Should a really good public policy that has a basis in religious belief be made into law?

[cleanhippie]

And why or why not in your comments.

7 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	6 (86%)
	No
	1 (14%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[RandySF]

1. Good policy is good policy.

[cleanhippie]

7. Yes, but....

if we allow religious belief to form the basis of public policy, who gets to decide if its good policy or not?

[Why Syzygy]

15. That's the question

that makes your poll meaningless. Who decides what is good policy? People do not agree on what good policy is. Your poll is useless. Unless you're just baiting? Looking for an audience? Axe to grind?

[bananas]

20. You said "a" basis, not "the" basis.

The way your question was worded, it seemed that you yourself considered the policy "really good", and since you hate religion, you presumably have some other basis for concluding it's a "really good" policy.

So your question seems to be asking whether you should vote against a "really good" policy just to spite your enemies.

This is like the old question, "Should you cut off your nose to spite your face?"
Your attacks on religious liberals is a good example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It's related to the advice, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face

"Cutting off the nose to spite the face" is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one's anger.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_out_the_baby_with_the_bath_water

Throw out the baby with the bath water is an idiomatic expression used to suggest an avoidable error in which something good is eliminated when trying to get rid of something bad,[1] or in other words, rejecting the essential along with the inessential.[2]

A slightly different explanation suggests that this flexible catchphrase has to do with discarding the essential while retaining the superfluous because of excessive zeal.[3] In other words, the idiom is applicable not only when it's a matter of throwing out the baby with the bath water, but also when someone might throw out the baby and keep the bath water.[4]

[cleanhippie]

22. Just for you, replace "a" with "it's"

Or you can keep splitting hairs. I could care less.

[Goblinmonger]

2. I voted Pass

because I can't think of anything that has a basis solely in religion that would be good policy. Don't murder? Yeah, that ain't religious in origin.

[KansDem]

3. Can you cite an example?

Last edited Fri May 11, 2012, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

[cleanhippie]

8. This is purely a hypothetical exercise.

[LARED]

4. I voted yes but am interested in what criteria policy makers should use

to distinguish between public policy based on religion beliefs and those based on something else.

[cleanhippie]

9. Is the policy soley based on a relgious belief?

That is the criteria.

[LARED]

40. That's a different question than asked in the poll

Should a really good public policy that has a basis in religious belief be made into law

Now you're asking; only on the basis of religious belief should a really good public policy be made into law.

I guess to answer your new question one must need to know what a good public policy looks.

For instance, is it a good public policy that everyone tithe 10% of their income to the government. Certainly a rational argument could be made that it is good public policy as well as a bad policy.

The poll seems pretty pointless.


.

[cleanhippie]

45. Im answering the question you posed to me.

I was intentionally ambiguous in poll.

[LARED]

48. If your point was to establish that good public policy can exist, and does, outside of religious

beliefs, the poll was pretty pointless.

[cleanhippie]

49. It's is obvious then that the point was over your head.

[LARED]

55. Your words

that any "good" policy will have secular value and religious belief would not be needed.

My opinion

...your point was to establish that good public policy can exist, and does, outside of religious beliefs....

Seems there is not much difference between your words about your point and my view about your point.

[cleanhippie]

58. Whoosh!

Have a nice day, lared.

[LARED]

59. So explain to this poor denighted DU'er.

[cleanhippie]

60. Pass.

This is easier and hurts less...

[LARED]

62. Figured as much

i understand providing an explanation would only point to me being correct.

[cleanhippie]

66. You can just add that to the list of other things you need to believe

So as to make yourself feel better.


Have a nice day.

[LARED]

69. Don't you get tired of being wrong?

Plus the irony is pretty good for a Sunday afternoon.

Seriously you're a guy that makes up definitions to suit an agenda and you accuse me of needing to believe something.

[Leontius]

70. It's much easier to claim "I win" when you get to do that.

That's the most important thing for some here, not honesty.

[cleanhippie]

71. Hahaha! If you say so, lared

I like you, lared. You make me laugh.

[Scuba]

5. You mean like 'thou shalt not kill'?

[cleanhippie]

10. This is just hypothetical.

[bananas]

21. Can't deal with reality, eh?

"This is a hypothetical question, don't confuse me with real-world examples!"

[cleanhippie]

23. As a believer, It would seem that it is YOU that has the issue with reality.

The only one confused about that fact seems to be you.
And your

[Silent3]

57. For someone using childishly inapt and naive "gotcha" tactics...

...you way too often for victories no bigger yelling "loser!", on no pretext whatsoever, just to get to "loser!" before another kid gets there.

[dmallind]

12. Sure - secular groups never thought of that one.

[Scuba]

25. Us atheists don't have morality, remember/

[Fresh_Start]

6. No such thing exists.

Good policy isn't good policy because of religion.
Good policy is good policy because of its impacts.
I've not seen ANYTHING in history where religion has the lead.

