As I believe that the state should be secular, opposing the passing of laws that might encourage behaviour that is contrary to religious teaching would be a fruitless path to pursue. Laws enacted to provide and protect teenage mothers may be said to 'encourage' such pregnancies outside marriage, but on the other hand fit in with religious obligations such as charity and compassion.

Doug

Whose religious teaching should that be, then?

Exactly stated!

Can the State legislate morality? Most answer, "No". Of course, that is false. The only question is "Which morality?" The State legislates morality all the time.

If God's Law forbids such behavior then the State is foolish (and rebellious) to enact legislation which makes wrong to be right.

The State does not define right and wrong. God does in His Word. We are to discover it. The State is every bit under God's authority as are all things. There is no secular/sacred distinction as God is King over everything, including government leaders. To say that the State is outside of God's moral decree is to make the State out to be God. This leads to a very tyrannical State.

I find there are different spheres of life in society. While state needs to provide ground for independence and autonomy in society so that individual liberties can be granted... provided this individual liberty is no threat to the society as a whole (police and judges may have a right to decide wheter some individual actions may pose a risk to society as a whole), individual faith (or the lack of it) must have room in a democratic society (should the previous risk be considered). Faith and its manifestations belong to the sphere of the individual. Social laws do not impose behaviours or faith patterns, but are to allow some flexibility in the beliefs of a community.

Any adult who still believes in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or a God should be given 20 years hard labour. See how their praying will get them out of that one.

When a government declares that there is a separation of church and state, not to mention freedom of religion, then by definition it should not pass any laws on the grounds that it violates a religious teaching.

Just as I would like to see you get out of explaining yourself on Judgement Day...

Doug

Greg;

Were you of the female sex and residing in certain Arab nations, and convicted of adultry, your views on this may change somewhat.

Unless of course you are of the opinion that one should have their head removed for having sex out of wedlock.

By this same token, you most assuredly would not want to get caught eating a "pork chop", irrelevant of your gender.

Tom

Does that also include the billions of other people on this planet who weren't born into the Judeo-Xian regions as you or I were?

We the people should create our own Judgment Day (Yezhov style) on earth.

I'm glad to see that the forum's high standards of debate are being effectively maintained in this thread aimed at providing input for Andy's students.

This was, in fact, a very good question indeed. On the face of it, it seems that the answer must be that government is secular and therefore ought not to be influenced by religious considerations.

However, looking at it a bit more deeply, we run into issues like Sikh protests against wearing crash helmets. Does the State have the right to compel citizens to perform acts they consider morally or religiously offensive? If one replies in the negative, then clearly this would have implications for the question posed by Andy's student. On the other hand, if we say that the State does have the right to impose its will on dissenters (to "force mean to be free" according to Rousseau), then where does that leave something like the Nuremburg Trials which executed Nazis who claimed they were only following orders on the basis that men had the duty to disobey illegitimate or immoral orders?

My response to all this, now that I think about it, is essentially pragmatic rather than based on any systematic ideology. There are some circumstances in which I would expect my representatives to legislate against the religious beliefs of some citizens. Examples of this would include the illegalization of female circumcision or suttee. I would also support legislation to ensure the equal rights of girls from Islamic backgrounds with regard to marriage, education, etc. On the other hand, although I am personally strongly opposed to abortion, I would not consider it inappropriate for my democratically-elected representatives to legalize it. There's not much of a logical basis behind my position, I'm afraid.

I should imagine it will be interesting for Andy's students to see how people's worldviews impinge on absolutely everything, leading to fundamental differences within a society.

Doug

It seems that the Bible is open to different interpretations. For example, there seems to be a great difference between the Old and New Testaments. Conservatives seem to rely more on the Old Testament than the New Testament for their guidance on these “moral” issues. For example, when it comes to capital punishment they prefer the “eye for an eye” message than the one of tolerance and forgiveness espoused by Jesus.

I am not sure from my reading of the Bible if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, abortion, birth control or sex outside marriage. Even if it was clear, I would still apply my own moral code to these issues.

(1) Homosexuality: It is clear that a significant proportion of the population desire to have homosexual relationships. As long as it takes place between consenting adults I cannot see why they should not be allowed to do this. It fact, I cannot see what it has to do with anyone else. What I do know is that is sex is very pleasurable and that it would be highly immoral for heterosexuals to try and deny these pleasures to homosexuals.

(2) Birth-Control: Mankind has been using birth-control for a very long time. In fact, as long as it took them to work out the connection between sex and pregnancy. The problem is that for thousands of years humans did not have an effective means of birth control. That changed with the scientific advancements made over the last 200 years. I cannot see any reason why people should not attempt to control the number of children that they have. Surely they are the best judges of this matter.

