• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Application of religious standards to non-religious people

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've always felt that most, if not all, discussions boil down to definitions. In a discussion involving a religious based position, the games that get played with definitions can be interesting, hard to follow, and unfair. In another thread I recently stated that Christians judging a non-christian for being homosexual (or partaking in homosexual acts) is on par with a follower of Islam judging me for eating pork (I don't follow Islam).

I argue that if someone attempts to apply a religious standard of some kind to a non-religious person (or person of a different religion) that the position is inherently flawed due to a lack of logic and premise supporting the conclusion and the burden of proof lies on the religious party to support their position without the use of faith or scripture as accepted truth which can stand on its own unsupported by any logic or facts.

Is it wrong to apply religious standards to non-religious people (or people of a different religion)? I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think so. This is also an opportunity to debate your religious position from stable ground to solid conclusion, if you can. Homosexuality is a place to start but feel free to try your hand at anything else that qualifies. Murder is universally accepted (almost anyway) as morally wrong, so it wouldn't qualify. Abortion, contraceptives, and premarital sex would qualify since debates are usually drawn along religious lines.
 

afr0byte

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
2,364
Reaction score
253
Location
A blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I've always felt that most, if not all, discussions boil down to definitions. In a discussion involving a religious based position, the games that get played with definitions can be interesting, hard to follow, and unfair. In another thread I recently stated that Christians judging a non-christian for being homosexual (or partaking in homosexual acts) is on par with a follower of Islam judging me for eating pork (I don't follow Islam).

I argue that if someone attempts to apply a religious standard of some kind to a non-religious person (or person of a different religion) that the position is inherently flawed due to a lack of logic and premise supporting the conclusion and the burden of proof lies on the religious party to support their position without the use of faith or scripture as accepted truth which can stand on its own unsupported by any logic or facts.

Is it wrong to apply religious standards to non-religious people (or people of a different religion)? I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think so. This is also an opportunity to debate your religious position from stable ground to solid conclusion, if you can. Homosexuality is a place to start but feel free to try your hand at anything else that qualifies. Murder is universally accepted (almost anyway) as morally wrong, so it wouldn't qualify. Abortion, contraceptives, and premarital sex would qualify since debates are usually drawn along religious lines.
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to apply religious standards to the non-religious. However, that said, I expect them to be able to give some reasoning as to why I should care about their standards. Saying "God said so" doesn't count.
 

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to apply religious standards to the non-religious. However, that said, I expect them to be able to give some reasoning as to why I should care about their standards. Saying "God said so" doesn't count.
i agree, many religious standards are somewhat universal outside the religion, but there's sound reasoning to back up these positions that doesn't involve faith and scripture being taken as true or factual without some kind of supporting logic or facts.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,224
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Everyone has a vote, everyone is allowed to vote how they want regardless why they believe it. I think it's discrimination to force people who vote on an issue based on their religious beliefs to come up with a secular reason that will somehow satisfy the non-religious.

People should be allowed to vote on Constitutional laws as they see fit regardless of why they hold what positions they do.
 

lizzie

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,581
Reaction score
31,551
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Is it wrong to apply religious standards to non-religious people (or people of a different religion)? I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think so. This is also an opportunity to debate your religious position from stable ground to solid conclusion, if you can. Homosexuality is a place to start but feel free to try your hand at anything else that qualifies. Murder is universally accepted (almost anyway) as morally wrong, so it wouldn't qualify. Abortion, contraceptives, and premarital sex would qualify since debates are usually drawn along religious lines.
Frankly, I don't see how one can actually apply religious standards to someone who is not religious. You may think they are wrong on certain issues, or misguided according to your belief system, but you applying religious standards to someone else has no net effect.
 

afr0byte

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
2,364
Reaction score
253
Location
A blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Frankly, I don't see how one can actually apply religious standards to someone who is not religious. You may think they are wrong on certain issues, or misguided according to your belief system, but you applying religious standards to someone else has no net effect.
I'd imagine he's talking about things like trying to ban gay marriage.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nobody has to defend their position or use an ounce of common sense, logic, or reality at all when it comes to how they vote and what they support or don't support. A vote for candidate A because they like their tie better is the same vote as if they did it based on their dissertation and 100's of hours of research. People can use whatever method they so desire as to how they vote, even if it is a matter of flipping a coin. As for what right does a religious person have to judge a non-religious person or the other way around, we cannot control how others think.
 

