head-to-toe covering in all black, I prefer to dress practically and I have a male friend I’d like to not be separated from.
Some of the general nature of these issues showed up in medieval Europe. That’s because they’re humans-with-authority issues, not just issues with Islam. (At least, not with Islam alone.)
But Muslims say the exact same thing, only in reverse; and so does every other major religion,
Yes, but they’re wrong.
and there’s no way to know whether any of them are right (other than after death, I suppose, which isn’t very useful)
We can test what they claim is true. For instance, Jehovah’s Witnesses think it’ll be only a very short time until the end of the world, too short for political involvement to be useful (I think). So if we wait and the world doesn’t end and we ascertain that had more or fewer people been involved in whatever ways we could have had outcomes that would have been better or worse, we can disprove a tenet of that sect.
Meanwhile, there are atheists such as myself who believe that the very idea of religion is deeply flawed; where do we fit into this proposed theocracy ?
The one with the Muslims? Probably as corpses. Are you under the impression that I’ve suggested a Christian theocracy instead?
This is why I believe that decoupling religion from government was an excellent move.
Concur. I don’t want our country hobbled by Baptists and Catholics arguing with each other.
If the government is entirely secular, then every person is free to worship the god or gods they believe in,
Of course, the government could mandate atheism, or allow people to identify as whatever while prohibiting them from doing everything their religion calls for (distributing Gideon Bibles at schools, wearing a hijab in public, whatever). Social pressure is also a factor, one which made for an oppressive, theocraticish early America even though we had the First Amendment.
and no person has the right to impose their faith onto others. This system of government protects everyone, Christians included.
When it works, it really works. You’ll find no disagreement from anyone with a modicum of sense.
Unless by “godly” you mean “fanatical extremists who approve of terrorism and/or fail to understand why theocracies only work in theory and not in practice”.
Understood. When most Christian say things like, “I wish our elected official were more godly”, they usually mean, “I really wish we lived in a Christian theocracy”, but I see now that you’re not one of these people. In this case, would you vote for an atheist and thus against a Christian, if you thought that the atheist candidate’s policies were more beneficial to society than his Christian rival’s ?
Yes, but they’re wrong.
Funny, that’s what they say about you...
We can test what they claim is true.
This is an excellent idea, but it’s not always practical; otherwise, most people would be following the same religion by now. For example, you mentioned that you don’t want to wear uncomfortable clothing or be separated from your male friend (to use some of the milder examples). Some Muslims, however (as well as some Christians), believe that doing these things is not merely a bad idea, but a mortal sin, a direct affront to their god (who, according to them, is the one true god), which condemns the sinner to a fiery hell after death. How would you test whether this claim was true or not ?
Of course, the government could mandate atheism
Even though I’m an atheist, I believe this would be a terrible idea.
When it works, it really works. You’ll find no disagreement from anyone with a modicum of sense.
Well, this all depends on what you believe in. For example, some theists believe (or at least claim to believe) that certain actions—such as wearing the wrong kind of clothes, or marrying the wrong kinds of people, etc. -- are mortal sins that provoke God’s wrath. And when God’s wrath is made manifest, it affects the entire nation, not just the individual sinners (there are plenty of Bible verses that seem to be saying the same thing).
If this belief is true, then stopping people from wearing sinful clothing or marrying in a sinful way or whatever is not merely a sensible thing to do, but pretty much a moral imperative. This is why (as far as I understand) some Christians are trying to turn our government into a Christian theocracy: they genuinely believe that it is their moral duty to do so. Since their beliefs are ultimately based on faith, they are not open to persuasion; and this is why I personally love the idea of a secular government.
In this case, would you vote for an atheist and thus against a Christian, if you thought that the atheist candidate’s policies were more beneficial to society than his Christian rival’s ?
Possibly. Depends on how much better, how I expected both candidates’ policies to change and how electable I considered them both.
