Should religion and moral views be handled politically?
The question itself is a little ambiguous – obviously the state ("politics") cannot make you hold a certain view and cannot make you believe in a particular religion – such personal matters simply cannot be handled politically.
One's personal religious and moral views are relevant to others only when they are translated into actions – a view that remains inside one's head is invisible to politics.
It is only the behaviours that result from religious and moral views that are relevant politically, and influencing (and restricting) behaviour for the good of the society and its people is politics' raison d'etre – the alternative is anarchy.
Unless you are an anarchist then you must accept that the behaviours that result from religious and moral views must be handled like all other behaviours; that is to say they must be regulated and restricted - to a greater or lesser extent - by the politics that is the basis of our society.
I think most of what I've said above will not be controversial – almost everyone accepts that there must be some restrictions on our freedom in order for that freedom to be meaningful, and almost everyone accepts that freedom (within limitations) is something positive and worth striving for.
It is the extent of those restrictions / limitations that divides opinion, and indeed for the entire length of recorded history, societies have been strengthening and softening the restrictions imposed upon their people. Over time, there has been a tendency for change, on average, to be more in the liberal direction (less state intervention and more personal freedom). This trend may have been reversed in much of the Western world in recent years with the instigation of the "War on Terror".
While morality can be more "shades of grey" than just black and white, the state has to legislate one way or the other. People who feel the state should not be getting involved in matters like gay marriage seem to overlook the fact that the state has to either allow it, or prohibit it – there is no middle ground there. The state doesn't necessarily have to take a moral stance, but it does have to make a call one way or the other.
The real issue is how the state decides what is to be prohibited.
Such decisions are based on many elements – reason, religious beliefs, morality and pragmatism, to name but a few.
One of these, religion, is obviously not a sound basis for a society deciding what freedoms to restrict. Those who state that society has no business telling us what is right or wrong should realise that right and wrong are meaningfully determined only in relation to other people – aka society.
Also, as mentioned above, society prohibiting something doesn't necessarily constitute society making a moral judgement – it can simply be a pragmatic one (one recent example would be the banning of drinking alcohol on public transport in the UK – society is not saying there is something intrinsically wrong about drinking alcohol there, but in practical terms it is better for society to prevent it and thus prevent the violence, accidents and other problems that it was shown to play a major part in causing or aggravating).
It is religion that has no business telling us what is right and wrong – why trust the Bronze-age writings, warped beyond their original context and meaning by millennia of societal progress (not to mention numerous key mistranslations on the way to their current forms), of the Bible or Koran over reasoned thought, modern ethical philosophy and pragmatism?
It is a fact that secular nations (that is to say nations that are secular in practice, even if not constitutionally secular) are generally more pleasant and more prosperous than nations where the religious laws are the law of the land. The USA is one of few nations that is explicitly secular in its constitution, and is the most prosperous nation on Earth.
Societies that choose what freedoms to restrict based on informed judgement using reason, contemporary science and ethical philosophy rather than out-dated and often mistranslated ancient texts are going to be better places for reasonable people to thrive.
However, some of the current issues dominating this topic of debate are gay rights and abortion. I will focus on these two issues.
Firstly, gay rights (and specifically gay marriage) – this one is easy – of course gays should have the same rights as the rest of us. Denying gay people the same rights as everyone else is morally no different to denying rights to people based on their ethnicity, their having big ears or their having ginger hair.
The only objections to gays having the same rights as heterosexuals are based on:
a) mistranslated Bronze-Age scriptures and
b) the "yuck factor" - e.g. In contemporary Western society many heterosexual males find the thought of the act of two men having sex quite "yucky". But they tend to exhibit a lot less "yuck factor" at the thought of cute girls getting off with one another. This may explain why lesbianism isn't mentioned as a sin in the Bible, written as it was by males.
A lot of homosexual males presumably find the idea of heterosexual sex just as "yucky"!
Of course, just because people find something "yucky" doesn't mean that that something should be made illegal. I personally find childbirth and cleaning up other people's bodily excreta particularly "yucky", but I'm very glad that we have midwives and nurses!
In the case of gay couples adopting children, I think that, as in all adoption cases, the interests of the child should come first. If there was evidence that being raised by a homosexual couple was disadvantageous to the child then I'd oppose it. I've yet to see such evidence, and moreover have no reason to suspect such evidence would exist.
Abortion is a trickier issue, and a good example of the difficulties of imposing legislation, which is largely "black or white" - "legal or illegal" - on issues that are really more "shades of grey".
The common complete anti-abortion argument is flawed – it essentially states that human life is sacred from the moment of conception, thus avoiding the difficulties of the "shades of grey" by making all abortion "wrong".
