6th June 2012, 02:09 PM
|
 |
Now taking submissions for the Atheist Coming Out Project
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,492
|
|
Political decisions should be made without using religion as a crutch
LINKY
Quote:
What I am suggesting is that we create and support a system where political decisions are made based on arguments that stand on their own merits without a religious crutch. Or, to put it another way, “the Bible tells me so” is off limits as a rationale. But that doesn’t mean what you’re arguing for will have to change!
For example, a commonly argued religiously-slanted issue right now is marriage equality (and one you don’t have to guess my bias on). Right now, the most compelling argument against marriage equality (or at least the most common) is “marriage is between a man and a woman, because the Bible says so.” Not okay. You can still be opposed to marriage equality, but under the political system I’m suggesting politicians would have to debate it with secular reasoning that can appeal to people of all belief systems (you know, like the members of their constituency they are supposed to be representing). A common, secular argument against marriage equality is the “same-sex parents are unhealthy for kids” one. Fair enough. Let’s debate that. That’s something we can all agree is important, and something that can be approached with research and logic to find a solution that’s best for the country as a whole.
Removing the religious crutch in political debates and discussions will do a number of helpful things:
- It will create a common denominator. Many issues are so religiously loaded that it’s near-impossible for people of varying faiths to discuss them without the “discussion” turning into a “whose belief system is better” pissing contest. Let’s yell at each other about the issues at hand instead.
- It will cause people on all sides to think about the issues critically. Whether you know what is right because of your religion, or you know it’s wrong because a particular religion shouldn’t matter, knowing is the problem. In order to have an actual debate to figure out what’s right, people need to know a bit less and be willing to wonder and examine a bit more.
- It will turn down the heat. I was always taught that it’s impolite to discuss religion or politics at a dinner party. Why is it that we think it’s helpful to merge the two into one supercharged, emotionally-unstable, multi-headed media monstrosity? If we can separate the two concepts, at least in discourse, it’ll help — at least we’ll only be pushing one hot-button at a time.
Removing the religious crutch in political debates and discussions will also not do a number of things (consider this my pre-defense to the comments/emails I know I’m going to get):
- It will NOT create an immoral, Ayn Randian, dystopic society. In fact, I would argue it will help prevent us from this. Removing religion from political discourse doesn’t remove morality or value-based decision-making.
- It will NOT lead to persecution of Christians. Unless you’re one of those who already think this is happening, in which case read this.
- It will NOT slippery slope now we’re marrying toasters and we elected a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos to office and other similar nonsense. Seriously, the “slippery slope Hungry Hungry Hippos” argument is so lazy.
|
Thoughts??
|
Linear Mode