For example, you mentioned that you don’t want to wear uncomfortable clothing or be separated from your male friend (to use some of the milder examples). Some Muslims, however (as well as some Christians), believe that doing these things is not merely a bad idea, but a mortal sin, a direct affront to their god (who, according to them, is the one true god), which condemns the sinner to a fiery hell after death. How would you test whether this claim was true or not ?
I wouldn’t. But I would test accompanying claims. For this particular example, I can’t rule out the possibility of ending up getting sent to hell for this until I die. However, having heard what supporters of those policies say, I know that most Muslims who support this sort of idea of modest clothing claim that it causes women to be more respected, causes men exposed only to this kind of woman to be less lustful and some even claim it lowers the prevalence of rape. As I receive an optimal level of respect at the moment, I find the first claim implausible. Men in countries where it happens are more sexually frustrated and more likely to end up blowing themselves up. Countries imposing these sorts of standards harm women even more than they harm men. So that’s implausible. And rape occurs less in cultures with more unsexualized nudity, which would indicate only a modest protective effect or none at all, or could even indicate that more covering up causes more rape.
It’s not 100% out of the question that the universe has an evil god who orders people to do stupid things for his own amusement.
Funny, that’s what they say about you...
I say you’re wrong about atheism, but you don’t consider that strong evidence in favor of Christianity.
For example, some theists believe (or at least claim to believe) that certain actions—such as wearing the wrong kind of clothes, or marrying the wrong kinds of people, etc. -- are mortal sins that provoke God’s wrath. And when God’s wrath is made manifest, it affects the entire nation, not just the individual sinners (there are plenty of Bible verses that seem to be saying the same thing).
Possibly. Depends on how much better, how I expected both candidates’ policies to change and how electable I considered them both.
That’s perfectly reasonable, but see my comments below.
For this particular example, I can’t rule out the possibility of ending up getting sent to hell for this until I die. However, having heard what supporters of those policies say, I know that most Muslims who support this sort of idea of modest clothing claim that it causes women to be more respected...
Ok, so you’ve listed a bunch of empirically verifiable criteria, and evaluated them. This approach makes sense to me… but… it sounds to me like you’re making your political (“atheist politician vs. Christian politician”) and moral (“should I wear a burqa”) choices based primarily (or perhaps even entirely) on secular reasoning. You would support the politician who will implement the best policies (and who stands a chance of being elected at all), regardless of his religion; and you would oppose social polices that demonstrably make people unhappy—in this life, not the next. So, where does “godliness” come in ?
It’s not 100% out of the question that the universe has an evil god who orders people to do stupid things for his own amusement.
I agree, but then, I don’t have faith to inform me of any competing gods’ existence. I imagine that if I had faith in a non-evil Christian god, who is also the only god, I’d peg the probability of the evil god’s existence at exactly 0%. But it’s possible that I’m misunderstanding what faith feels like “from the inside”.
I’m under the impression that you’ve just endorsed a legal system which safeguards against the consequences of appointing judges who don’t agree with Christianity’s model of right and wrong, but which doesn’t safeguard against the consequences appointing judges who don’t agree with other religions’ models of right and wrong.
Am I mistaken?
If you are endorsing that, then yes, I think you’ve endorsed a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as generally interpreted.
Regardless, I absolutely do endorse testing the claims of various religions (and non-religions), and only acting on the basis of a claim insofar as we have demonstrable evidence for that claim.
But Muslims say the exact same thing, only in reverse; and so does every other major religion,
Yes, but they’re wrong.
and no person has the right to impose their faith onto others. This system of government protects everyone, Christians included.
When it works, it really works. You’ll find no disagreement from anyone with a modicum of sense.
These two quotes are an interesting contrast to me. I think the Enlightenment concept of tolerance is an essential principle of just government. But you believe that there is a right answer on the religion question. Why does tolerance make any sense to you?