(3) Abortion: I think abortion is highly undesirable. I would much prefer people to use birth control. However, it is clear that a significant percentage of women do get pregnant. We know from what went on before abortion was legalized, a percentage will seek termination whatever the law says. This criminalizes the person carrying out the abortion and poses a risk to the life of the pregnant woman. It made sense for countries to make abortion legal when it was restricted to the early stages of pregnancy.

(4) Sex Outside Marriage: As I said earlier, sex is a pleasurable activity for most people. There are of course people, usually from religious backgrounds, who feel a great deal of guilt about the subject and find it difficult to obtain pleasure from this activity. As a Roman Catholic girlfriend once told me, “guilt does not stop you from having sex, it just stops you from enjoying it". I think it is very important that we don’t allow people with sexual hang-ups to determine government legislation on sexual matters.

I do not believe that sex outside marriage is always a good idea. In fact, I am of the opinion that some people have probably done themselves a lot of harm by having “casual” sex. I would always advise young people to be careful about having sex at a very early age. Even after 16 they should take great care about who they choose as a sexual partner. I say this not because of anything I have read in the Bible, I just fear that they will damage themselves emotionally if they develop a casual approach to sex.

John, I think you have missed the point with most of what you have said above. Sex is for procreation and, fortunately for us, also happens to be pleasurable. Part of the reason for homosexuality being regarded as sinful by Christians, therefore, is the inabilility (note: not the prevention) of the action being for the purposes God intended it.

This, again, is part of the reason why marriage is sacrosanct for Christians and casual sex so damaging. Birth control within marriage is different from casual sex in that, according to the Bible, the purpose of this relationship is procreation, whereas the latter is purely for pleasure. Birth control simply gives married couples more control over when to conceive. It cannot really be compared with birth control outside marriage.

Doug

What does the Bible tell us about married couples in the 21st century who choose not to have children? I guess following your logic they are not allowed to enjoy sex either?
This appears to me not so much a moral position as a recruitment drive.

I think what you're trying to say, Andy, is that the 21st century is radically different from the times in which the Bible was written. And you're correct - at least in terms of technology and (natural) knowledge. It's just that the same isn't true of human nature: we're still pretty much in the same position...

Although it may sound controversial, Christian marriage is (God-willing) supposed to result in children.

Doug

PS I'm going to ignore your point about married couples 'not being allowed to enjoy sex' as it was childish.

perhaps a pondering of this might help finding answers.

Instructions on 'right thinking' and 'right living' in the bible were presented to humanity at different stages throughout evolution. When we are born and as yet have not lost our senses we live in a union with our surroundings in the moment. A time comes when 'ego' or awareness of separation comes, as we now must leave the 'garden of eden' we learn new rules to protect ourselves and to promote healthy relations with other entities, our parents make strict rules that are clear and can perhaps be seen as 'gross' in the sense that we are not necessarily asked to understand them but to obey for our own protection with regards to things we don't understand, for example 'don't ever go across the road without holding my hand!' ;while beginning with more subtle instructions such as 'look, that way first (while explaining what left is)...etc etc.

In time our ultimate teacher, who no longer is our parents, will tell us 'Love one another', and offer guides to right living such as 'let he who has not sinned cast the first stone', as we come to the point of accepting our freedom, he helps us by forgiveness.

The bible is a lesson in evolution, of cause and effect. These good lessons can be understood and stated as well by atheists. If a government chooses to refer to the bible in forming legislation it must always consider context, otherwise it becomes dogmatic and anti god.

Surely these disagreements is about different interpretations of the Bible. For example, some Christians (including the Pope) believe the Bible tells them that the use of all artificial birth-control is wrong. Others (including the Pope) believe that the Bible tells them that abortion is wrong whereas others think it is acceptable. Some devout Christians are openly homosexual. Obviously, they have found nothing in the Bible that tells them that God would be unhappy with this behaviour.

Clearly you Christians do interpret the Bible in different ways. This is not surprising considering it was written by a group of people rather than one individual. It also seems that much of the Bible is written in such a way that different interpretations are possible. Maybe that is its strength. Bit like the writings of Karl Marx.

If you are so convinced that people who have sex outside of marriage are so wrong, what do you think should happen to them? What should the role of government be in all this?

Finally, what should the government do about people like Andy Walker?

That's not for me - or the government - to judge!


Lock him up and throw away the key!

