Religious People with Political Views

[GenSeneca]

The first amendment supposedly gives us the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. How can you claim that we as a nation hold true to that if we legislate using the arbitrary rules explained in the bible as our guide for legislation? To claim this nation was meant to be a Christian theocracy is total BS.

You're still not listening. Lets try something else...

Laws should protect individual rights - Agree or Disagree?

Laws should have logical justification - Agree or Disagree?

I believe you agree on both counts. Now lets look at an example:

Logical justification for making murder illegal:

Premise: Murder is a violation of individual rights.
Premise: Laws should protect individual rights.
Conclusion: Murder should be against the law.

Now lets look at the mystics line of reasoning:

Premise: Murder is a violation of my religious views.
Premise: Laws should conform to my religious views.
Conclusion: Murder should be against the law.

In that example, you only disagree with the mystic on his premises, not his conclusion. Lets look at an example of where you probably disagree on the conclusion as well;

Mystic - Homosexuality should be illegal.

Premise: Homosexuality is a violation of my religious views.
Premise: Laws should conform to my religious views.
Conclusion: Homosexuality should be against the law.

Now, I said laws should be logically justifiable. Banning murder is logically justifiable, banning homosexuality is not. I don't care if someone uses their religious views as a guide but if they plan on making a law, that law must have logical justifications. If no logical justification can be made in support of the law, then the proposal should be dismissed. However, dismissing a conclusion simply because the person proposing it was guided to his conclusion by his religious views (which seems to be what you and PLC are saying should happen) is a fallacious act.

Argument from fallacy: assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.​

Now lets go back to PLC's statement,

What we need to guard against is legislation based on someone's religious values. - PLC​

Claiming that legislation based on someone's religious values automatically means that the conclusion is false is an argument from fallacy.

What we need to guard against is legislation that does not have logical justification.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes, I think there could be a good case made for outlawing murder.

I do agree, that's why I think you should be able to recognize your use of the Argument from fallacy in your earlier statement,

What we need to guard against is legislation based on someone's religious values. - PLC​

What we need to guard against is legislation that does not have logical justification. We cannot guard against a faulty premise but we can guard against a faulty conclusion.

 

[dogtowner]

The fallacy is that religious notions of right and wrong are perforce contrary to non-religious ones. Murder, theft etc are pretty universal and found their way into religion accordingly.

 

[PLC1]

I do agree, that's why I think you should be able to recognize your use of the Argument from fallacy in your earlier statement,

What we need to guard against is legislation based on someone's religious values. - PLC​

What we need to guard against is legislation that does not have logical justification. We cannot guard against a faulty premise but we can guard against a faulty conclusion.

Exactly. We need to guard against legislation that doesn't have a logical justification. Laws based solely on religious values that aren't shared by the population in general don't have a logical justification. Moreover, they can't be enforced anyway.

Logically justified: Murder, assault, rape, thievery, and public safety (traffic laws mainly) are justified and necessary. Laws protecting the environment (fish and game laws, regulation of toxic substances for example) are justified logically.

What it boils down to is your liberty ends where my nose begins. If another person's poor choice doesn't affect me, then there is no justification for it. We can't protect people from themselves.

 

[GenSeneca]

Laws based solely on religious values...don't have a logical justification.

You're still using the argument from fallacy. You need to separate the premise from the conclusion. Religious values serve as the premise, the proposed law serves as the conclusion.

 

[PLC1]

You're still using the argument from fallacy. You need to separate the premise from the conclusion. Religious values serve as the premise, the proposed law serves as the conclusion.

I'm sure that has some specific meaning I would know if I were to join a debate club or something.

What I'm saying is your religious values are all well and good, just don't impose them on the rest of us by force of law.

 

[Apathy]

You're still not listening. Lets try something else...

Laws should protect individual rights - Agree or Disagree?

Laws should have logical justification - Agree or Disagree?

Of course I'm not listening Im reading and what you are typing isn't logical.

I believe you agree on both counts. Now lets look at an example:

Logical justification for making murder illegal:

Premise: Murder is a violation of individual rights.
Premise: Laws should protect individual rights.
Conclusion: Murder should be against the law.

Now lets look at the mystics line of reasoning:

Premise: Murder is a violation of my religious views.
Premise: Laws should conform to my religious views.
Conclusion: Murder should be against the law.

In that example, you only disagree with the mystic on his premises, not his conclusion. Lets look at an example of where you probably disagree on the conclusion as well;

But the logic is what matters if you apply that logic to other situations you will come up with a false claim.
e.g. 2+2=4 and 2x2=4 ergo 6+6=12 so 6x6 must equal twelve.
Just because fallacious arguments can at times lead to correct conclusions doesnt mean you should accept fallacious logic.

This is not an 'argument from fallacy' fallacy as I never claimed your conclusion was false.

From wiki:

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

It has the general argument form:
If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.[5]

I never claimed Q was false so your claim is moot.

Mystic - Homosexuality should be illegal.

Premise: Homosexuality is a violation of my religious views.
Premise: Laws should conform to my religious views.
Conclusion: Homosexuality should be against the law.

Now, I said laws should be logically justifiable.Banning murder is logically justifiable, banning homosexuality is not. I don't care if someone uses their religious views as a guide but if they plan on making a law, that law must have logical justifications. If no logical justification can be made in support of the law, then the proposal should be dismissed.