[cleanhippie]

24. We share the same thoughts.

[Fresh_Start]

27. of course I am judging by western religions

maybe there is a religion somewhere that's leading the way.

[cleanhippie]

28. The closest thing to that may be the Unitarian Universalists.

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
http://www.uua.org/beliefs/principles/

Not even a mention of a supernatural deity. I am onboard with that.

[dmallind]

11. Counterintuitively, I voted yes. I need to show caveats however

1) I don't think religious belief should be a valid argument for or against any legislation, however positive the belief, and with no exception whatsoever. I'm hoping that's not the way you wanted to ask the question. If so let me know and I'll change the answer.

2) That does not mean a religious belief which is a good policy should not be enacted - it just should be enacted solely on the basis of its policy merits regardless of its origin. Saying we should exclude it from entirely secular consideration and voting simply because of its religious genesis is both cutting off our nose to spite our face in prctical terms, but also illogical in rational terms - like refusing to take advantage of industrial developments spawned by tyrants' war efforts because of the (real) ad hominem fallacy.

3) I cannot think of a single example either actual or hypothetical where this would be the case. But, for example, pretending that a religion developed around the idea of a sliding scale of reducing welfare benefits while incentivizing and training for work in such a way that work always benefitted and thus motivated the recipient rather than cut them off from aqid as soon as McDonalds gave them 8 hrs/week, then it would be worth enacting albeit again purely because of its secular utillity.

[longship]

13. No, it violates prong 1 of the Lemon test

Which says that the law must serve a secular purpose. AFAIK, this is interpreted in case law by the law being justified for specifically in secular reasons. The extent to which it fails the test is the extent it fails this important Constitutional test.

IANAL, but I've read a few cases and that's how the judges have interpreted prong 1.

[dmallind]

19. Lemon does not address origin of the idea

[If there IS a secular purpose, and if it does not entangle government with religion, the basis of a law is immaterial. Again it's difficult to construct a vaguely realistic scenario as so very few ideas are entirely religious in origin, but let's say if it was found that using peyote exactly as in NA rituals, and only in that way, immunized children from influenza for life, then mandating that usage under law would IMIANALO, pass Lemon easily, as it is not the ritual purpose and religious intent you are mandating, but the entirely secular vaccination effect.

[longship]

50. Entanglement? That would be prong 3 of the Lemon test

The law must not entangle the government in religion. If it does, the extent to which it does fails the third prong and is therefore fatal.

Nota bene: the Lemon test is not an and thing. If any of the three prongs fail, the act fails and is unconstitutional.

So what you are arguing here, in your attempt to say it passes the first prong, you make an argument the fails the third.

QED

on edit: IMHO your argument on the first prong is also weak and would also fail as in McLean v. Arkansas per Judge William Overton's immaculate ruling which addressed these precise things. Sadly, Overton died young. He might have been an up and coming federal judge and may have given SCOTUS a bend that we all would have liked.

Look the case up. It will give you a definitive education on the Lemon test.

Also, Kitzmiller v. Dover, where a W Bush appointee ruled similarly on the Lemon test.

I try not to make shit up here. Look it up for yourself.

Thanks for your input.

[dmallind]

52. Where the fuck does it entangle?

Why does the origin of an idea create an entanglement?

And both your citations are false analogies as they refer to creationism, which has no secular purpose whatsoever. Laws struck down because they disguised religion as science are not likely relevant to laws that try no such disguise, but merely take an idea from religion.

[longship]

64. "...merely takes an idea from religion."

There's the violation of both prongs 1 and 3 right there.

Any law which originates in religion would be equally Constitutionally fatal.

Our law is secular and must remain so. If one has to make religious justifications, where is that basis?

Read the cases.

[brendan120678]

14. Hypothetically, if there was a religious-based public policy that was deemed to be...

beneficial to society-at-large by the secular policy-makers, I don't see why it shouldn't be made into law, provided it was Constitutionally sound law.

In other words, I wouldn't be against it simply because it had its origins in religious policy.

[cleanhippie]

46. Agreed.

However, if it was beneficial to society at large (and deemed so by secular policy makers) would it not have grounding outside of religion?

[cynatnite]

16. Good policy is good policy. Its origins are irrelevant. n/t

[rug]

17. If it's a good policy its origins are irrelevant.

[msongs]

18. actually, religious beliefs are based on public policy (public opinion really). good people preceded

religion

[cleanhippie]

26. We have a winner!

[2ndAmForComputers]

29. If it's "really good," you'll find it can be stated with no reference whatsoever to religious belief

Example:

WRONG: There should be weekly rest because God ordered us to hold the Sabbath holy.

RIGHT: There should be weekly rest because forcing people to work every day is inhumane.

[cleanhippie]

34. Bam! Winner!

[laconicsax]

30. Yes.

If it's good policy, what does it matter where it comes from?

[cleanhippie]

31. Who decides what is good policy?

[laconicsax]

32. Those charged with voting on it.

Policy should be judged on its merits, not on its origins.