Doug

Nice to see young Douglas putting the fun back into fundamentalism so eloquently!
For the benefit of my students it would seem to be that Doug believes that all people should follow what he interprets as "God's Laws" in their personal behaviour.
Doug by way of his faith believes he has an understanding of what God means here. Students or any one else will therefore find it rather frustrating debating these matters with Doug. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that it would be pointless to try. People who have caught religion in this way are usually more interested in what they regard as "correct" expression than they are engaging in free expression.
The question of government action thus appears to Doug to be irrelevant as God will punish sinners like myself when the time comes.
Not a very sophisticated position, less still an enlightening one, but coherent in its own fashion and within its own ambits I suppose.

Oh dear Andrew. You think that anyone with religious faith who disagrees with you is a fundamentalist?!

I believe Jesus saves and that everyone should come into a relationship with him, yes. Religious people do tend to think they're correct, just as atheists do.

I am interested in debating matters seriously and openly. If you can prove to me that my 'religion' is erroneous then I will change my system of beliefs. Could you say the same, Andy? What would it take for you to alter your belief system?

Thanks for simplifying what I said and patronising me, Andy. Government action is a very pertinent question for Christians, hence organizations which aim to have a Christian influence on legislation, etc. All I was saying was that governments, being secular, have no final say over morality. I believe others (non-Christians) have said this within this thread.

Please don't misrepresent me unfairly to your students, Andy - I wouldn't do the same to you. Disagreement and debate is healthy. Misrepresentation and patronising behaviour is not.

Doug

Religion has always been an emotional topic and therefore I hope my view will not offend members. It is only my personal reflection (raised as a catholic) and I do accept people no matter what they believe as long as my freedom not to believe is not questioned.

I’ was born in a very small village in the mountains and my mother went to church every time the bells called them in. The priest was a respected man and my mother always looked up to him as she would to the doctor. Religion was a big part in family life and my mother told me a lot about the bible and I was fascinated by the genesis story. The whole thing collapsed when I was twelve and my father died. The funeral (especially the catholic ones) held in the church with the entire population of the village present, created a depressing atmosphere that was filled with melancholic songs and many were crying. Even it was a shock for me I was quite perplex about the situation because I believed that my dad went to heaven now as I was always told by my mother and I could not understand why everybody was so sad even it was clear for my family that it must have been a relief for my father to die (lung cancer), what I of course didn’t realise that very moment. After my fathers dead, my mother had a quite a difficult time for about two years were she also had to find work to get some food on the table. Her believe never seemed to lighten her up or giving her some relief. So the believe and what I was being told seemed only to work as long as your not personally involved and my naive conclusion that my dad must be happy now was not appreciated.
Today I believe that religion is one of the oldest if not the oldest form of ultimate power, designed to control people mostly by fear (past) and disguised by pretending to help and to care for the poor (today). Billions are spent every year to keep and preserve all the pomp and gorgeousness that was build over the centuries by oppressing the uneducated and the poor. Education was a long time withheld and science had to follow the rules of religion in order to prevent its power. By loosing more and more support every year, genesis, hell and paradise are not enough anymore to answer critical questions, to keep their business running the church is trying to get a modern touch by picking up once again one of their favourite issues, sexuality. (Marketing rule = sex sells).What a laugh and what a feigning farce after the perversion within the church that has been uncovered in the last years. So if they can’t handle sexuality why should we accept their rules or advices and why should they be entitled? Those who want us to believe that Maria became pregnant by the Holy Spirit ,run a campaign against books like The DaVinci Code and still are against equal rights. This standard of morality was not needed for thousands of years nevertheless our species became very successful (maybe too successful?).
Mankind had sex for thousands of years without the blessing and the sacraments of marriage because it is our natural instinct as mammals and always will be. Even if church now tries to fight evolution and some schools (in the USA) have banned Darwin, instincts can not be erased by some vague morality praised by some unworldly theologians.

That’s why IMO a government should not support something that is completely based on fiction and belief and not on facts or evidence and therefore force a society to obey rules that are against modern and scientific attainments. Otherwise astrology could or must be considered as well.

George

The problem here is that you believe some universal truth has been revealed to you. You are not therefore really interested in open discussion with people who reject the very notion of revealed universal truth. Why should you be? What you are instead really interested in is proselytizing. This is why I believe your position to be a fundamentalist one.
I am sorry you have chosen to feel that this is a patronizing and simplified version of your position. I will of course let my students make up their own minds and they are free to post their views here.

Note to students - in unit 2 we will be looking at the Enlightenment. This discussion may well achieve more immediate relevance at this point

There is a drift off topic here perhaps but as its led by the moderators I'll follow.

