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.

[godfry n. glad]

So, you're agreeable to the current situation where public policy is increasingly aligned with apocalyptic worldviews?

You seem to be saying that I should give Quaker dogma creedence. But should I also give "Rapture Ready" dogma just as much credence?

godfry

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

So, you're agreeable to the current situation where public policy is increasingly aligned with apocalyptic worldviews?

I'm pretty sure I didn't say any such thing.

You seem to be saying that I should give Quaker dogma creedence. But should I also give "Rapture Ready" dogma just as much credence?

Can't we pick? Moyers seems to be able to. Why not us?

[viscousmemories]

Not to speak for livius, but it seems to me she's saying the arguments should be judged on their merits, not accepted or rejected based on their origins.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Not to speak for livius, but it seems to me she's saying the arguments should be judged on their merits, not accepted or rejected based on their origins.

Yet, "their merits" depends upon who is making the judgement.

godfry

[livius drusus]

Sure, but that's the case no matter what the moral basis for any given policy choice. The fact that one has roots in religious doctrine doesn't make it necessarily bad (ie, abolition), just as one with roots in entirely a-religious pragmatism doesn't make it good (ie, Kissinger's realpolitik).

We still make choices based on our own ethical precepts.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Yet, "their merits" depends upon who is making the judgement.

Well sure, but you seem to be saying the arguments should be dismissed out of hand solely because they're part of a religious dogma.

ETA: k I'm just gonna shut up with the crossposting here.

[seebs]

I ran into a problem a while back which killed my notion that "religious beliefs" should not be a basis for public policy.

Specifically, I can't see a way to make people keep these out of their judgments. More interestingly, I'm not sure I should.

Let's say we grant that it is Not Good for a person with a religious worldview to impose the moral teachings of that worldview on us.

And yet, we tend to assume that it's acceptable to have SOME kind of worldview.

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?

What makes one person's personal moral conclusions more valid than another? I don't think that considering them invalid if and only if they are based in religion is any better than considering them invalid if and only if they are not.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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 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.

[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.