[cleanhippie]

33. You mean like the voters of North Carolina?

They certainly thought it was really good public policy.

[laconicsax]

35. I never said that voters always get it right.

You asked, hypothetically, if a really good public policy that has its basis in religion should be made into law.

I say yes. A hypothetical policy, if good, should be made into law regardless of its origins.

Having religious roots certainly shouldn't disqualify a policy from being adopted and having religious roots isn't a guarantee that a policy is good or bad.

[cleanhippie]

36. I think 2amforcomputers nailed it with this...

If it's "really good," you'll find it can be stated with no reference whatsoever to religious belief

WRONG: There should be weekly rest because God ordered us to hold the Sabbath holy.

RIGHT: There should be weekly rest because forcing people to work every day is inhumane.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=26904

And my point it, that leaving it up to the majority to decide how the minority will be treated has never ended well, ESPECIALLY when there is religion in the mix. To reiterate..."If it's "really good," you'll find it can be stated with no reference whatsoever to religious belief"

[laconicsax]

37. And I agree completely with that assessment.

My point is that good policy can stand on its own.

It seems that you are wanting to equate religious roots with bad policy. Some bad policies may have religious roots, but many don't.

If a policy is good, what does it matter if it has religious roots?

[cleanhippie]

38. Perhaps I needed to be more specific.

Any policy that is worth a damn can be justified without needing to invoke a religious reason or justification. When religion is used as the justification without any non-religious reasoning, it cannot, IMO, be good policy of any sort.


The marriage issue is exactly my point, those against it are unable to find even a single substantiated argument that is not religious in nature to oppose giving everyone the same rights regarding marriage.

[laconicsax]

41. That, to me, reads as a different issue than your OP

I agree that religion shouldn't be used as a justification for the implementation of public policy and religious justification on its own isn't sufficient.

[cleanhippie]

47. It is different from the OP

I was intentionally ambiguous. I felt that by being too specific, I would not get good responses. Looking at the thread now, it seems that most are of the same opinion that we have, that any "good" policy will have secular value and religious belief would not be needed.

[dimbear]

39. The laws against consuming human flesh as a dietary staple have a religious origin.

Human flesh is nutritional and, from what I hear, rather tasty. It is not, however, kosher. Recent scientific studies show that not eating human flesh tends to prevent some nasty and insidious diseases, such as mad cow disease and that other one I can't spell, the prion diseases.

What is that other one called? I keep thinking Jakov Schmirnov. Jakov Kreutzer or something.

on edit:

Creutzfeldt–Jakob

[struggle4progress]

42. kuru

[Humanist_Activist]

43. There were also many religious and cultural rituals and practices that encouraged...

or required cannibalism, in many cultures around the world.

[laconicsax]

53. There are loads of cultures across history that didn't practice cannibalism

Which religion are you speaking of that is supposedly critical to keeping people from devouring their neighbors?

[dimbear]

63. The one that comes to mind is Judaism. Human flesh isn't kosher.

Also not halal. It's a widespread opinion.

I don't think the idea of not eating people needs to be rejected for its religious origins.

[laconicsax]

65. Judaism wasn't required for other cultures to avoid cannibalism.

That cannibalism was and is a widespread taboo suggests that religion isn't required to prohibit it.

[Humanist_Activist]

44. There is no such thing as a good public policy that has solely religious origins...

So I would say no, because the question you ask does make sense.

[rrneck]

51. Selected pass.

I would meed to know if the policy in question was the result of a need perceived by the the voting public or an organization.

[LeftishBrit]

54. Yes, if it's a good policy in general

The problem with 'religion-based laws' is basically that some religious people and groups are insisting that their ideologies should override the needs and wishes of others not of their religious viewpoint. If a particular policy is good for everyone, then it's no problem that it also fits in with some religious viewpoints. Many (though not all) ideas expressed by certain religions are also part of much more universal moral viewpoints. For example, just because the Bible tells people not to steal or bear false witness, does not mean that laws against theft or perjury are wrong!

[trotsky]

56. If religion is the *only* basis, then no.

Of course the question is also a little silly - how do we know if it's a "good" policy if there is no rational/secular way to evaluate it? I mean, if this religious idea has good effects in the world, then it will have secular reasons to support it. And then it becomes a secular law.

[westerebus]

61. I vote yes.

With the understanding bad policy based on religious belief has the possibility of becoming law.

As a Nation we have a long tradition of doing both.

[ZombieHorde]

67. I am going to define "good public policy" as "public policy currently favored by ZombieHorde."

If the public policy was urgently needed, in my opinion, such as feeding starving people ASAP, then I would support it, but I would fear it would be soon overturned by opponents of the policy for its religious origins.

I would not like it, but people have to eat to live.

[backscatter712]

68. If it's good policy, it can be justified by secular means.

Of course, one might use religion as a marketing tool to turn such a proposal into law...

[AlbertCat]

73. I'll pass

because most religions hijack good ideas that originate elsewhere so I doubt you could find a good policy idea that was JUST religiously based