There was a man who was born into a very powerful family.
Traditionally, the highest aspiration for someone of the upper classes was to either become a good powerful warrior leader or to become a revered and followed spiritual elder. One other alternative was regarded, apart from a failure in the above, as being a 'snake' or perhaps 'super criminal'.
His father wanted him to take over the family business so he wanted the first of these for him.
In spite of a youth nurtured for this purpose, he came through circumstances to understand that the life of those he was expected to lead differed so much from that he was groomed for that when he was old enough to choose for himself, Siddharta 'ran away from home'.
He roamed across the north of India studying under many teachers, learning the highest known wisdoms. The bible, or scripture, that had been passed down through the ages talked of a tantalising freedom, or goal, worthy of striving for. He found that the highest teaching of his age left one short of this goal, so he left these teachings behind and continued to investigate on his own.
Indulgence and denial tended to be the two paths taught and he exhausted these until he suddenly had an insight that came to be called 'the middle path' of moderation, essential were an appreciation of morality, awareness and wisdom born of experience. He developed and refined a meditation technique that is very simple amnd scientific. Many people since then have benefitted.

The nature of these things is that RELIGIONS grow up around these important teachings, and ritual and misinterpretation abound. Today Buddhism is regarded as a religion. Buddhas meditation technique is NOT a religion. Following his moral code while practicing this technique benefits the practitioner. That's all.

500 years later his ambassadors that set out walking from northern India had reached the outskirts of what has become known as Europe.

Christ, as is correctly noted by atheist and christian alike, was a revolutionary leader of men. He advocated a life style that is beneficial for all. The freedom that goes hand in hand with believing in god is one that the christian can use as a good guide in human relations. One important circumstance that people often have found themselves in is for example in a line of people herded, children and old, towards gas chambers and other means of human disposal, usually herded there by other people carrying machine guns. It is natural here for a human to be overcome with despair, and terror. The little ones, and the week ones here need strong guidance in order to make their journey through this horror as bearable as possible. The courage and clarity that one can attain by following these teachers of old can help the adult to be with these children, and in cases it has happened that the courage and love shines sufficiently as a beacon to affect some of the persecutors, thus when other weapons are not available, fractures in the ranks of the persecutors can be effected.

It is important in discussing Christ to recognise the difference between religion and truth. Knowledge without action cannot become wisdom. God proves himself through belief not words, which is another reason that for a believer and a non believer talking about god is like shouting across an unbridgeable gulf. God is not a pixie or santa claus, he is an experience available to all who CHOOSE to avail theirselves of him. It gets mixed up by people trying to turn a material world into a spiritual reality.

Futile, hence the endless discussions that lead nowhere.

There's truth in all of the last few posts. I do think that you were less than respectful in the way you presented Doug's beliefs, Andy. It is always tempting to dismiss everyone who holds any sort of religious belief as a "fundamentalist". From what I've read of what Doug has written here and in "the other place" he possesses a level of tolerance I have yet to encounter in a fundamentalist. Doug has firmly held religious veiws, some of which I share. I also believe that men should follow God's laws. So would a moslem, or a jew or any other believer. But surely people who don't believe in any sort of God may also believe that people "should" behave in one way or another. George Bush "shouldn't" invade other people's countries. Tony Blair "shouldn't" privatize the NHS. Governments "should" protect the individual rights of citizens. What's the problem with any of this unless I move from feeling you "should" behave in a certain way towards "obliging" you to behave in that way?

I think it's also unfair to suggest that Christians are unwilling to engage in "free expression". Surely neither Doug nor I would be participating in this if we weren't prepared to accept the free expression of dissenting views.

Again, I would be very surprised if Doug or any Christian claimed to "understand what God means". To a Christian, one's whole life is a journey of discovery through which one constantly uncovers new aspects of "what God means".

Finally, to suggest that in some way Christians dismiss the importance of government as a result of their beliefs simply isn't good history. If this were the case, then it would be difficult to account for the constant efforts of churches and other religious institutions to influence or even control the instruments of state power. On the other hand, I think most Christians and many non-believers would reject the idea that it is the role of the state to "enforce" a moral code. Most Christians believe in the concept of free will -- God has allowed us to choose between good and evil. If the only alternative presented to us is to behave in a "good" way, then we have been deprived of the free will.

