Sunday, December 12, 2004
About a month or so ago, I had an interesting conversation with a fellow grad student. He was upset that the "red state" religious right was creating laws in order to enforce their morality "on the rest of us."
I asked for an example, and he gave me a few. They revolved around some (occasionally bizarre) laws in several "red states" revolving around alcohol consumption, adultery, or public funding of religious charities.
I told him that, generally I agreed. But then I asked him what the moral difference was between zoning bars and strip joints, and requiring any business that wanted to bid for a government contract to have a certain percentage of minorities on its staff.
He replied that there was a huge difference. Racism had to be combated. Drinking alcohol did not. I asked if alcoholism or drunk driving should be combated. He replied that alcoholism was a right-wing bogeyman.
I asked why it was okay to have use the laws to enforce morality in regards to race, but not in regards to sex or entertainment.
He replied, "because affirmative action doesn't have a religious motivation."
So, I asked: "In other words, it's okay to make law based on leftist, secular morality - but not if your motivations are religious in nature."
His answer? "Exactly."
And this man will get his PhD and teach college. All with the base philosophy that it's okay to enforce your morality on others as long as you aren't religious.
Do I even have to explain the problems with this philosophy? Apparently, I do, since everyone else in my department seems to share this same basic philosophy. (There are a few liberal Christians in my department - a very few - and they still hold thus same basic idea about the morality behind the law).
The funny thing is, I went into that conversation hoping to have an engaging conversation. My own ideas weren't totally set, and I hoped that perhaps I could gain some insight. I even recognized some flaws in my own reasoning. BUT - my fellow student went into the conversation wanting to complain about religion. It never even crossed his mind that I might be religious. He even expressed shock that I attended church. Religious people aren't supposed to be smart enough to go to graduate school, apparently.
I asked for an example, and he gave me a few. They revolved around some (occasionally bizarre) laws in several "red states" revolving around alcohol consumption, adultery, or public funding of religious charities.
I told him that, generally I agreed. But then I asked him what the moral difference was between zoning bars and strip joints, and requiring any business that wanted to bid for a government contract to have a certain percentage of minorities on its staff.
He replied that there was a huge difference. Racism had to be combated. Drinking alcohol did not. I asked if alcoholism or drunk driving should be combated. He replied that alcoholism was a right-wing bogeyman.
I asked why it was okay to have use the laws to enforce morality in regards to race, but not in regards to sex or entertainment.
He replied, "because affirmative action doesn't have a religious motivation."
So, I asked: "In other words, it's okay to make law based on leftist, secular morality - but not if your motivations are religious in nature."
His answer? "Exactly."
And this man will get his PhD and teach college. All with the base philosophy that it's okay to enforce your morality on others as long as you aren't religious.
Do I even have to explain the problems with this philosophy? Apparently, I do, since everyone else in my department seems to share this same basic philosophy. (There are a few liberal Christians in my department - a very few - and they still hold thus same basic idea about the morality behind the law).
The funny thing is, I went into that conversation hoping to have an engaging conversation. My own ideas weren't totally set, and I hoped that perhaps I could gain some insight. I even recognized some flaws in my own reasoning. BUT - my fellow student went into the conversation wanting to complain about religion. It never even crossed his mind that I might be religious. He even expressed shock that I attended church. Religious people aren't supposed to be smart enough to go to graduate school, apparently.
Comments:
<< Home
I realize this is a fairly late comment, but anyhow --
Leon Wieseltier in TNR (if I remember correctly) had an article about using religious justifications for laws. The problem is that in the U.S. a secular democracy, you may be motivated by religious reasons to support some legislation, but you have an obligation to give a valid non-religious reason because of :
i. the establishment clause, and
ii. the necessity of persuading--or at least explaining to--all citizens your rationale in a frame of reference that they accept.
Leon Wieseltier in TNR (if I remember correctly) had an article about using religious justifications for laws. The problem is that in the U.S. a secular democracy, you may be motivated by religious reasons to support some legislation, but you have an obligation to give a valid non-religious reason because of :
i. the establishment clause, and
ii. the necessity of persuading--or at least explaining to--all citizens your rationale in a frame of reference that they accept.
Doubt you'll see this, as its two years after the post, but allow me to frame the issue this way:
Liberty is defined by Voltaire as the freedom to do anything that does not adversely affect others. It is, in essence, about freedom of choice, equality of opportunity, the bedrock of America.
Racism removes opportunity from individuals. The existence of a strip club or bar does not remove opportunity, rather creates it. If a person makes poor decisions, they are in the wrong for making those decisions. If they need help, then they should seek help from friends, family, community, etc. But none of this incriminates the bar or strip club.
The argument here is not about religion vs. secularism: its about individual freedom and responsibility vs. the loss of freedom, the absolution of responsibility.
Post a Comment
Liberty is defined by Voltaire as the freedom to do anything that does not adversely affect others. It is, in essence, about freedom of choice, equality of opportunity, the bedrock of America.
Racism removes opportunity from individuals. The existence of a strip club or bar does not remove opportunity, rather creates it. If a person makes poor decisions, they are in the wrong for making those decisions. If they need help, then they should seek help from friends, family, community, etc. But none of this incriminates the bar or strip club.
The argument here is not about religion vs. secularism: its about individual freedom and responsibility vs. the loss of freedom, the absolution of responsibility.
<< Home