<Just to be clear, abandoning tolerance does not logically imply bringing back the Inquisition (or its Protestant equivalent),
How not? Hasn’t it basically always resulted in either cruelty or separatism? The former is harmful to others, the latter dangerous to those who practice it. Are we defining tolerance differently? Tolerance makes sense to me for the same reason that if someone came up to me and said that the moon was made of green cheese because Omega said so, and then I ended up running into a whole bunch of people who said so and rarely listened to sense, I would not favor laws facilitating killing them. And if they said that it would be morally wrong for them to say otherwise, I would not favor causing them distress by forcing them to say things they think are wrong. Even though it makes no sense, I would avoid antagonizing them because I generally believe in not harming or antagonizing people.
But you believe that there is a right answer on the religion question.
Don’t you? If you’re an atheist, don’t you believe that’s the right answer?
It seems logically possible to me that government could favor a particular sect without necessarily engaging in immoral acts. For the favored sect, the government could pay the salary of pastors and the construction costs of churches. Education standards (even for home-schooled children) could include knowledge of particular theological positions of the sect. Membership could be a plus-factor in applying for government licenses or government employment.
As you note, human history strongly suggests government favoritism wouldn’t stop there and would proceed to immoral acts. But it is conceivable, right? (And if we could edit out in-group bias, I think that government favoritism is the rational response to the existence of an objectively true moral proposition).
And you are correct that I used imprecise language about knowing the right answer on religion.
It is conceivable. I consider it unlikely. It would probably be the beginning of a slippery slope, so I reject it on the grounds that it will lead to bad things.
Plus I wouldn’t know which sect it should be, but we can rule out Catholicism, which will really make them angry, and all unfavored sects will grumble. (Some Baptists believe all Catholics are a prophesied evil. Try compromising between THEM.) And, you know, this very idea is what prompted one of the two genocides that brought part of my family to the New World.
And the government could ask favors of the sect in return for these favors, corrupting its theology.
Currently, we still have some safeguards in place that ensure that we don’t accidentally appoint godly people. Our First Amendment, for example, is one of such safeguards, and I believe it to be a very good thing.
The problem with using religion as a basis for public policy is that there’s no way to know (or even estimate), objectively, which religion is right. For example, would you be comfortable if our country officially adopted Sharia law, put Muslim clerics in all the key government positions, and mandated that Islam be taught in schools (*) ? Most Christians would answer “no”, but why not ? Is it because Christianity is the one true religion, whereas Islam is not ? But Muslims say the exact same thing, only in reverse; and so does every other major religion, and there’s no way to know whether any of them are right (other than after death, I suppose, which isn’t very useful). Meanwhile, there are atheists such as myself who believe that the very idea of religion is deeply flawed; where do we fit into this proposed theocracy ?
This is why I believe that decoupling religion from government was an excellent move. If the government is entirely secular, then every person is free to worship the god or gods they believe in, and no person has the right to impose their faith onto others. This system of government protects everyone, Christians included.
(*) I realize that the chances of this actually happening are pretty much nonexistent, but it’s still a useful hypothetical example.
I don’t think that one can say a government is entirely secular, nor can it reasonably be an ideal endlessly striven for. A political apparatus would have to determine what is and isn’t permissible, and any line drawn would be arbitrary.
Suppose a law is passed by a coalition of theist and environmentalist politicians banning eating whales, where the theists think it is wrong for people (in that country) to eat whales as a matter of religious law. A court deciding whether or not the law was impermissibly religiously motivated not only has to try and divine the motives of those involved in passing the law, it would have to decide what probability of passing it would have had, what to counterfactually replace the theists’ values with, etc. and then compare that to some standard.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Which part of this is intended to prevent the appointment of godly judges? The guarantee that we won’t go killing people for heresy? Or the guarantee that you have freedom of speech and the freedom to tell the government you’d like it to do a better job on something?
Unless by “godly” you mean “fanatical extremists who approve of terrorism and/or fail to understand why theocracies only work in theory and not in practice”. In which case I agree, but that wasn’t my definition of that word.