On the other hand, John D is right as well. Basically, arguments between believers and non-believers about the existence of God, etc are, to an extent pointless because both start from mutually incompatible premises. Christians believe they have a personal relationship with their God -- call it divine revelation if you wish -- which allows them to "know" without the need for scientifically measurable evidence. When Job said "I know that my redeemer liveth", he didn't mean he had a color photo of an old man with a long white beard. He knew within himself. To a non-believer, this is nonsensical, but it makes perfect sense to a believer...

mmmmmmmmmmmmm....yum ...the eight fold noble path leading to nibbana...(the ultimate truth)

Sheeit, Adam, your students are so fortunate!

Of course what they need to bear in mind is the way the pali^ language is structured. No doubt there will be repetition of a misconception that Buddha said that god doesn't exist. He actually had nothing to say on the matter except to say that there is (or exists) 'no-god'. Or another way of understanding a language that forms concepts differently from how english does : The thought or concept of a 'no-god' exists. The life of Antony De'Mello, a christian who practised Ana-apana* and Vipassana* in Poona~ is worth looking at here. Similarly Ghandi, whom many may be surprised to learn, practised this technique.

^the unwritten language the Buddha spoke. Scholars could read sanskrit but the vast majority spoke, and had no writing, Pali. Teachings were passed from teacher to pupil as long recitations usually best memorised as a singsong chant. The best of these chanters could memorise and chant the entire tipitaka.(in time mystical qualities were imagined to be attached to these chants)

~(where another controversial teacher Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh taught Zen based techniques)

*(the fundamental meditation techniques that Buddha taught as a way of exploring truth)Ana apana : awareness of the in and out breathing, Vipassana : wisdom through self knowledge, the equanimous study of reality or truth as it is. Thes are techniques that Muslim, Atheist, Christian, Jew..etc all may benefit from.

When asked "What is the Enlightenment?" Inmanuel Kant replied



Sadly it does not apparently yet to have appeared to have influenced either the United States of America or certain areas of Yorkshire

Let's assume there is a god.... Will that entity be concerned about keeping to laws (which ultimately are human in origin in that they are articulated in certain language constructs) or in 'doing good'.

I'd argue that, unless god (whichever 'flavour' might be right) is enormously petty actions, to help others (cf Good Samaritan, Prodigal Son, with apologies for my lack of sufficient knowledge of the culture of non-christian faiths, for which I blame my christian-dominated background) is far more important than strict observance of religious 'niceties'.

In which case an atheist who has 'done good' might find it easier on Judgement Day than many believers.

Okay, you should now return to your earlier assumptions regarding faith...

Andy, I'm quite happy to continue this debate privately or on a separate thread. However, for the sake of your students, hadn't we better stick to the topic?

Doug

PS Know much about Mr Kant, do you?

I am quite happy to continue counselling you here Doug.
However for the sake of everyone (not just my students) I really do think you should start behaving like an adult and stop poking your tongue out at anyone who dares to query your medievalist views.

The thread originated as a question about whether it is desirable to allow a partial religion to influence social policy. This is a particularly interesting question in a multi cultural country like the Britain. Thus far you have avoided answering the question by taking us all down the blind alley of your own faith.

You have also revealed some quite unusual views about sex, morality and relationships in the course of this thread which I suspect will not withstand the passage of your twenties. You appear convinced that these views are something to do with your "religion".
I suspect that time will teach you differently.

an easier to read Kant:
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another."

Ah, ok, "The age of enlightenment" predates the bringing of eastern philosophy to europe by perhaps 60 odd years? So this is a different enlightenment than that which Buddha spoke of? I don't know. There are similarities as both (if they are different) share the view that answers are to be found by understanding self.

Sorry Andy, I shall keep my posts nice and serious from now on and without the smilies you provided for forum users.


Which part of the second post on this thread don't you understand?


Oh, the famous get-out: I'm older than you therefore you will end up like me - 'enlightened'. I've just sent you a personal message to ask to continue our debate privately. I shall be interested to see how you respond.

Doug

Let us return to the subject of the Enlightenment as I believe it to be central to the question in this thread.
I have just undertaken a very interesting experiment by searching the word "Enlightenment" into an internet search. Here are my results

There is the occasional reference of the 18th century philosophical movement which brought us our secular state, liberal democracy and human rights but many of the results offer little more than spiritual snake oil and quasi religious mumbo jumbo - "visionary spiritual teaching, seek higher consciousness, awakening the Buddha within, interfaith spiritual teaching, unlock the power of crystals" and so on and so on.

The Enlightenment taught us that truth about mankind, our society and the physical world we live in could be deduced through the application of human rationality. Moreover that the pursuit of truth through reason could lead to a better world in which to live. The Enlightenment challenged received ideas and revealed religion, questioned the divine right of Kings and "Christian" morality, divided church and state and gave us a free tolerant and liberal society.