afr0byte

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
2,364
Reaction score
253
Location
A blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nobody has to defend their position or use an ounce of common sense, logic, or reality at all when it comes to how they vote and what they support or don't support. A vote for candidate A because they like their tie better is the same vote as if they did it based on their dissertation and 100's of hours of research. People can use whatever method they so desire as to how they vote, even if it is a matter of flipping a coin. As for what right does a religious person have to judge a non-religious person or the other way around, we cannot control how others think.
I think the OP is talking about what one should do, not what they can do.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I think the OP is talking about what one should do, not what they can do.
To me there is no difference. Religious people judge and are judged by those inside and outside their religion. It is just human nature. To me, the OP position in its application would be the religious people who oppose things like gay marriage ought not be allowed to oppose gay marriage because some gay people aren't religious. One supports the doctrine of their faith or they do not regardless of who it affects.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Everyone has a vote, everyone is allowed to vote how they want regardless why they believe it. I think it's discrimination to force people who vote on an issue based on their religious beliefs to come up with a secular reason that will somehow satisfy the non-religious.

People should be allowed to vote on Constitutional laws as they see fit regardless of why they hold what positions they do.
Any constitutional law must meet the "rational basis" test in accordance with the 14th amendment. There are many religious belief that have rational basis, prohibition against theft, murder, bearing false witness ect. and thus can be accepted in law. However, a law cannot be justified by faith alone, as faith is arbitrary and without reason. A person can vote based on whatever criteria they like, but the law itself must have a rational secular basis to be valid.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
3,960
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
i agree, many religious standards are somewhat universal outside the religion, but there's sound reasoning to back up these positions that doesn't involve faith and scripture being taken as true or factual without some kind of supporting logic or facts.
You want logic?

Summa Theologica Index
 

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Everyone has a vote, everyone is allowed to vote how they want regardless why they believe it. I think it's discrimination to force people who vote on an issue based on their religious beliefs to come up with a secular reason that will somehow satisfy the non-religious.

People should be allowed to vote on Constitutional laws as they see fit regardless of why they hold what positions they do.
I would never attempt to curb anyone's right to vote for whomever they choose, that's a personal choice. I'm talking more about the moral validity of personal judgements and attempts to pass religious dogma into law.
 

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Frankly, I don't see how one can actually apply religious standards to someone who is not religious. You may think they are wrong on certain issues, or misguided according to your belief system, but you applying religious standards to someone else has no net effect.
well, on a personal level, theres social consequences, guilt, and shame. How many homosexuals commit suicide as a result of social ridicule, the loss of a close friend, or condemnation from their parents that directly resulted from their coming out?

on a national level, we see things like DOMA, contraceptives not being covered by health insurance if the employer is catholic, and a variety of legal gymnastics aimed at restricting abortion and sidestepping past decisions that have been upheld time and time again.
 

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nobody has to defend their position or use an ounce of common sense, logic, or reality at all when it comes to how they vote and what they support or don't support. A vote for candidate A because they like their tie better is the same vote as if they did it based on their dissertation and 100's of hours of research. People can use whatever method they so desire as to how they vote, even if it is a matter of flipping a coin. As for what right does a religious person have to judge a non-religious person or the other way around, we cannot control how others think.
Vote for the candidate you want, always. the problem is when said candidate is elected and now tries to please the voter base by getting up on a soapbox and saying "God says X is wrong, so we should make it the law of the land even though theres a huge portion of the population that doesn't follow the same God we do"
 

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Any constitutional law must meet the "rational basis" test in accordance with the 14th amendment. There are many religious belief that have rational basis, prohibition against theft, murder, bearing false witness ect. and thus can be accepted in law. However, a law cannot be justified by faith alone, as faith is arbitrary and without reason. A person can vote based on whatever criteria they like, but the law itself must have a rational secular basis to be valid.
Looking at the details of the 14th amendment and the rational basis review, I don't understand how DOMA was passed in the first place. Even Newt was against it in recent years. It makes you wonder what else could be passed with enough zealous energy supporting it.
 

