Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in this thread.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:52:14 PM
At the very least, it needn't directly be—I'm all right with moral suasion founded on whichever works best at the moment. Whether religiously informed or not, though, public morality still seems like something that should have its limited say in a healthy society ... and for reasons I've mentioned above, it doesn't seem wise or ultimately just for those "limits" always to end at the door to the outside street.
edited 1st Sep '12 1:09:38 PM by Jhimmibhob
I would go further and say that morality is not derived from religion at all, rather, religious codes of morals/ethics (e.g. the Ten Commandmands) themselves are derived from human morality.
edited 2nd Sep '12 1:12:50 PM by Talby
I think that it is relatively important, because it's the question if we're going to respect a certain religious point of view at face value, or if we're going to investigate it from a secular point of view and follow it down the rabbit hole, so to speak.
As an example, lets assume that we're going to say that the state has an interest in prioritizing reproductive marriages. So what are we going to do about non-reproductive different sex marriages? That sort of thing. This isn't really a slippery slope...this is about making sure that the law is applied fairly and equally across the board.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
Of course there's a question of which religion they follow. When your country contains over a hundred religions and their myriad denominations, sticking with a secular legal code dedicated less to morality and more to making the country work as a country is generally the most straightforward and hassle-free way to do things. Otherwise you're stuck with either the tyranny of the majority, or a legal code hopelessly diluted by a thousand mutually-contradictory viewpoints.
If none of those "hundred religions" is significantly more influential or adhered to than the rest, I suppose so. Of course, depending on how one feels about the importance of a halfway-coherent religio-moral consensus, such a crazy-quilt of incompatible worldviews might not prove the stuff of a long-term viable or governable nation.
edited 3rd Sep '12 1:30:41 PM by Jhimmibhob
Using the United States as an example, there is no single religion that a majority (over 50%) of the population adherers to. People might push forward Christianity as a majority, but there are so many factions and completely contradictory versions of it that there's actually probably less cohesion of ideas there than among some of the others. There's no majority religious view. That means that the only way to represent all these diverse people is with a secular perspective on laws. Otherwise they just end up self serving to s small minority.
Never mind that government based on religion tends to be totalitarian and disproving of minorities. Religion has historically proven to be a terrible basis for government. It's much more effective as a personal morality system than one of government.
edited 3rd Sep '12 1:36:23 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
If—and that's a mighty huge "if"—said "secular" perspective resonates with a large majority of the governed. Otherwise, it's just one set of governing mores among many, with no more/less to recommend it than many another possibility. It's certainly not the default or uncontroversially neutral position that philosophers like John Rawls would have it (the only people who really believe it somehow above the fray are the chronically self-impressed Rawlsians themselves, and no one else).
And your second paragraph kind of exemplifies the "thin" view of citizen/state relations that is kind of the problem in the first place. A model where the only choice is between religion as "personal morality system" and religion as "system of government" is precisely what I've said fails to address our real-world functions and needs—our nature both as citizens and as humans. It's an implicit choice between atomization and totalism ... one that seems like a false choice to me.
edited 3rd Sep '12 3:19:45 PM by Jhimmibhob
Nothing resonates with a large majority. Most people who say that they're speaking for the majority on an issue, especially homosexuality are either deluded or lying. That's why secular is the only way to make things fair.
edited 3rd Sep '12 6:54:10 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickAnd again, "secular" isn't necessarily neutral, or something that can even necessarily unite the populace. In a society that has people of various religions and no religion at all, I'm not sure that "fair" is a theoretical possibility ... and it's certainly not obvious to me that a self-consciously irreligious public morality would be a whit fairer than one of the sectarian options.
If this is the case, then surely endeavouring to treat everyone equally to the state's best abilities is the most socially just way of going about things, even if as an ideal it's not always entirely possible.
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.Historically? Secular states have much better viability ratings than religiously mandated ones as well as a happier populous. Religion does not work as a basis for government. It never has. It's not magically going to start doing so tomorrow. Secular states can adapt to changing demographics and ideas. Religious ones can't. There are many reasons religious states don't work, but it's been proven that they aren't viable.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickThe problem is that such a nation is essentially what first world nations look like now, so it is in the interests of everyone to try and make it work as well as is reasonably possible. Forcing increasingly multicultural nations to adhere to a monoculture (uniculture?) belonging to a shrinking majority will surely result in far worse destabilisation of society than attempting to create a framework of equality that benefits a diverse array of people the best it can.
edited 4th Sep '12 12:14:37 PM by pagad
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.![]()
First off, i doubt there have been enough "secular" states in human history (and what would the precise criteria be?!) to make valid comparisons. Virtually any pre-Enlightenment nation would qualify as a religious state by many folks' criteria, and so would most nations right up to WWII—so I'm not sure where you get the claim that such states have never worked, and I'm very suspicious of the stats and collected data you're alluding to.
Secondly. [Sigh.] Look, I'm going to try to explain this slowly, for what feels like the umpteenth time now: placing religion as "a basis for government" on the one hand, and the ideal of the secular state on the other, is exactly the kind of false dichotomy that I keep saying is part of the problem in the first place.
![]()
You could be right, Pagad ... it's impossible to prove either way. However, the whole "embrace the absence of agreed-on mores" strategy might only buy temporary order, at the cost of much greater and more fundamental destabilization under the surface. It seems too anodyne to inspire long-term loyalty, or any kind of real civil society.
I think I disagree on the basis that the United States is a good example of a country composed of immigrants from a very diverse collection of backgrounds. The US is already a "mongrel" society in that regard. I mean, what is "legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'" if not prototypical in its disregard for "agreed-on mores"?
edited 4th Sep '12 1:27:38 PM by pagad
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

You're right that "the government should stay out of religion/our personal lives/etc." is a simplistic argument. It would address the problem better if one said that people and society in general should refrain from trying to force their values upon other people.
With that in mind, I can still understand why people use this argument. Nobody, including the government, can really force society as a whole to shift one way or the other on this issue. Limiting it to just "the government" is a more workable (albeit highly imperfect) goal, though.