If we allow religious zealots (be they old age or new age style) to influence legislation in our rational liberal democracy we run the risk of descending into a new Dark Age of intolerance which may have use fighting the crusades before too long (or have we already started?)

I think this post gives too much credit for the Enlightenment, although I generally am a fan I am rather glad that Romanticism came forward to remind us that passion too plays a role in determining our lives.

This is a slippery slope type of argument, and there are many to make. Essentially, if we lose the Enlightenment values we will be cast into darkness and war. Yet since the Enlightenment we have had some incredibly horrific things happen to humanity.

Some moral code is necessary and not just because things are pragmatic with Enlightenment values. While I do not wish religious zealots to influence legislation I also do not want homocidal nationalists, or wild-eyed anarchists to influence legislation passed by my representatives.

Yet there are many levels before religious zealotry.

The Enlightenment is based on some faith. I think the most important non-rational construct of the Enlightenment is Natural Law. The idea that we are born with certain "rights" is faith based. We are born dependent on our parent's good will and we are raised in part with the good will of our neighbors.

I think individualism is a very important concept for my well being. I have a don't tread on me approach to government. I prefer protected individual rights and limited government to a system of much greater social control a la Stalin's Communism or Hitler's Fascism. Yet I am not sure that their conception of government is less rational than liberal democracy.

Judeo Chrisitan morality has done a lot of good in this world. And many many people who have practices Christianity while practicing democracy have contributed fantastic things to the modern world.

So far members have appeared to be reluctant to directly answer the question first posed. For example, I am not sure what legislation that Doug or Mike would like to see brought in concerning their religious beliefs. For example, should abortion and homosexual acts be made illegal? What do you propose to do about all these people having sex outside of marriage?

For me, that's really two questions, not one.

As far as I'm concerned homosexuals and unmarried people can do whatever they like with/to each other so long as it doesn't frighten the horses. I don't want to put words in Doug's mouth, but I think he would also see such issues as relating to one's personal moral responsibility. If you decide that you wish to enter into a relationship outside of marriage or with a person of your own sex, that's your decision and nothing to do with the state.

I think abortion is a different proposition in that it relates to questions of the nature of life itself. I believe that life begins at conception and that the decision to terminate it is not to be taken lightly. I think there is a duty on the state to protect those incapable of defending themselves and would extend that to the unborn. Part of Locke's social contract was that the government took on the responsibility for defending the lives of its citizens... On a practical level, once we start saying that some sorts of life are more valuable than others, then that's the thin end of a pretty thick wedge whcih may to lead in all sorts of most unpleasant directions...

Is that clear enough? If not, let me know and I'll do my best to elaborate further.

John, you keep talking about 'what I'm going to do about people having sex outside of marriage'! I'm going to do nothing about it, apart from evangelize to them. It's not my role to judge as I'm a sinner as much as them. The difference is I've been saved through my trust and faith in, and relationship with, Jesus Christ. People often comment that Christians are 'hung up' on the issue of sex. I think you'll find that it's the secular world that blows this out of all proportion...

I wholeheartedly agree with Mike when he says:

As Mike notes, issues regarding abortion are completely different: the termination of life is of a different order to issues regarding sexual morality. Ultimately we are all accountable to God, not the state.

Doug

So its OK for the State to abolish a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy but its not OK for the State to legislate to control people's right to choose their preferred lifestyle and sexuality??
I fear the actuality is that once we start to allow the religious to govern away our individual rights then to quote Mike
"that's the thin end of a pretty thick wedge which may to lead in all sorts of most unpleasant directions"

I agree. The antidote is education. The 'education' that the fundamentalists in the USA for example are imposing creates individuals that are far more malleable by for example media campaingns against minorities. At the core of segregation in the US for example was provision of a poor quality education to black people. Instead they were offered religious instruction and such things as homecraft. A person must learn how to identify lies and therefore must have exposure to a wide range of information. There are arguments that the last few decades has seen a dumbing down of the sverage student in some parts of the world. Mysticism, supernatural ideas and such things as media manipulation (primarily to get people to vote in certain ways, to accept things otherwise unacceptable and to spend their monies in particular ways) follow.

Similarly to permit a totally Kant driven approach has its dangers. Kant was primarily influenced by Rousseau, who seemed to be more attuned to spirituality, and Kant himself developed through his life. Others have been influenced and developed further or looked elsewhere.

The age of enlightenment is not one I've studied so will enjoy reading the posts here.