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
To me there is no difference. Religious people judge and are judged by those inside and outside their religion. It is just human nature. To me, the OP position in its application would be the religious people who oppose things like gay marriage ought not be allowed to oppose gay marriage because some gay people aren't religious. One supports the doctrine of their faith or they do not regardless of who it affects.
You can oppose gay marriage all you want, you can oppose milk, or Pinesol, or diesel fuel if you want too. Such is the freedom we have in America. Faith is something a person chooses to have/follow. Forcing an entire nation to follow the same faith based dogma is putting a heavy restriction on everyone elses freedom. If you wish to convert these people and then address their behavior through the classic tools of guilt and shame or whatever else you can come up with in an attempt to "rehabilitate" them, then have at it. They're willingly subjecting themselves to those standards. Manipulating the government into enforcing religious dogma on the populace is arrogant in the extreme and tyrannical.
 

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
any chance you could at least link the chapter that pertains to the discussion? I'm familiar with some of his more well known arguments, but nothing comes to mind regarding the universality of Catholic Dogma, and the very first line describing the work on that page says:

This is St. Thomas Aquinas' encylopedia-length work on Catholic theology.
At least give us some cliff notes
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
3,960
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
You can oppose gay marriage all you want, you can oppose milk, or Pinesol, or diesel fuel if you want too. Such is the freedom we have in America. Faith is something a person chooses to have/follow. Forcing an entire nation to follow the same faith based dogma is putting a heavy restriction on everyone elses freedom. If you wish to convert these people and then address their behavior through the classic tools of guilt and shame or whatever else you can come up with in an attempt to "rehabilitate" them, then have at it. They're willingly subjecting themselves to those standards. Manipulating the government into enforcing religious dogma on the populace is arrogant in the extreme and tyrannical.
No more arrogant in the extreme and tyrannical or less right than enforcing non-religious dogma which is what the left does. You support freedom or you are an autocrat who doesn't--the rest are just details.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Vote for the candidate you want, always. the problem is when said candidate is elected and now tries to please the voter base by getting up on a soapbox and saying "God says X is wrong, so we should make it the law of the land even though theres a huge portion of the population that doesn't follow the same God we do"
So you don't support freedom of speech I take it since you believe that people can only say what is least offensive to the lowest common denominator. There is no moral difference between getting up on a soap box and saying gays are bad than in getting up on a soap box and saying rich people are bad.
 

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No more arrogant in the extreme and tyrannical or less right than enforcing non-religious dogma which is what the left does. You support freedom or you are an autocrat who doesn't--the rest are just details.
The thing about non-religious dogma is that it can be questioned, reasoned with, and modified if found to be weak or lacking. If non-religious dogma is passed into law and the results are bad, people can be held accountable and the rules can be changed. It doesn't have Divine Authority behind it, which is theoretically infallible and claims dominion over the fate of your eternal soul, I.E. these are the rules because god says so, follow them or burn in hell. The message is often sugar coated to sound less harsh, but anyone can see past that if they're willing to be intellectually honest with themselves.

So you don't support freedom of speech I take it since you believe that people can only say what is least offensive to the lowest common denominator. There is no moral difference between getting up on a soap box and saying gays are bad than in getting up on a soap box and saying rich people are bad.
I have nothing against free speech or soap boxing in general. I even respect the rights of groups like WBC. Do i approve of picketing funerals and blaming disasters on social tolerances that god wants to punish us for? No, its disgusting to be honest. But if they stay X feet away, only picket outside the hour before to hour after window, and stay non-violent then they're legally expressing their views, and i either have to get over it or fight to have the laws changed, which won't happen without significant support from the people and those that represent them. I have no problems with free speech and didn't mean to imply that, I have a problem with laws based on religious dogma being proposed by representatives of the people.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
76,101
Reaction score
43,941
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Everyone has a vote, everyone is allowed to vote how they want regardless why they believe it. I think it's discrimination to force people who vote on an issue based on their religious beliefs to come up with a secular reason that will somehow satisfy the non-religious.

