Religion + Goverment

[Amputechture]

Over time, religion has slowly become less and less influential within the government. There was a time when religion was what fueled a vast majority of governments. In the US, the Republican party in particular insists on using "Religion" and "god" to fuel their arguments. It rubs me the wrong way.

Discuss.

[Hutch Hogan]

Yes it does.  If a law is religious motivated and can only be motivated religiously, it cannot be upheld without endorsing that religion and violating the right to freedom of religion. 

Anti-slavery legislation can be justified for non-religious reasons. 

If a child constructs this argument: 

premise: the moon is a balloon

conclusion: therefore the moon is round. 

The conclusion is correct, but the premise is not. 

If someone says:

premise: god made man and men are equal 

conclusion: slavery should be abolished. 

The conclusion is valid, though the premise is not necessarily true. 

There are other justifications for anti-slavery legislation and there is other justification for every other law worth having. 

If an individual MUST resort to religious justification, they are demonstrating that they have not found better justification, or they are demonstrating that they do not understand the basic principles of logic by appealing to an authority that others do not recognize. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Yes it does.  If a law is religious motivated and can only be motivated religiously, it cannot be upheld without endorsing that religion and violating the right to freedom of religion. 

Erm...no.

Freedom of religion is the right to believe what you want, and act upon that belief accordingly. Religiously inspired legislation does not, by itself, violate the right to freedom of religion.

If the legislation can only be justified by that religion, then it probably violates someone's human rights.

If an individual MUST resort to religious justification, they are demonstrating that they have not found better justification, or they are demonstrating that they do not understand the basic principles of logic by appealing to an authority that others do not recognize.

The issue however is that they themselves have an authority. Namely, a democratic mandate. If they are acting within the terms of that mandate, and not violating anyone's rights in doing so, they have every right to legislate however they choose. There is nothing in the legislative procedures that says you must justify your legislation in X manner. All that there is is the requirement to have a certian number of senetors/representatives/MPs/Deputies/Ministers etc vote your way, and for the law in question to no violate anyone's human rights.

[Hutch Hogan]

If the legislation can only be justified by that religion, then it probably violates someone's human rights.

That is what I am saying. 

The issue however is that they themselves have an authority. Namely, a democratic mandate. If they are acting within the terms of that mandate, and not violating anyone's rights in doing so, they have every right to legislate however they choose. There is nothing in the legislative procedures that says you must justify your legislation in X manner. All that there is is the requirement to have a certian number of senetors/representatives/MPs/Deputies/Ministers etc vote your way, and for the law in question to no violate anyone's human rights.

 

Democratic mandate is not the same as dictatorship.  The public elects a representative of the public.  They are supposed to represent their constituency, not themselves. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

That is what I am saying.

And I am saying that the legislator is not required to provide a secular support. All he is required to do is to provide legislation that does not violate someone's human rights, and get it passed through the legislative process. You cannot claim with any accuracy that it violates people's rights purely by being religiously inspired.

Democratic mandate is not the same as dictatorship.  The public elects a representative of the public.  They are supposed to represent their constituency, not themselves.

If the public elect a politician knowing they are religious, and want to pass religiously inspired legislation, provided that legislation does not violate anyone's human rights, then that politician has every right to pass it.

[Hutch Hogan]

And I am saying that the legislator is not required to provide a secular support. All he is required to do is to provide legislation that does not violate someone's human rights, and get it passed through the legislative process. You cannot claim with any accuracy that it violates people's rights purely by being religiously inspired.

I can.  Though most legislators are aware that if they can only justify a bill through religious means, they will not receive support as it violates the separation of church and state in all sensible democracies. 

If the public elect a politician knowing they are religious, and want to pass religiously inspired legislation, provided that legislation does not violate anyone's human rights, then that politician has every right to pass it.

And you fail to read what I've said.  Why am I not surprised? 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I can.  Though most legislators are aware that if they can only justify a bill through religious means, they will not receive support as it violates the separation of church and state in all sensible democracies.

 

If it can only be justified by religious means, then most likly it will be something that will violate church and state. However, that isn't what I said. I said that a politician is entitled to support something with his/her religion as much as he/she chooses. There is no law stopping them. All that is stopping them is the content of the law and whether or not it violates human rights.

 

And you fail to read what I've said.  Why am I not surprised?

Prove it.

[Lori S.]

How?

Again, let's say I'm inspired by my religious beliefs to oppose the death penalty, and to put a bill forth that would outlaw capital punishment.

Is my proposing that legislation violating anybody's right to freedom of religion?  

We tend to think of these things, of course, in light of the issues that appeal to conservative American evangelicals, who want to deny other people the right to marry or to reproductive freedom.

But there are plenty of progressive religious people who are motivated by their faith to push for legislation to reform immigration laws so they are more humane, to extend social services to the poor, to stop nuclear testing, to protect the environment, to do any number of things that I don't think could be construed as violating anybody's freedom of religion.