Personally I don't think I as a christian have more or less rights than an atheist or a 'santa clausist' in haveing a right to didctate such things. I see christianitys role as taking its place in society offering a way, if it can't successfully meet peoples needs, particularly as education and exposure to alternatives increases, it should naturally fade from the picture. I of course don't believe it will fail to do so. We'll see.

(As an aside, Andy Walker has refused to continue our debate via personal correspondence. He has also rejected my offer to send him a Bible so he can check what he's arguing against)

This is a very silly comment. The debate continues here - and hopefully remains to some extent on topic. What I have rejected is the opportunity to be proselytized to by personal message. Doug will have to find another soul to save.

Once again, I think this is two points rather than one. To deal with the second point first, I don't think I was in any way suggesting that "we start to allow the religious to govern away our individual rights". I believe abortion under most circumstances to be wrong. My elected representatives have decided that it should be allowed. I think they're wrong, but, as a member of a democratic society, I accept their decision. I may express my opposition to their decision, but that, surely, is one of the "individual rights" to which you refer. I would certainly reject any attempt to overturn that decision through any but the established democratic process. What's the problem with this?

On the question of "a woman's right to choose", I do have a problem. I do not support my church's position regarding the use of artificial birth control. I think that is where the "right to choose" lies. My problem with this supposed right is where it contravenes another greater right, the right of the unborn child to life.

On a practical level, the problem of where one draws the line arisises. In most societies, abortion is only permitted up to the point where the fetus is deemed "viable". As medical science advances, that point moves. This leaves us with choice of either further restricting the period of time during which abortion is permitted, or allowing the abortion of "viable" fetuses. What's your position on that, Andy? And the again, any line that is drawn must be arbitrary. On day x, abortion is legal; on day x+1, it isn't. I have a problem with that.

The thick wedge to which I referred concerns this point. If we accept that some lives are more worthy of defending than others, where do we draw the line?

I also have a problem with your dismissal of any opposition to abortion as being prompted by religious principles. I only became a catholic in my early 30s. I arrived at my views regarding abortion long before this. As you can imagine, my anti-abortion opinions within the Liberal Party and especially the Young Liberals during the 70s were less than popular! There are many non-believers who also oppose abortion. In fact, I seem to remember a post some time ago when John S also expressed some doubts in this area -- please don't jump down my throat on this; it's only a vague memory and I could easily be wrong.

It seems that there is an inclination on your part to accept the relevance of a moral element in government and politics only so long as this moral element has no connection with religious belief. I simply don't see this. I agree, for example, with Robin Cook, that there should be a "moral element" in foreign policy, and I think it would be appalling if all moral considerations within government were to be replaced with cold logic and simple utilitarianism. If we reduce politics to Bethamite "hedonistic calculus" through which government policy is right if it causes more pleasure than pain, then where is the room for

Andy wrote:

If we allow religious zealots (be they old age or new age style) to influence legislation in our rational liberal democracy we run the risk of descending into a new Dark Age of intolerance which may have use fighting the crusades before too long (or have we already started?)[Emphasis supplied.]

It is, of course, not intolerant to propose that Christians should have no input in influencing legislation.

Andy, may I assume that to accomplish your objective you would deny to Christians the right to free speech and require that the qualifications for any legislative office include that the applicant affirm that he or she is not a Christian?

I do not believe I have ever read any contemporary Christian proposing that no non-Christian should be allowed to influence legislation!

The liberality of the left never ceases to amaze! ("If you don't agree with my views, you can't even be allowed to participate!")

Yes you have made a number of assumptions here Mr Gratz but given how pressed for time I know you are what I'd like to focus on mainly on the concept of tolerance as I believe it is a concept the religious mind invariably fails to understand.
The following quote from Doug Belshaw earlier in this thread is an interesting one:
Now try imagining persuading a Muslim fundamentalist and Doug to debate in a tolerant way about who is the true prophet. Worse still try imagining either of them having the final say over the social legislation of a multi cultural nation state.
Fundamentalists do believe and are sure. If you are actually right, then it is absurd to be tolerant of those who are wrong.
Liberals can see the difference, or at least we think we can, and our belief in tolerance makes it impossible to be as intolerant of your position as you are of ours.
The Enligtenment values which informed the creation of secular states with liberal constitutions which protect your right to participate, worship, vote, think, follow the lifestyle and sexuality you choose, give rights to women over their own bodies, give us all equality before the law etc. etc. may not withstand the violent passion of fundamentalism either from the East or West and we may well all end up in a patriarchical society that "respects God's laws" "values the family" and is "tough on criminals and deviants". Whether it be a Christian or an Islamic inspired one is largely neither here nor there, suffice to say it would be a very unpleasant place to live.

