NulliuSINverba
Active Member
No. Because our government is already secular in nature.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should Deeply Anti-Religious Bigots be barred from positions of Power in The Justice System?
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
No. Because our government is already secular in nature.
Voting No.
1. The number of people who would even fall into this category is infinitesimally small amongst liberal, secular atheists who are usually individualistic and therefore do not feel obliged to compel others to be atheists (edit: or deny religious people their rights).
2. The exception are (Marxist) "communists" who were militant atheists. Not all Communists were Atheists (e.g. Christian Communism, Islamic Socialism etc), nor were all militant atheists bigoted; in the 1920's there were many attempts to employ religious themes in Communist ideas and turn 'Socialism' in to a religion including "red" baptisms, marriage, funerals etc. [yeah, it's a really bizarre period of history as nothing was sacred from politicization.] The central problem in Communist countries was that it was state policy, not simply the fault of individuals.
The judicial system in the Soviet Union etc, was not politically neutral and was expected to be partisan. All lawyers were members of the Communist Party. This lead to the rather absurd situation particularly in Russia in the 1930's where defense layers had to presume the guilt of their clients for subversive activities because they were in the Communist Party and were bound by it's ideological conclusions on on-going political events.
Often anti-religious bigotry was the product of the rank and file and the extremely tense political climate in these systems rather than the leading figures who often believed that religion retained some value as a cultural or historical artifact, or that religion was an ideology that underlying socioeconomic causes and could not therefore be irradicated. when anti-religious biogtry was common place, it was not necessarily out of a hatred of religion, but the perception that religion was the instrument of the deposed ruling class or class enemies to attack Communism. So how far the ideology itself was to blame for bigotry is highly debatable, even if it was almost universally anti-religious in theory.
3. There is an implicit assumption that it's Atheists. what happens with Christian bigots who are anti-Muslim, Muslim bigots who are anti- Christian, etc. The "crime" here is not bigotry, which is a regrettable human trait not exclusive to one religion or to the irreligious, but being anti-religious. Religion is not the source of law in secular systems, so being anti-religious is acceptable.
1. The number of people who would even fall into this category is infinitesimally small amongst liberal, secular atheists who are usually individualistic and therefore do not feel obliged to compel others to be atheists (edit: or deny religious people their rights).
2. The exception are (Marxist) "communists" who were militant atheists. Not all Communists were Atheists (e.g. Christian Communism, Islamic Socialism etc), nor were all militant atheists bigoted; in the 1920's there were many attempts to employ religious themes in Communist ideas and turn 'Socialism' in to a religion including "red" baptisms, marriage, funerals etc. [yeah, it's a really bizarre period of history as nothing was sacred from politicization.] The central problem in Communist countries was that it was state policy, not simply the fault of individuals.
The judicial system in the Soviet Union etc, was not politically neutral and was expected to be partisan. All lawyers were members of the Communist Party. This lead to the rather absurd situation particularly in Russia in the 1930's where defense layers had to presume the guilt of their clients for subversive activities because they were in the Communist Party and were bound by it's ideological conclusions on on-going political events.
Often anti-religious bigotry was the product of the rank and file and the extremely tense political climate in these systems rather than the leading figures who often believed that religion retained some value as a cultural or historical artifact, or that religion was an ideology that underlying socioeconomic causes and could not therefore be irradicated. when anti-religious biogtry was common place, it was not necessarily out of a hatred of religion, but the perception that religion was the instrument of the deposed ruling class or class enemies to attack Communism. So how far the ideology itself was to blame for bigotry is highly debatable, even if it was almost universally anti-religious in theory.
3. There is an implicit assumption that it's Atheists. what happens with Christian bigots who are anti-Muslim, Muslim bigots who are anti- Christian, etc. The "crime" here is not bigotry, which is a regrettable human trait not exclusive to one religion or to the irreligious, but being anti-religious. Religion is not the source of law in secular systems, so being anti-religious is acceptable.
Blackmarch
W'rkncacntr
how about all bigotry.... altho that would probably clear out most of the gov.... which probably wouldn't be a bad thing.
Except that laws are made which impact religion, regardless of how secular the government supposedly is.
Those with anti-religious agendas (or anti some specific group, including anti-atheism) can and do see to the creation of laws that disrespect adherents of those ideologies, stand in the way of their free expression, or effectively endorse discrimination.
It does seem rather unconstitutional.
Religions don't have rights because they are belief systems, but individual citizens who have religious beliefs do. it's up to people to organize politically to defend and assert those rights. The creation of anti-religious laws is a political problem of creating laws, not necessarily a legal one of enforcing and interpreting them. A secular system guarantees freedom of religion, whilst an atheist state will not. The courts are there to protect those rights and the rest of the judges will cancel one or two out if there are any at all. No legal system is perfect given that's its made and run by human beings, but given that judges are stereotypical white, male, highly educated, old and conservative- almost by definition of the job requirements- the danger of an anti-religious zealot are pretty low. They're much more likely to discriminate against other groups in society.
