Morality and ethics have a place in the composition of policies. They're the basis of compassionate and fair government, and religious organizations are responsible for many philosophies of morality. Many peoples' whole perception of right and wrong is based on their faith. But god has no place in politics. No legislative act can ever be justified with any variation of "god said it's wrong." Here, we must detach legal justification from what is right in the eyes of the devoted. To a person of faith something may be 'wrong', such as eating certain foods. This doesn't mean that the majority can push these dietary restrictions into law, it only means that those practitioners of their belief must adhere to said rule.
Take gay unions for an example: whenever I hear an argument against same-sex marriage, I am appalled. People will rant about how 'disgusting' and 'vile' the love these people have for each other is. Why? Preachers and clerics tell them it is wrong. Someone else's marriage has never affected me; so how can you deny the right to wed to anyone? All the opposition is from the religious right, who call it an abomination and unnatural. Apparently those preaching about love and tolerance are only talking to the straight crowd. The religious conservative influence on civil unions is erroneous. We're secular in America. If your god is ordering you to go to war, tell him to shove it. Freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion, never should someone else's fervor disrupt your ability to be happy. America's founders created the First Amendment to ensure that everyone not only had the right to practice religion, but not have their lives disrupted by it.
It is not my intent to mock or ridicule belief, only to show that I disagree with the hive-mind of the 'Bible Belt'. You should never insult someone for their religion, faith is a personal thing. Insulting it is akin to insulting someone's identity. If someone is preaching on the subway, and it bothers you, listen to them and respectfully debate them if you want to. An intellectual argument can do nothing to hurt you, only allow you to see the issue through your opponent's eyes. I've told you before, knowledge is power, and with it you can defeat any adversary.
Now for the comment maker. Not to be mean, but how can you justify actions with a deity? A god is something you believe in, just like children have faith in Santa. There are books about it, older people tell you it's real, but you can never see it. This doesn't prove or disavow god, only renders him moot in political theory. If a god's existence cannot be certified, it cannot be a justification for any political action. People will tell you they can give you evidence of god and thump on their bibles. Wow, a book, raw energy. How can you argue with that? Let's see, they're telling you that god exists and is infallible.
Says who?
The Bible says so.
But who wrote the Bible?
The Bible was inspired by god.
Meaning?
God exists and is infallible, so whatever he wrote is true.
Wow, quite the argument there. But it's biggest hole is right in the middle because circular logic does not work. Once an argument loops around and relies on one of it's own points for justification, it is self-defeating. In conclusion, theory cannot be proved by theory, only with existing facts. Arm yourself.
BTW, these italicized comments are just a critique. If you feel a point of mine is not useful, ignore it.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is a religious nation, there is no denying this. The population is overwhelmingly Christian and many other faiths are present.
You might want to say "even though" instead of "and" to convey your point better. Also you might want to say "predominantly" instead of "overwhelmingly" to sound less biased and thus more informed and objective. Even though this is a blog and objectivity is prolly not what your reader is looking for.
This creates a powerful morally conservative base, especially in the southern and midwestern regions. This "Bible Belt" is a backbone in American politics and the formation of legislation.
rephrase as: This creates a powerful morally conservative base, especially in the southern and midwestern regions known as the "Bible Belt" which is a backbone in American politics and the formation of legislation.
But where can the line be drawn on the involvement of god and religion in civic policies? After all, we aren't a theocracy, so can the words of preachers and priests really be taken into account in the political theater? And what would become of an ultra-leftist society? Would there be an end to responsibility?
As far as bettering one's writing is concerned, one should avoid cliches like "where can the line be drawn?" (said my HS english mentor) ... You might want to go directly from how the bible belt is a back bone and then say something like: despite the influence of christianity, we are not a theocracy. And then instead of just ask questions; answer them. Like say as a declarative sentence: Preachers' and priests' words should not be taken into account in the political theory. Next question seems non-sequitar in that it's suddenly talking about an ultra-leftist society. You might want to elaborate what you mean by "ultra leftist society" and why it's follows the previous question because the jumps you make in your head are not immediately apparent on the page. While I know this is a philosophy and politics blog, you're going to have to write more and fill in the blanks for people (like when teachers told you to pretend the reader knew nothing...) because while I see the relevance of why you finish with would there be an end to responsibility, you might want to talk about how some people think less religious influence in politics might lead to less responsibility and that's why you ask. And While I get that it's rhetorical, you might want to answer your question with what you think responsibility is and why a less conservative government would not mean a less responsible government.
"The Bible was inspired by god.
ReplyDeleteMeaning?"
this seems to always come up... The bible is inspired by God, therefore written by man who is in no way infalliable leading it back to you're recognized points!