[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Not directly, but certainly "blessed are the poor" is part of 
Christian theology. But to repeat, what is the basis of law in your opinion?

[Arlo]
I think there are many religions that demand responsibility for 
easing human suffering. You could just as easily say "welfare" could 
be seen as a Buddhist law. So there will be overlaps, I am sure, and 
we can't NOT pass laws because of agreement with some faith, if that 
agreement is 'coincidental' rather than 'derivative'. I think this is 
what Steve was getting at in his recent post. You can start from 
faith, you can find yourself proposing something that agrees with one 
or more faiths, but your argument can never just be "because that 
faith says so".

I think "welfare" laws are a response to a specific historical 
reality, in the US "welfare" as it exists was a response to the Great 
Depression. Nothing occurs in a vacuum. I think "reason" has to be 
the foundation for enacting "welfare", and I've seen many good 
arguments for reform. Whether or not one enacts or repeals "welfare" 
(or reforms it), the argument can't be "because God says so".

[P]
Since most of them were Christian, it's not unreasonable to assume 
their faith influenced their deliberations. In fact, I believe some 
of them admitted to the influence of God. .

[Arlo]
If the writ was the foundation for such a separation, it would've 
occurred long before. The separation of church and state is not 
founded in the scripture of the Christian faith, it was an outgrowth 
of secular enlightenment. Just because someone professes to be "a 
Christian" does not mean everything they do or say is derived from 
the Bible. I think they reasoned their way to an understanding that 
separation of church of state is "better" than having the state 
endorse any particular religion.

[P]
The issue is use of government coercion whether justified by faith in 
God or faith in atheism. You said an Atheocracy would be as immoral 
as a Theocracy.
I agree.

[Arlo]
Again, with respect specifically to gay marriage, no one is 
"coercing" you to enter into a homosexual union. The laws simply 
support your right to determine who shares the benefits of your 
union. Laws prohibiting gay marriage are coercive, laws supporting 
them are not.

[P]
There are plenty of laws that prevent people from doing what they please.

[Arlo]
And those that are should be based on reason, not on saying "my God says so".

[P]
So I don't get your point.

[Arlo]
I don't have a problem with prohibitive laws, I simply am saying they 
should be rooted in reason, not in adherence to the will of a god. 
Take alcohol laws, we prohibit those under 21 from purchasing alcohol 
until they are mature enough to be expected to take responsibility 
for potential consequences. Its not a law based on "God thinks 
drinking is bad". Now, I've seen arguments, based on reason, for 
rethinking these laws, but in the end the laws have to be based on a 
foundation of reason.

[P]
For me, the foundation of opposing gay marriage is the social benefit 
of having families consisting of mothers and fathers as being the 
best arrangement for raising children -- a generality to be sure but 
one that has been approved and followed by humans ever since humans 
came on the scene.

[Arlo]
Well, this is more an argument against gay adoption, rather than gay 
marriage. But let's not digress into one specific law here.

[P]
Are you suggesting the Constitution should not be open to amending? I 
wouldn't vote for slavery, either. But I wouldn't imprison someone 
for proposing it.

[Arlo]
I think there are principles in the constitution that supercede 
majority decree. I think early on there we errors, such as slavery, 
that were corrected, and I don't think the entirety of the 
constitution is above reconsideration (for example, if someone had a 
good argument for why the citizenship requirement for Senators should 
be extended to ten years (its currently nine), I would not have a 
problem with something like that.)

I don't know what you mean about imprisoning someone who proposed it. 
No, I wouldn't either. But if slavery was ratified, I would not think 
that made it moral, nor would I participate in such a system because 
it is "legal". I would resist, work against the laws, as many did 
before. And I would fight against a government that enabled slavery.

[P]
So how would you not abide by the law? What action(s) would you take? 
(I'm sure you realize that slavery, denial of women the right to vote 
and separation of  church and state was voted on at one time. Also, 
that Islam today treats women as second class citizens.)

[Arlo]
Revolution! Yes, these things were "voted" on, and in many ways that 
disgusts me. Why did we ever have to "vote" to determine whether or 
not a woman could vote, or a black man could be free?

Islam is not alone in its attitudes towards women. It has power, and 
that is a key difference. I attended a Christian wedding ceremony a 
few years back where the bride's vows were to "always have a smile on 
her face and a meal on the table when her husband got home". The very 
fact that women have had live as second class citizens until secular 
enlightenment thinking freed them is evidence of this. You just 
mentioned suffrage, and that is one such example.

[P]
But again, the question: What do you think should be the basis 
of  laws? If you say "reason," then whose reason?

[Arlo]
I don't think, first, we need to appeal to a supernatural Creator as 
justification for these laws. And, your question here implies a 
certain element of subjectivity that I am not sure is valid.

For example, I can't think of anyone who'd reason that being a slave 
is better than being free. Appeals to "reason" are not appeals to the 
whim of subjectivity. If someone proposed legalizing slavery, for 
example, would you counter that appeal by saying "its against the 
Creator's wishes", or would you counter it with a reasoned argument 
for why a better society is one that extends freedom to all?