No. You predict correctly.
Yes. And because I expect Sharia law to directly impinge on the freedoms that I rightly enjoy in secular society and would also enjoy if godly and sensible people (here meaning moral Christians who have a basic grasp of history, human nature, politics and rationality) were running things. And because I disapprove of female circumcision and the death penalty for gays. And because I think all the clothing I’d have to wear would be uncomfortable, I don’t like gloves, black is nice but summer in California calls for something other than head-to-toe covering in all black, I prefer to dress practically and I have a male friend I’d like to not be separated from.
Some of the general nature of these issues showed up in medieval Europe. That’s because they’re humans-with-authority issues, not just issues with Islam. (At least, not with Islam alone.)
Yes, but they’re wrong.
We can test what they claim is true. For instance, Jehovah’s Witnesses think it’ll be only a very short time until the end of the world, too short for political involvement to be useful (I think). So if we wait and the world doesn’t end and we ascertain that had more or fewer people been involved in whatever ways we could have had outcomes that would have been better or worse, we can disprove a tenet of that sect.
The one with the Muslims? Probably as corpses. Are you under the impression that I’ve suggested a Christian theocracy instead?
Concur. I don’t want our country hobbled by Baptists and Catholics arguing with each other.
Of course, the government could mandate atheism, or allow people to identify as whatever while prohibiting them from doing everything their religion calls for (distributing Gideon Bibles at schools, wearing a hijab in public, whatever). Social pressure is also a factor, one which made for an oppressive, theocraticish early America even though we had the First Amendment.
When it works, it really works. You’ll find no disagreement from anyone with a modicum of sense.
Understood. When most Christian say things like, “I wish our elected official were more godly”, they usually mean, “I really wish we lived in a Christian theocracy”, but I see now that you’re not one of these people. In this case, would you vote for an atheist and thus against a Christian, if you thought that the atheist candidate’s policies were more beneficial to society than his Christian rival’s ?
Funny, that’s what they say about you...
This is an excellent idea, but it’s not always practical; otherwise, most people would be following the same religion by now. For example, you mentioned that you don’t want to wear uncomfortable clothing or be separated from your male friend (to use some of the milder examples). Some Muslims, however (as well as some Christians), believe that doing these things is not merely a bad idea, but a mortal sin, a direct affront to their god (who, according to them, is the one true god), which condemns the sinner to a fiery hell after death. How would you test whether this claim was true or not ?
Even though I’m an atheist, I believe this would be a terrible idea.
Well, this all depends on what you believe in. For example, some theists believe (or at least claim to believe) that certain actions—such as wearing the wrong kind of clothes, or marrying the wrong kinds of people, etc. -- are mortal sins that provoke God’s wrath. And when God’s wrath is made manifest, it affects the entire nation, not just the individual sinners (there are plenty of Bible verses that seem to be saying the same thing).
If this belief is true, then stopping people from wearing sinful clothing or marrying in a sinful way or whatever is not merely a sensible thing to do, but pretty much a moral imperative. This is why (as far as I understand) some Christians are trying to turn our government into a Christian theocracy: they genuinely believe that it is their moral duty to do so. Since their beliefs are ultimately based on faith, they are not open to persuasion; and this is why I personally love the idea of a secular government.
Possibly. Depends on how much better, how I expected both candidates’ policies to change and how electable I considered them both.
I wouldn’t. But I would test accompanying claims. For this particular example, I can’t rule out the possibility of ending up getting sent to hell for this until I die. However, having heard what supporters of those policies say, I know that most Muslims who support this sort of idea of modest clothing claim that it causes women to be more respected, causes men exposed only to this kind of woman to be less lustful and some even claim it lowers the prevalence of rape. As I receive an optimal level of respect at the moment, I find the first claim implausible. Men in countries where it happens are more sexually frustrated and more likely to end up blowing themselves up. Countries imposing these sorts of standards harm women even more than they harm men. So that’s implausible. And rape occurs less in cultures with more unsexualized nudity, which would indicate only a modest protective effect or none at all, or could even indicate that more covering up causes more rape.