You just refuted your own argument by stating logic should dictate the law and not religion.

However, dismissing a conclusion simply because the person proposing it was guided to his conclusion by his religious views (which seems to be what you and PLC are saying should happen) is a fallacious act.

No one claimed that I was attacking the logic because if it were another situation your conclusion would be false.

Argument from fallacy: assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.​

Refuted above.

Now lets go back to PLC's statement,

What we need to guard against is legislation based on someone's religious values. - PLC​

Claiming that legislation based on someone's religious values automatically means that the conclusion is false is an argument from fallacy.

What we need to guard against is legislation that does not have logical justification.

That is one hefty assumption and I am almost certain it will turn out to be a straw man. I didn't see him claim that but hey he may think that. Why dont you ask him instead of putting words in his mouth.

 

[Dr.Who]

The first amendment supposedly gives us the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. How can you claim that we as a nation hold true to that if we legislate using the arbitrary rules explained in the bible as our guide for legislation? To claim this nation was meant to be a Christian theocracy is total BS.

No one here or among our founding fathers claimed that the nation was meant to be based on a Christian theocracy.

But many of us believe that our Christian morals, just as much as any other world view, advises us as we choose Federal representatives who will do their best to create laws that defend justice while at the same time making sure that congress shall make no law establishing a religion..

 

[GenSeneca]

You just refuted your own argument by stating logic should dictate the law and not religion.

That statement right there is proof positive you weren't listening to a damn thing I said. Next please.

 

[Apathy]

No one here or among our founding fathers claimed that the nation was meant to be based on a Christian theocracy.

Gen claimed we should legislate morality as for the founders agreed.

But many of us believe that our Christian morals,

Your Christian morals. What right do you have to force your morality on others?

just as much as any other world view, advises us as we choose Federal
representatives who will do their best to create laws that defend justice

Your Christian idea of justice may not be shared amongst others. So what gives you the right to dictate what justice is?

while at the same time making sure that congress shall make no law establishing a religion..

Which is kind of impossible to do while you insist on legislating morality.

 

[Apathy]

That statement right there is proof positive you weren't listening to a damn thing I said. Next please.

Quit being so dramatic I responded to everything... I really dont see why your mad at me after all it's not my fault you contradicted yourself. Let me know when you are done throwing yourself and are ready to debate.

 

[Dr.Who]

Gen claimed we should legislate morality as for the founders agreed.


Your Christian morals. What right do you have to force your morality on others?


Your Christian idea of justice may not be shared amongst others. So what gives you the right to dictate what justice is?



Which is kind of impossible to do while you insist on legislating morality.

Legislating based on morals is not at all the same as creating a theocracy. Every single person who influences the legislative body of laws in this county will do so based on some world view and a moral one is just as valid as any other. If one claims that it is invalid then it is that person who is imposing a view.

I never said I would impose my moral view on others. I said that I would vote with my moral view advising me just like anyone else would vote with their views advising them. We all use our views of the world to influence politicians who will then write laws that establish justice. What gives anyone the right to dictate what justice is? No ONE person does. We have a system* that takes input from all of us and weighs it against the principles of the constitution to dictate justice. You may prefer a system in which there is no government but that too would be a system of justice. Someones system must be in place and since anarchy leaves the door open for a corrupt government to take over almost all of us prefer a system of government. It IS unfair that those who do not want to live under a government are forced to. And further more it is unfair that they don't consent to live under that system just by virtue of their not choosing to leave. It is the lesser of evils. Our founding fathers agreed that government and taxes were evil but necessary.

* Our system does not all for a theocracy even if all the people wanted one, it does not allow for a Christian, or atheist or any majority to impose their ideas on the rest. But it does allow for all groups to have a voice and to use that voice to influence their fellow citizens.

EG. As a Christian I may want everyone to know the message of salvation but I choose not to propose any laws that would make that compulsary. Others may want that and I would argue that there is a greater good to not making the message of salvation mandatory that even advances the Christian message better. I am perfectly capable of being a Christian and voicing my opinions in the legislative marketplace without imposing those ideas on others and it is due to our system that makes that so.

 

[Dr.Who]

Quit being so dramatic I responded to everything... I really dont see why your mad at me after all it's not my fault you contradicted yourself. Let me know when you are done throwing yourself and are ready to debate.

I understood GenSenica completely and saw no contradiction.

It would appear that either you were not listening or that we are having a communication problem of some other sort. I tend to think that peoples world views are so different it is hard at times to understand each other even when we are listening. If we continue to discuss calmly we may discover what it is.

 

[Apathy]

I understood GenSenica completely and saw no contradiction.

It would appear that either you were not listening or that we are having a communication problem of some other sort. I tend to think that peoples world views are so different it is hard at times to understand each other even when we are listening. If we continue to discuss calmly we may discover what it is.

To claim religion should dictate laws and then immediately after claim reason should dictate laws. How much more of a contradiction can you get?

Furthermore it was an obvious cop out.

 

[GenSeneca]

To claim religion should dictate laws and then immediately after claim reason should dictate laws.

Quote the exact statement of mine where you became convinced I was arguing that religion should dictate laws.

Perhaps then we can find the source of your misunderstanding. I thought you weren't paying attention to what I was saying but now I must accept the possiblity that the substance of my argument was simply over your head.