Where theism intersects public policy

[godfry n. glad]

Having read Bill Moyer's commentary upon being awarded the 2004 Harvard Medical School Global Environmental Citizen Award, I cannot help but think that theistic dogma is wildly misplaced in the public arena.

I'd be interested in hearing what folks here have to say about Moyer's caveat.

godfry

[wildernesse]

Theistic dogma across the board? It seems that the article would only support the position that a fundamentalist "Rapture Ready" belief is harmful to the environmental and peace movements. Or a fundamentalist belief of any kind, with the rigidity that accompanies it.

How should religious people interact in their communities and participate in self-governance without referencing their religious beliefs?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Theistic dogma across the board? It seems that the article would only support the position that a fundamentalist "Rapture Ready" belief is harmful to the environmental and peace movements. Or a fundamentalist belief of any kind, with the rigidity that accompanies it.

How should religious people interact in their communities and participate in self-governance without referencing their religious beliefs?

Good question. How does one select one set of beliefs for exclusion, while allowing others?

godfry

[livius drusus]

When you say "theistic dogma is wildly misplaced in the public arena", godfry, did you mean as government policy? Because it seems to me that the public arena is a far wider space than that.

Moyers' seems to be referring specifically to politicians implementing dogma as policy in his caveat, but he doesn't seem to think all religious notions should be exiled from the public arena. In fact, his conclusion suggests the implementation of a theistic notion (hocma) as a way of keeping the big picture in mind.

[godfry n. glad]

Okay... I'll restrict it to "the making and execution of public policy."

The question remains, by what rights can one theistic dogma be suppressed, while another is not?

godfry

[livius drusus]

Well, again, if the theistic of notion of "docma" which Moyers' recommends at the end of his speech were employed in the making and execution of public policy, would that be a bad thing just because it's theism? Quaker doctrines were very much involved in the making and execution of public policy when it came to the abolishment of the British slave trade in 1806.

Constitutionals prohibitions against legislating religion don't in my mind equate to the eradication of religious thought from public policy, so I guess my answer to your question would be I don't see what suppressing anything has to do with it.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Theistic dogma across the board? It seems that the article would only support the position that a fundamentalist "Rapture Ready" belief is harmful to the environmental and peace movements. Or a fundamentalist belief of any kind, with the rigidity that accompanies it.

Note that fundamentalist eco-freaks can do a great deal of damage to the ecology, as well. It's the inflexibility which is most harmful, not the exact positions held...