It’s not 100% out of the question that the universe has an evil god who orders people to do stupid things for his own amusement.
I say you’re wrong about atheism, but you don’t consider that strong evidence in favor of Christianity.
Ah. I see. Sounds plausible… ish… sort of.
That’s perfectly reasonable, but see my comments below.
Ok, so you’ve listed a bunch of empirically verifiable criteria, and evaluated them. This approach makes sense to me… but… it sounds to me like you’re making your political (“atheist politician vs. Christian politician”) and moral (“should I wear a burqa”) choices based primarily (or perhaps even entirely) on secular reasoning. You would support the politician who will implement the best policies (and who stands a chance of being elected at all), regardless of his religion; and you would oppose social polices that demonstrably make people unhappy—in this life, not the next. So, where does “godliness” come in ?
I agree, but then, I don’t have faith to inform me of any competing gods’ existence. I imagine that if I had faith in a non-evil Christian god, who is also the only god, I’d peg the probability of the evil god’s existence at exactly 0%. But it’s possible that I’m misunderstanding what faith feels like “from the inside”.
Uh oh. :-)
I’m under the impression that you’ve just endorsed a legal system which safeguards against the consequences of appointing judges who don’t agree with Christianity’s model of right and wrong, but which doesn’t safeguard against the consequences appointing judges who don’t agree with other religions’ models of right and wrong.
Am I mistaken?
If you are endorsing that, then yes, I think you’ve endorsed a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as generally interpreted.
Regardless, I absolutely do endorse testing the claims of various religions (and non-religions), and only acting on the basis of a claim insofar as we have demonstrable evidence for that claim.
It might be because it’s late, but I’m confused about your first paragraph. Can you clarify?
These two quotes are an interesting contrast to me. I think the Enlightenment concept of tolerance is an essential principle of just government. But you believe that there is a right answer on the religion question. Why does tolerance make any sense to you?
How not? Hasn’t it basically always resulted in either cruelty or separatism? The former is harmful to others, the latter dangerous to those who practice it. Are we defining tolerance differently? Tolerance makes sense to me for the same reason that if someone came up to me and said that the moon was made of green cheese because Omega said so, and then I ended up running into a whole bunch of people who said so and rarely listened to sense, I would not favor laws facilitating killing them. And if they said that it would be morally wrong for them to say otherwise, I would not favor causing them distress by forcing them to say things they think are wrong. Even though it makes no sense, I would avoid antagonizing them because I generally believe in not harming or antagonizing people.
Don’t you? If you’re an atheist, don’t you believe that’s the right answer?
It seems logically possible to me that government could favor a particular sect without necessarily engaging in immoral acts. For the favored sect, the government could pay the salary of pastors and the construction costs of churches. Education standards (even for home-schooled children) could include knowledge of particular theological positions of the sect. Membership could be a plus-factor in applying for government licenses or government employment.
As you note, human history strongly suggests government favoritism wouldn’t stop there and would proceed to immoral acts. But it is conceivable, right? (And if we could edit out in-group bias, I think that government favoritism is the rational response to the existence of an objectively true moral proposition).
And you are correct that I used imprecise language about knowing the right answer on religion.
It is conceivable. I consider it unlikely. It would probably be the beginning of a slippery slope, so I reject it on the grounds that it will lead to bad things.
Plus I wouldn’t know which sect it should be, but we can rule out Catholicism, which will really make them angry, and all unfavored sects will grumble. (Some Baptists believe all Catholics are a prophesied evil. Try compromising between THEM.) And, you know, this very idea is what prompted one of the two genocides that brought part of my family to the New World.
And the government could ask favors of the sect in return for these favors, corrupting its theology.
By hypothesis, the sect chosen is the one that is true.