However, this argument breaks down with a contemporary understanding of evolution (unless you extend it to all living species including plants and bacteria, which is absurd) – species aren't the rigid, separate things Creationists would have us believe. "Human" refers to a narrow part of the continuous spectrum of possible genetic combinations, which brings us right back to the "shades of grey" problem once again.
It is only by happen stance that there isn't a continuous spectrum of living intermediates between humans and chimps – if there was, legislators would have to draw the cut-off line between "human" and "non-human" somewhere, but exactly where would be an arbitrary decision, and no doubt a controversial one especially to families where some of the children were deemed "non-human". Perhaps this sounds contrived, but the very same thing happened in South Africa with the line between "white" and "non-white".
Abortion then, being a "shades of grey" situation (either species-wise or in terms of the age of the potential baby), is a complex issue to legislate on, but clear abortion legislation is vital due to its potentially drastic effects on both people and society.
Destroying a recently fertilised human egg isn't taking a human life in the normal sense of "human life", it is taking only a potential human life – a zygote doesn't have any of the qualities which come to mind when we think about what "human" means to us – it can't feel emotion or pain, hope or despair, laughter or anger (and most spontaneously abort naturally and unmourned in any case) and doesn't have a "personality".
But a new-born baby can do a lot more of these things – it can feel pain, and does have a personality – and I think every decent person agrees that killing a new-born baby is wrong. Between these two points is a grey area, but a society has to draw a line somewhere – and while all the best available evidence needs to be considered, the exact location of that line is going to be largely arbitrary.
The interests of both the mother and the potential child need to be considered. If the potential child is unwanted, and the parents unwilling and unable to raise it effectively, it may be that aborting the collection of cells before it develops to the point where it becomes capable of suffering is the right thing to do.
Also, in societies where abortion is illegal, abortions are still conducted, but often crudely (and later in the pregnancy), causing more suffering.
More generally, evidence suggests that increases in the numbers of children born to parents who didn't want them and were financially and emotionally incapable of raising them well are connected to increases in social disorder and crime.
Allowing people to abort unwanted children could thus potentially save lives and increase the quality of life for people, without causing suffering (as the zygotes / embryos are incapable of suffering as we understand it). If you can easily increase happiness without causing suffering, you need pretty good reasons not to do so. In the interests of society, and the protection of its people, abortion is at worst a necessary evil.
In an ideal world abortion would not be needed, but in the real world, it is.
Politics governs the real world, and has to legislate accordingly. Religions should only determine what their followers should and should not do – they should not seek to force others outside the faith to follow their rules.
It is the job of politics, not religion, to decide what people within society can and cannot do, for the benefit of all.
Benjamin K Morrish is a UK-based amateur writer, interested in a wide range of topics from science to silliness.
He enjoys debating science, pseudoscience and religion, and as a result spends a lot of time over at Richard Dawkins.net.
When he isn't there, he can usually be found writing his blog, All True.
Other interests include poetry and stand-up comedy. Despite having recently passed the big 3-0 and having the cynicism of a man twice his age, he regularly gets asked for identification when trying to purchase alcohol.
» left by Mark Parsec (1 year ago.)
why is it so difficult for you to accept an intelligence outside of yourself, mankind, etc.? Molecular biology does not prove evolution, it only shows the inter-relationship of all living things. This does not disprove Creation. You have asserted that there is scientific evidence for evolution in that "There is evidence of evolution in contemporary creatures, as well as the instances of speciation observed in labs there are many other examples, such as the changes in the beaks of "Darwin's Finches"." This is erroneous. You are referring to the interpretation of data and the conclusions of that information. The changes in the beaks of Darwin's finches did not change the basic DNA of finches. If you are going to claim that scientific evidence exists then you need to reference these claims. I could say that there is volumes of scientific evidence to support Creation Science or Intelligent Design. However, without the citations it is only an assertion. There is absolutely no scientific evidence in labs or in the fields that irrefutably show that one species has evolved into another. Good day!
» left by Ben Morrish(3,299) Ben Morrish (364 days 18 hours ago.)
