Where theism intersects public policy

[justaman]

Originally Posted by seebs

So. What kinds are okay? If we reject my belief that gay people should receive equal rights, because I believe God created all people morally equal, then should we accept someone else's belief that all people are inherently equal, and should have the same rights?

But why not simply existentialist world-views promoting the statistically greatest amount of freedom, liberty, etc? Why are religious worldviews to be relied upon more than an inter-subjective standard which is merely agreed upon?

If we agree to a worldview, it becomes the touchstone, regardless of whether it exists objectively or not.

My opinion is religion is necessary for a society to begin, however it is not necessary once that society is underway.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by justaman

But why not simply existentialist world-views promoting the statistically greatest amount of freedom, liberty, etc? Why are religious worldviews to be relied upon more than an inter-subjective standard which is merely agreed upon?

Ahh, but be don't agree. So we each bring our own views, and argue for them, and vote for them. Some people seem upset by the idea of religious people voting based on their religious beliefs, but how is this any worse than people voting based on any other philosophical position?

[justaman]

Originally Posted by seebs

Ahh, but be don't agree. So we each bring our own views, and argue for them, and vote for them. Some people seem upset by the idea of religious people voting based on their religious beliefs, but how is this any worse than people voting based on any other philosophical position?

I agree with what you're saying. I must say also, however, that there is potential for religious belief to bring about irrational intentions. I saw a documentary a couple of times interviewing many high-level detractors of George Bush (Included Hans Blix, the spy who they sent to investigate the claims of yellowcake, a bunch of other senior players who I forget). Something a number of them stated, including some player in the CIA, was that the extremely pro-Israeli policy of the U.S. is a direct result of a Christian belief that the state of Israel must exist at the end-of-times.

I can't back this up further than the documentary, but the guys seemed very credible. If this is the case, I think this is probably the most shining example of why religion and the state really need to be fricken separated.

From my perspective, it appears an ancient myth is currently directing U.S. foreign policy. Not cool.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by justaman

I agree with what you're saying. I must say also, however, that there is potential for religious belief to bring about irrational intentions.

This is true, but lots of beliefs can do that.

I saw a documentary a couple of times interviewing many high-level detractors of George Bush (Included Hans Blix, the spy who they sent to investigate the claims of yellowcake, a bunch of other senior players who I forget). Something a number of them stated, including some player in the CIA, was that the extremely pro-Israeli policy of the U.S. is a direct result of a Christian belief that the state of Israel must exist at the end-of-times.

It could be, but I'd love to see it actually documented. Like, say, Bush openly stating that.

I can't back this up further than the documentary, but the guys seemed very credible. If this is the case, I think this is probably the most shining example of why religion and the state really need to be fricken separated.

The question is... How is this different from people with other very strong beliefs on specific topics?

[justaman]

Originally Posted by seebs

This is true, but lots of beliefs can do that.

Soitenly. This is why I'm against strong beliefs in general, but then really, the vast majority of strong beliefs I can think of are founded in religion anyway. I think you need that kind of believe in objective necessity in order to spark such passion.

It could be, but I'd love to see it actually documented. Like, say, Bush openly stating that.

The question is... How is this different from people with other very strong beliefs on specific topics?

Again probably not, but I do see religion as the most likely source of such strong beliefs. Otherwise, one would think all that is left is what makes most sense for the population.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by justaman

If this is the case, I think this is probably the most shining example of why religion and the state really need to be fricken separated.

The US has had a pro-Israeli foreign policy for a long time now over many different administrations. Does it make any difference if end of times nonsense is involved in the decision or whether it's just the usual Israel is the only democracy in the middle east etc. rationale? How do you go about separating people's motivations from the state anyway?

From my perspective, it appears an ancient myth is currently directing U.S. foreign policy. Not cool.

I seriously doubt even the Bush administration would go entirely against its own self-interest in the name of Revelations. It seems more likely to me that any belief in the myth gives them mental reinforcement for what they'd do anyway.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

The US has had a pro-Israeli foreign policy for a long time now over many different administrations. Does it make any difference if end of times nonsense is involved in the decision or whether it's just the usual Israel is the only democracy in the middle east etc. rationale? How do you go about separating people's motivations from the state anyway?

Well for instance Kerry was pro-choice in principle but pro-life in practice. I don't know if this is exactly what you mean though.

I seriously doubt even the Bush administration would go entirely against its own self-interest in the name of Revelations. It seems more likely to me that any belief in the myth gives them mental reinforcement for what they'd do anyway.

Possibly. But I mean this is a group of individuals who had compulsary Bible Study groups. This is a President who went onto a televangelists TV show when he was Governer and talked about being born again. I mean I forget his name now (I'm trying to remember it as well, this is really annoying) but a famous high-level U.S. general (not Schwarzkopf) did a talk at a Christian congregation where he showed a photo taken in Somalia, I believe. In the photo is a black smudge. The general assures the congregation that the photo was not doctored, what they were seeing was real. It was, he says, a demonic apparition (or the devil himself, again this is a while ago I saw this stupid thing). It was a high level spy plane.

It sounds absurd to think that foreign policy could be dictated by religious belief, but I just can't put it past these guys given how demonstrably fanatical they are. I take on board what you say about the policy being in place and it being considered the only democracy in the middle-east and it's fair enough, but it doesn't really excuse this being used as an apparent justification for how international relations are conducted. It's icky.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by seebs

Some people seem upset by the idea of religious people voting based on their religious beliefs, but how is this any worse than people voting based on any other philosophical position?

The complaint I've seen most often is not just that people vote based on their religious beliefs (which I agree is no different than voting based on any other beliefs) but that some people give unreasonable weight to certain religious beliefs. For example voting solely based on the politicians abortion stance.