The New Atheists such as Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc, are Liberals who remain largely committed to free thought which is why they debate religion in public and debate religious adherents to try and use reason to show the flaws in their opponents arguments. I have heard references of someone wanting to classify religion as a delusion or a mental disorder- but even that is still a political issue of passing laws or getting support amongst psychologists and not a legal issue of enforcing and interpreting them in the courts.But that is the only thing I have heard of that nature.
gsa
Well-Known Member
There are few democratic states with laws that disrespect religious adherents, the only plausible example in my mind being secularism laws in places like France. Most of the time, believers claim that extending equal rights and freedom of choice to groups that they dislike (i.e., women, gays, religious and racial minorities, etc) constitutes "discrimination" because it denies them the ability to discriminate! Those religious extremists have simply rejected the secular compact; they are not really subject to discrimination in any meaningful way.
I'm not sure I'm conveying my point well, and perhaps that's because I cut an example out of my previous post for brevity. Regardless of what the law says, people in positions of power can and do act in ways that are unconstitutional and produce what I might call low-profile discrimination. These are cases that don't tend to get a lot of media attention, in part because they involve small numbers of people.
The example I was going to mention earlier is the fact that it took over a decade for the pentacle to be approved for use on veteran's headstones in the United States. There was absolutely no reason for this filibuster other than the people in positions of power being anti-religious. It took expensive legal action for this to get resolved. That's not acceptable. And that is the problem with allowing bigots, anti-religious or otherwise, into office. Even if they don't directly legislate in a way that causes problems for others (which they can and do), they can do other crap like this that is within the bounds of their office. While doing these things is obviously unconstitutional, that doesn't stop them from doing it.
I thought I should clarify that I'm using "anti-religious" to indicate bigoted opposition to any specific religion, theistic perspective, or non-theistic perspective. So basically, the danger of anti-religious zealots in office is not only quite likely, it is an issue right now.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
By default, unfortunately no. But should their bigotry be shown to influence their choices in their official capacity, yes.
Ok. that makes much more sense as the members of the dominant faith may well exclude other faiths from getting much attention or freely exercising their rights. I would hope that constitutional protections are sufficient but they often aren't, so I might change my position on this one.
Do you have any examples? The Pentacle on the head of solders gravestones is a really interesting one. I realize there was a lot of controversy over the Mosque near ground Zero in the US.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
What do you mean by "biggotry?" Because, just being "anti-religious" is not necessarily a deal-breaker, but if they have prejudice against certain or all religious people simply because they are religious, that is a problem. Please clarify.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I agree with your assessment. There needs to be a great deal more explanation by what is meant by "bigotry."
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Any reasonable judge should disbar himself from a case if he holds biased or established positions on it.
If he does not do so there is a high chance an appeal will be granted.
If he does not do so there is a high chance an appeal will be granted.
I don't keep an eye on these sorts of things other than what gets reported on the Wild Hunt, which is a journalism resource for the Neopagan community. Another bigger case that has been covered on the Wild Hunt has been the Maestrum of Cybele. Basically, city officials denied tax exempt status in spite of them being a religious organization (as we all know, Paganisms aren't "really" religions
). This left litigation as the only option, a course of action that put the organization at risk of bankruptcy (probably something the city officials wanted - if they can't drive them out of town by denying tax exempt status, bankrupt them to force them out anyway!). They won the legal battle, but their finances are still in bad shape. What's stupid is that this hurts everybody. What they were doing was unconstitutional from the get go, yet it cost the Maestrum of Cybele tens of thousands of dollars and it cost the city tens of thousands of dollars. This sort of nonsense happens here and there all across the country on a fairly regular basis. Organizations like the ACLU exist to deal with breaches of religious freedom (among other things), and they might have some archives of various cases they've dealt with on their website. I don't know how much of that is public. I also have no idea how many small cases of discrimination never get reported or go through official channels. We're fortunate we have a national constitution that ultimately protects religious freedom, but that sadly doesn't prevent unconstitutional decisions from being made (as is the case with the high-profile issue of homosexual marriages).
Only if it affects their ability to treat people equally.
That's why a secular government is better. So a person's religious belief or lack of one is not taken into consideration when dealing with the government or legal system.
Vote "Huh?" and move on. I have.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Didn't you create this thread?! How can you not know what you, yourself meant by "biggotry?" Seems like a pretty mean response. Just sayin' is all.
Yes, I created the thread, and I know precisely what I meant by "biggotry", and I believe I clarified it with the following exchange …
You apparently disagree. I'm perfectly OK with that.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think a similar question to the OP could be asked "Should Deeply Religious Bigots be barred from positions of Power in The Justice System?"