Shouldn't We Demand That Religion-Based Policies Prove They Have Objective Fact Behind Them?

[stopbush]

All of the anti-gay/women/immigrant/minority policies we see being pushed through US legislative bodies these days have Christianity at their very core.

But Christianity is belief based on make believe, not fact. Why should real people with real lives have their lives influenced and governed by make believe beliefs?

If a legislator proposed major cuts to the defense budget because he believed that our army doesn't need to purchase stocks of food because god is going to provide manna from heaven to feed our troops, his fellow legislators would not shake their heads in agreement that his religious beliefs needed to be respected, and that they should form the basis of legislation. Yet, that's what's happening when it comes to the topic of gay marriage or contraception. All of the "arguments" made against the same are religious-based arguments that have no basis in fact. The statistics aren't there to support the ideas.

So why do we let the make believe of religion determine the laws of our secular government? Seems like a conceit that civilized people shouldn't abide these days.

[GoneOffShore]

1. Smiting in 3... 2... 1....

And by the way, I agree with you.

[Brooklyn Dame]

2. You lost me the minute you put "religion" and "fact" in the same sentence.

Yikes. And if the churches want to have something to say about policy they ought to try paying taxes.

http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2012/03/understanding-the-separation-of-church-and-state/

[HockeyMom]

3. Religion is totally based on faith

It cannot prove anything.

[Swamp Lover]

4. Each individual voter has the right to pull the lever or support policies for what ever reason that

he or she chooses. You have the right to try to sway voters your way, but I can assure you that insulting people's beliefs is not going to win you supporters.

But why would you single out any particular group of policies for such a test?

[stopbush]

7. I'm saying that all policies should have such a test.

If Republican economic policies were put to the test they'd never be enacted because the proof is there that they don't work.

BTW - I will continue to call religious beliefs make believe because that's what they are by any objective definition. Believers are free to believe what they will, but if they get insulted when I call their beliefs make believe, tough shit. They do the same when it comes to gods with names like Odin and Anubis, so they have no room to talk or to feel insulted.

And why should religious beliefs get some kind of carve out that, say, political beliefs don't? If a Republic tells me he thinks that Democratic policies are stupid, I don't feel personally insulted. I say he's entitled to his opinion, even if try to show him that he is factually wrong. The marketplace of ideas does not demand that all ideas be treated as if they have equal validity. To so so is to engage in a useless exercise in describing the Emperor's new clothes.

[SoutherDem]

12. If following one's beliefs insults groups of people

Why can they not in return insult those beliefs?

[hughee99]

5. How do we differentiat between the religious based policies that have no basis in fact

and the non-religious policies that have no basis in fact. Economic policy is sometimes based on some belief not grounded in fact, as is military policy, drug policy, etc... Where do you draw the line?

[stopbush]

8. Oh, come on. Economic policies, military policies etc are all grounded in fact to some extant,

even if new realities demand that new facts trumps old facts. But at least these policies start with factual assumptions that were true at one time or another (see: history of weapons). One can't say that about religious beliefs.

[hughee99]

16. Are you sure about this?

Cutting taxes on the wealthy will spur growth? Pot is dangerous? Iraq has WMD's? I'm not sure any of those things were grounded in fact, and yet major policy decisions have been based on these beliefs.

[loyalsister]

15. You are absolutely correct

We can't take the human element out of decision making.

Some reasoning I have used in opposition or support for legislation.....
potential unintended consequences
my personal experience
my ethics
a perceived alternate message\subtext

None of those influences are based in pure fact and can be argued against based on subjective personal evaluations. None of my arguments would be based on religion, but they would be based on my personal beliefs and ethics.
If I reject all conclusions others arrive at under the influence of their religious beliefs, all conclusions I draw with a slight subjective influence or assumptions would also have to be rejected.

I have friends whose support for marriage equality is influenced by their religion. In some cases, the only reason they care is because the current opposition runs counter to their beliefs. They don't get involved until they see an injustice. I won't draw a line that excludes their input.

[badtoworse]

6. Or what? This suggestion is completely asinine.

We live in a country where people are free to vote and lobby for whatever they want and for whatever reason they want.

There is no way I would want the government to have the power to do what you suggest.

[Fumesucker]

9. It's an objective fact that lots of the population believes objectively unprovable stuff..

And that's the objective fact that the politicians are working with..

[Initech]

10. If only we lived in a country that actually enforced separation of church and state.

I'm sure a lot of this crap stems from McCarthy era bullshit about us being a "godless nation".

And the churches just ran with it. If we start revoking some tax exempt statuses and got some of that money back I'd be willing to bet they'd shut up. But politicians need to stop coveting the values voters as if they matter - we've done nothing but listen to their lies and bullshit and our country has become an absolute disaster as a result. If we'd tell them to shut the fuck up for once we might actually make some progress.

[SoutherDem]

11. The problem is they think they are facts.

To the Atheist community they are not facts. To the Christian community they are facts.

All Christians (to the best of my knowledge) accept the Holy Bible to be the word of god. They may differ in the amount of inerrancy they believe it has, but they do believe the book was in some form or another was written by the creator of the universe. As such for them what the bible says is as much a fact as that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, actually more of a fact because the bible tell of how god once made the sun go backwards and even claim (believe) that astronomers have calculated that there is a missing hour from time.

Some Christians are more reasonable. They are open minded, they follow the bible with an understanding that it does have some things which are not possible. They follow the "good" of the bible and dismiss the "bad" while also dismissing the things which have been proven wrong. How can they accept the book as the "Word of God" yet dismiss so much of it I don't know. But these aren't the problem.

The problem are those who are claiming the Earth is 6000 years old, believe that women should be submissive to men, that homosexuals should be killed or at least have no rights. They are the ones who want to push their "facts" on everyone else.

What I find odd is how these who believe in the whole bible will still do so many things which the bible tells us is wrong. They somehow find a way to justify following some parts while dismissing other, based on what they want to do. Most can't go one day without breaking dozens of religious laws, of course Christ came and did away with those, but although Christ didn't say one word about homosexuality, he somehow didn't do away with those.

I agree with you they are NOT facts.

For me when I realized how much of the bible I couldn't believe in I gave up on religion completely. I am now an Atheist and place no more value in the Bible than the cost of the leather, ink, and labor it took to print.

For me the problem is not only they feel they are facts but also feel that somehow their having a freedom of religion, means that their freedom allows them to infringe on the freedoms of other. Freedom of THEIR religion.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. Demand proof? That would slow things down.

[gratuitous]

14. No, and quit saying objectively stupid things

Because I can tell you for a fact that our military policies aren't grounded in anything like objective fact, and which one - religion or the military - takes more money out of your paycheck?

Not that there's anything wrong with having a fifth grade understanding of Christianity - as long as you're in fifth grade. My apologies ahead of time in case you're simply a slow sixth grader, as I had one earlier this week upbraid me for being insufficiently appreciative of his advanced elementary school achievement.

It's too bad stupid doesn't actually hurt, because some people ought to be in the ICU ward.