People should be allowed to vote on Constitutional laws as they see fit regardless of why they hold what positions they do.
You can vote for any reason you want, just understand this is a Republic not a pure democracy. You may think it discrimination to demand secular reason for laws; but it's outright oppression to subjugate me to the laws of your god. That's your choice to follow those rules and your god is not the god of others.

I won't demand that you have a secular reason behind your vote, but I will demand secular argument and justification for implemented laws. You cannot force your god on others anymore than I can take yours away from you.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
28,092
Reaction score
12,151
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As pertaining to the title it would make life easier the non religious could simply say it is this way because I said so, same as the religious people do.
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would never attempt to curb anyone's right to vote for whomever they choose, that's a personal choice. I'm talking more about the moral validity of personal judgements and attempts to pass religious dogma into law.
When you get into morality all you're really talking about is a consensus of the population, whatever population you may include. A thief in a den of thieves isn't immoral. An assassin in a group of assassins isn't a murderer. However, they may both be immoral (and a danger) to society at large - and in most societies are considered as such.


Putting religion into law is a different can of worms. There are plenty of "religious" laws still on the books and they really shouldn't be there. However, our society arose out of Christianity, mostly - so we've got a lot of historical religious baggage we're carrying around. :(
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I've always felt that most, if not all, discussions boil down to definitions. In a discussion involving a religious based position, the games that get played with definitions can be interesting, hard to follow, and unfair. In another thread I recently stated that Christians judging a non-christian for being homosexual (or partaking in homosexual acts) is on par with a follower of Islam judging me for eating pork (I don't follow Islam).

I argue that if someone attempts to apply a religious standard of some kind to a non-religious person (or person of a different religion) that the position is inherently flawed due to a lack of logic and premise supporting the conclusion and the burden of proof lies on the religious party to support their position without the use of faith or scripture as accepted truth which can stand on its own unsupported by any logic or facts.

Is it wrong to apply religious standards to non-religious people (or people of a different religion)? I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think so. This is also an opportunity to debate your religious position from stable ground to solid conclusion, if you can. Homosexuality is a place to start but feel free to try your hand at anything else that qualifies. Murder is universally accepted (almost anyway) as morally wrong, so it wouldn't qualify. Abortion, contraceptives, and premarital sex would qualify since debates are usually drawn along religious lines.
I do believe that believers should not judge non-believers according to their yardsticks.

The problem is that this opinion stems from an enlightened idea of freedom and pluralist society, according to which your freedom ends where the freedom of others begins -- but most religions, certainly the monotheist religions, are usually pre-modern and pre-enlightenment. That means that their divine law trumps enlightened ideas such as pluralism or freedom; or at least many believers see it this way. Civil rights/human rights are a manmade concept, while religious law (from the Bible or Quran i.e.) is divine.

Some churches, denominations and believers deal better with this contradiction in a post-enlightened society than others.

I used to be an agnostic atheist for most of my life and grew up and still live in a very atheist, if not anti-religious environment. Paradoxically, it was an extremely individualistic and "pluralist" decision for me to embrace religion a couple of years ago (the Baha'i faith). I naturally feel it was my right to choose in a pluralist society in favor of a religion that claims to teach truths that are beyond this society. So I maintain the belief that just like I voluntarily chose, all others must be allowed to choose their way too.

It's a simple necessity, IMO: Our societies increasingly diversify ideologically. We're open societies in the West, that means people with very different sets of believes have to live along in peace -- believers of different religions, atheists, various kinds of ideologies. No single group can claim supremacy, or should do so. That's why freedom of religion is paramount, including the freedom to believe in no religion. When someone chooses a religion, he must keep in mind that it's an individual choice, nothing he can force on others.

As I understand it, belief is something that's only true when it comes from within. When I decide to sin or to follow my religious rules, it's between me and God. You can't force anybody to become a good believer, just by outlawing behavior he doesn't believe is wrong; it wouldn't be genuine. All you can do is trying to convince him, until he sees the light by himself -- and leave him alone when he doesn't.
 
Top Bottom