It is very easy for me to accept intelligences outside myself, there's a lot of them on our little planet, and a great number of them put mine to shame. It is difficult to accept an intelligence outside of man (and to a lesser extent other animal species) because there is no evidence of such a thing. Molecular biology is strong evidence that supports the theory of evolution, and is compatible with predictions made by the theory of evolution long before molecular biology came to exist. As to the observed instances of speciation in labs, this is not erroneous - speciation has been observed happening. This is evolution, and it has been witnessed. The only part where interpretation comes in is what causes it. The theory of natural selection is the most parsimonious interpretation, but a divine interpretation could be attempted here with God as the *selecting force* in evolution. The changes in the beaks of Darwin's finches were genetic, therefore were the direct result of changes in the "basic DNA" of finches. Darwin didn't know that, but it has been tested since his time. Further evidence comes from modern "ring species", where there's chains of slight differences in a species as you move around the world, but each can reproduce with other members of its species in its locality. However, at the far ends of the chain, the differences have become so large that creatures from one end of the chain cannot successfully reproduce with creatures from the other. If the creatures in the middle of the chain were wiped out, then the chain of reproductive compatibility would be severed, and the animals from the start and the end of the chain would have to be categorised as seperate species, due to distinct and consistent differences in behaviour, appearance and genetics, and inability to breed with each other. The evidence is there, and it is overwhelming. Respond to this comment
» left by Helen M Nanney from Eagle, Idaho (360 days 21 hours ago.)
* "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research, The Advocate, 8 March 1984.
* "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission), The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.
* "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future." Malcolm Muggeridge (British philosopher), The Advocate, March 8 1984.
This is just a few of the great thinkers including scientists that refute everything you are claiming is true. Theory is not true until it is proven. Everything provable has to have a Principle behind its capability to be proven, such as numbers and music. How do I know God exists? He has spoken to my thought as loud as if I was speaking to you face to face. That is all the proof I need, however, that just increased my thurst to know Him better. He told me to write my book,"Who Made God'. Helen M Nanney Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(3,299) Ben Morrish (360 days 16 hours ago.)
Quoting other people who are wrong doesn't constitute an argument against evolution. Not one of those quotes contains anything beyond unsubstantiated assertion, and presenting them is nothing more than appeal to perceived authority. You seem to misunderstand what "theory" means in a scientific context - scientific theories are never proven (definitive proof only applies in logic and mathematics). Hearing a voice in your head is not itself sufficient evidence of the existence of any entity that also exists outside of your own head. We humans can all too easily be deceived by our minds and senses, which is why we need the scientific method to support any claims about reality. Respond to this comment
» left by Anonymous (355 days 8 hours ago.)
Hi Ben: Interesting discussion. As an experienced scientist, I can confirm – science cannot explain many things. As a family person, I can tell – the most important things are love and spiritual growth. In my opinion, to improve your understanding you should marry, have kids, and watch them when they become teenagers.
There is much science cannot explain, that is for certain. Most likely science will never (and could never) explain everything, but every increase in our understanding of the universe we find ourselves in is both satisfying and adds to our sense of awe and wonder, as well as having many practical applications.
I agree that love, friends and family are the most important things in life, and spiritual growth too (depending on how spiritual is defined of course).
Understanding people and how to engage meaningfully with others is vital in one's own development and enjoyment of life.
» left by sue thom from nj (351 days 2 hours ago.)
holy s--t, ben,
there weren't this many comments when i first read this article!
you are very intelligent, and obviously have learned a lot in your young life, and you know how to intelligently handle all these comments. good for you.
i think abortion is a personal thing, and should be questioned or legislated by none. i don't think it should be done, but i also don't think anyone should mandate that it can't.
"numerous key mistranslations".... i've often thought, with all the mistranslations: What if God said, let no man lie with his lamb?" instead of "let no man lie with another man" something to think about.
I think you overrate my intelligence (and my youth) but I never turn down a compliment, so thank you for that! ;-)
As to the lambs, the Bible has that covered as well:
Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
-- Exodus 22:19
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye
shall slay the beast. - Leviticus 20:15
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt
kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
- Leviticus 20:16
....its just a shame the authors threw in the anti-homosexual references as well in my view, as it has caused a lot of suffering and conflict over something that all the evidence suggests isn't a choice anyway, and is a private matter in any case!
What a well written, thoroughly argued article! This should have received 5 stars!
And you are right, religious beliefs of the people can not be undervalued in policy making decisions, but that does not mean that policy should be dictated by a singular religious belief system. When this happens, we no longer live in a true democracy, but a theocracy.
Socialist philosophy was developed in accordance with the "greatest good, for the greatest number of people' in mind. But this led to more governmental power and price control and set wages. Although this was a very popular economic policy after the Great Depression, the deregulated free market economy took its place.
Now we are stuck wondering whether or not this policy beholds the greatest good for the greatest number of people; as we have seen a larger division between the have's and the have not's.
Many people think that this current election has to do with religious conservatism vs liberalism, or that terrorism is all about fundamentalist, radical Islam vs the secular west. But I think the issue is even larger than this. I think global terrorism is a reactionary response to Capitalism run amuck; e.g, hyperconsumerism and materialism.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
