Charles Darwin

Well I've already pointed out a problem that you haven't addressed; namely, even if we all agree on your values and the golden rule, when you translate that into the CSS you invoke additional and important claims. In other words, the CSS is not a necessary consequence of the golden rule. Someone else, for instance, could use the golden rule to enforce some other type of religious doctrine (some all encompassing one such as Ba'hai, etc). You may be tempted to repond by saying that the CSS is the ultimate all encompassing doctrine as it is in fact religiously neutral. But that is precisely what is at issue. My contention is that it is not religiously neutral, and that such a response is begging the question. You need to show that it is neutral without claiming it is neutral as a premise in your argument.


No, I do not equate evolution with atheism. (perhaps my evolutionist law-maker was not a wise choice for the example).

Vylo

Ok guys I think he's a lost cause, he doesn't even read half the posts, he doesn't seem to understand neutrality, and he is trying to redefine what a religious claim is.

crazyfingers

You asked me how I justify CSS. I have said how I do. I have given a justification that makes no religious claims and is based on a nonreligious code of ethics that I accept.

I am still waiting for you to explain how CSS makes claims about a god as you asserted in your op.

Agreed.

Charles Darwin

Answering crazyfingers and several other following posts all asking about why the CSS is a religious claim, what is a religious claim, etc.

Actually, I've already answered these questions in this thread. Let me reword. The CSS is not a religious claim, but it does entail a religious claim. Let me give you an example that might help. Consider a law that drinking is illegal on Sundays. Note that, in itself, this is not a religious law. It does, however, entail religious claims having to do with the Sabbath day.

Likewise, the idea that the state ought to be separate from religion, while in itself not making any religious claims, it based on and entails religious claims; namely, that matters of religion are separate and distinct from matters of state. This is a non trivial religious claim, and I've given examples of its impact. Gnosticism is the religious belief that there is a radical separation between God and the world. Though it is an ancient belief, it has thrived in various quarters throughout the modern age, and there is an obvious parallel with the CSS. Embracing the CSS means embracing certain types of laws and rejecting others -- it has a tremendous impact.

To those who ask me if I want to live in Iran, no, I don't. I don't have any easy answers, and I'm not even saying the CSS is necessarily a bad doctrine. What is fascinating, and I'm convinced a bad thing, is the mythology that surrounds the misnomer known as CSS. It may not be a bad doctrine, but it is anything but CSS. It would be far healthier to drop the pretense of religious neutrality and be open about the religious presuppostions underwriting the law.

Charles Darwin

Given that you have justified the CSS without making a religious claim, I pointed out that the justification you gave did not narrow the field down to the CSS. Imagine if I asked you why you think Howard Dean is the best candidate, and you answered because you own a car. Well, that may be true, but I need a few more points so I can connect the dots. Why does that answer lead us to Howard Dean and not Mr. Kerry?

Likewise, the CSS is not a necessary consequence of the golden rule. So when you say that you gave a justification for CSS that was devoid of religious claims, I would agree that what you wrote was devoid of such claims, but there must be more to it. You've given only part of the justification. For some reason you believe the CSS is the best choice, and you're not revealing all your cards. Sooner or later, you're going to have to state why you think separating religion from the state is a good idea, and that, I suspect, will require a religious claim of some sort.

crazyfingers

A law that prohibits dringing on a Sabbath day is not CSS. It is anti-CSS and a violation of CSS. So CSS would prohibit such a law as it would be a violation of the rights of those who do not agree with the particular religion that would prohibit drinking on its sabbath.



No. The claim is that when some people are able to use state power to pass laws regarding the establishment of religion, they will invariably infringe upon the rights of those who do not agree. History has seen this over and over and over.

There is no religious claim. It is fact of history.

In practice, CSS means that the state should have nothing to say on subjects of religion - either the promotion of religion or suppression of religion. The state must be neutral.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Well you are making my point for me.

That's good, because you seem unable to make it yourself. At any rate, no one seems to be quite sure what it is.

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
This is precisely what I'm talking about. Why do you say these people are religiously motivated?

Because they say they are. And the nature of their arguments and the names of their organizations prove it.

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I know one who has all sorts of arguments, none of which have anything to do with religion.

That's not who the ACLU is referring to in your little quote mining exercise.

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
He does rely on the law against murder though. Is that too religious for you? Of course not, everyone agrees with that law.

Bully for him. Too bad abortion isn't murder. So much for that argument.

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
So why is he any more religiously motivated than others?

I have no idea what you're talking about, and apparently neither do you.

Charles Darwin

Murder is the taking of an innocent human life. The only way abortion is not murder is (i) you're not taking a life, (ii) the life isn't innocent, or (iii) it isn't human. Since these 3 options are absurd, you are left with calling your opponents religious. Or let me turn it around, it is because of the CSS that abortion is considered moral and is legal. The CSS enables the marginalization of anti abortion forces and the legalization of murder. Even Hitler would be impressed.

simian

I think you have mis-defined murder. Under the definition you posted above, if a person were dressed up as a deer (full, or nearly full body suit) during deer season, and running around the woods, and was shot, it would be murder.

Also, a woman who menstruates after having sex would have to submit her menstrual flow to the authorities, there is the very real possibility that conception did occur and committed murder under your definition.

If you want definitions of why abortion is not murder, start a thread in the Morality forum.

By the way, a number of Christian denominations submitted amicus briefs IN FAVOR or Roe - the fact that the religious nut jobs making the news today are knuckle-dragging (and woman dragging) neanderthals does not mean all Christians are anti-choice.

And, if I am not mistaken, Hitler was opposed to abortion (for Arian women, of course). You may want to re-think who he would be impressed with.....

Simian

Jewel

Thank you, simian. I agree.

-Jewel
Moderator -- CSS&SA