I am therefore not proposing that the superstitious communities (whether they be Christians,Muslims, Parsees or spoon benders - the full gamut is of course welcome in a truely tolerant society) be debarred from participation in the political process. It is my hope however that as they do they will continue to challenged, as they have in this thread, by people who have a greater understanding of the origins of their freedoms, and that their influence on social legislation will remain minimal.

I don't quite understand this constant attribution of total intolerance to Doug. When has he ever shown himself unwilling to debate anything with anyone, despite some pretty discourteous statements about his deeply held personal beliefs?

Speaking from personal experience, I have held long and sometimes productive debates with Muslim fundamentalists about all sorts of things. I was in Tehran during the Islamic Revolution and such discussions were almost unavoidable. I remember an occasion when two revolutionaries -- they were from the subsequently banned Fadayeen-e-Khalq and were probably later "eliminated" by the Khomeinists -- came round to our apartment to buy a music center I was trying to sell. We spent two hours passing the English/Persian dictionary backwards and forwards as we discussed their hopes and fears for the future of their country. I don't see why you should find such interatcion between people who hold differing but deeply-held religious beliefs difficult to accept.

Again, both Doug and I have said repeatedly that we DON'T WANT (sorry to shout!) our governments to regulate citizens' moral (or immoral) behaviour with regard to their personal lives. Why do you keep insisting that we do?

I do wish you would try to be a little less aggressive when you write about what we believe. You constantly belittle anyone who holds beliefs different from your own in a way which I can hardly associate with what I understand by the term "liberal".

You are putting words in my mouth, Andy. It is not absurd to be tolerant of those who are wrong - but it would be absurd not to try and demonstrate to them why you think you are right.

As you keep insisting I am a fundamentalist, could you define your terms please? As far as I can see your rather blunt definition sees those who are 'sure of their faith' as fundamentalists, and presumably those who 'are a bit unsure' as liberals. If these are accurate descriptions of the terms you are using, please could you use more accurate ones?

Doug

Am I to take it that you have now answered the question and that you think that religious teaching should play no part in the promotion and adoption of legislation (including abortion law)?

I am not belittling your views. I am trying to see some coherence in them.

Andy, of course you must have realized I did not seriously think that you would deny religious persons the right to participate in civic affairs. However, my point remains that there is a great deal of leftist intolerance.

I think your statement "If you are actually right there is no reason to be tolerant of those who are wrong" is very telling. That is, I submit, is the precise sentiment that breeds leftist intolerance. Witness even the JFK debate. There are those who are so certain they are right re who killed Kennedy that they are very intolerant of my divergent views. The same thing can be said for certain leftists on more political issues. In fact, it is that sentiment upon which totalitarianships are formed.

Mike Tribe also recognizes the intolerance implicit in your arguments. As he stated above: "I do wish you would try to be a little less aggressive when you write about what we believe. You constantly belittle anyone who holds beliefs different from your own in a way which I can hardly associate with what I understand by the term 'liberal'."

Tolerance, and more generally, religious freedom, ought to be seen as a virtue in itself. If you believe that tolerance and religious freedom are virtues, then by golly you can still be certain you are right and practice tolerance of other people's views because one of the things you are right about is the importance of tolerance and religious liberty.

Where does tolerance come from? Well, if you believe God exists, or if you will assume for purposes of this argument that God does exist, it is clear that he is the Author of tolerance since when he created mankind he endowed them with free will, including the right to reject him.

The Founding Fathers of America recognized that in the document in which they asserted the colonies' independence from your country. The Declaration of Independence famously recites the revolutionaries' view that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including the right of religious liberty. And as every American schoolchild knows (or should know) the Pilgrims emigrated to this country from Great Britain precisely so they could enjoy religious freedom. It was the desire for religious freedom even more than the desire for political freedom that led to the founding of America.

Many of the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment were, of course, deeply religious men.

And that, dear sir, is the reason why I would rather live in a society governed by George Bush or Tony Blair than in a society governed by Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler or Fidel Castro.

Here's a summary of what I've said so far Andy:




Nowhere have I said that Christianity should have no influence on legislation, and in fact I applaud the work the Christian Institute does in the UK. I'm not going to get involved in right-to-life debates as I'm not an expert in these matters. I'm sure you'd agree, Andy, that in a multicultural and cosmopolitan society all views should be considered - although in the end any legislation is going to offend someone.

Doug

PS I'm still waiting for you to define your terms - do you still equate a 'liberal' with an 'agnostic'?