Voting with Religion in Mind

[lewisnotmiller]

It is sometimes said in my country that politics and religion shouldn't be allowed to mix. When it comes to the voting of everyday citizens, do you believe that one should vote only with "secular" ideas in mind, and not vote based on "religious" ideas? Do you feel this same standard should more or less apply to elected officials? If so, why? If not, why not?

I think you're misrepresenting secularism. It represents institutional separation (eg. the government not being infuenced by the Church) rather than the individual drives of people who commonly derive values from their religion.

I ask the questions in part because my thinking on this has shifted in recent years. I used to believe that secularism was a thing, but now I'm less convinced of that. What the idea of secularism seems to do is normalize some particular set of ideas about what "religion" looks like, then calls anything outside of that "secular." In normalizing the set of ideas about what "religion" looks like, the resulting construct necessarily excludes the diversity of world religions. When people think of "religion" interfering with government in my country, they think of a religiously-motivated Christian pushing for restrictions to abortion rights or repealing progressive legislation on homosexual marriage. They don't think of a religiously-motivated Druid pushing for renewable energy and staging anti-fracking protests. Both are examples of being political with one's religion in mind - and for those who are against religious interference in politics, neither should be allowed to have a voice because their motives are religious. Or should they?

When people are talking about secularism, they are referring to the impact of institutions on the political process. The reason religiously-motivated Druids pushing for renewable energy are 'ignored' is because they are not negatively impacting on secular ideals.

 

[Quintessence]

You said...

If course you should live by your own beliefs, but that's different from insisting that others live by them do, even if they don't hold those beliefs themselves.

Which to me implied that we are simply not allowed to make others live by our own beliefs at all (hence anarchy). Even the stuff you list here:

Uhh... no? We would still have rational laws based on real world cause and consequence (prohibiting theft, murder, rape, etc.). I'm talking about completely arbitrary laws based exclusively on religious conviction (banning gay marriage, no alcohol sales on Sunday, etc.)

... is grounded in beliefs or values. If this is not what you meant to communicate, pardon for the misunderstanding.

I'm also fairly certain that the people who hold these "religious" convictions don't regard their beliefs as "completely arbitrary."

 

[Quintessence]

I think you're misrepresenting secularism. It represents institutional separation (eg. the government not being infuenced by the Church) rather than the individual drives of people who commonly derive values from their religion.

It's not uncommon that I see folks using the term secularism to advocate total banishment of anything they perceive as "religion" from the public sphere, including the sort of thing mentioned in the OP. Whether or not this is a "misrepresentation" on their part is arguable. I wager the folks who use the term "secular" in this way don't think it is.

If it works better for you, replace the word "secular" with "irreligious" and then respond to the questions.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's not uncommon that I see folks using the term secularism to advocate total banishment of anything they perceive as "religion" from the public sphere, including the sort of thing mentioned in the OP. Whether or not this is a "misrepresentation" on their part is arguable. I wager the folks who use the term "secular" in this way don't think it is.

If it works better for you, replace the word "secular" with "irreligious" and then respond to the questions.

I'll respond tomorrow when I've had some sleep, but given how you feel about the common (and eroneous) conflation of religion and Abrahamaic monotheism, your attitude towards this surprises me.

 

[Quintessence]

I'll respond tomorrow when I've had some sleep, but given how you feel about the common (and eroneous) conflation of religion and Abrahamaic monotheism, your attitude towards this surprises me.

I'm not sure what that attitude is and what it is regarding?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's not uncommon that I see folks using the term secularism to advocate total banishment of anything they perceive as "religion" from the public sphere, including the sort of thing mentioned in the OP. Whether or not this is a "misrepresentation" on their part is arguable. I wager the folks who use the term "secular" in this way don't think it is.

If it works better for you, replace the word "secular" with "irreligious" and then respond to the questions.

People vote based on their values. At least, idealistically they do.
Too often they vote in pure self interest, but whatever.

Even for an atheist like me, I would conclude some of my values were originally derived from religion.

So I have no idea what 'irreligious' viting would be. Keep the religious institutions and the governmental institutions separate. Dont provide soecial benefits (or penalties) based on religion and I'm happy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not sure what that attitude is and what it is regarding?

Towards the meaning of 'secular' and whether it's important or even possible.
By defining secular in the way the OP does it sets up a straw man. For some, secularism is an important concept in their worldview.

A simple equivalent is me saying 'religiin is bad, since the Quran and Bible contain exortations to violence'.

The commonality of the argument doesn't speak to it's accuracy. This is a point you yourself REGULARLY make on these boards.

 

[idav]

It is sometimes said in my country that politics and religion shouldn't be allowed to mix. When it comes to the voting of everyday citizens, do you believe that one should vote only with "secular" ideas in mind, and not vote based on "religious" ideas? Do you feel this same standard should more or less apply to elected officials? If so, why? If not, why not?

I ask the questions in part because my thinking on this has shifted in recent years. I used to believe that secularism was a thing, but now I'm less convinced of that. What the idea of secularism seems to do is normalize some particular set of ideas about what "religion" looks like, then calls anything outside of that "secular." In normalizing the set of ideas about what "religion" looks like, the resulting construct necessarily excludes the diversity of world religions. When people think of "religion" interfering with government in my country, they think of a religiously-motivated Christian pushing for restrictions to abortion rights or repealing progressive legislation on homosexual marriage. They don't think of a religiously-motivated Druid pushing for renewable energy and staging anti-fracking protests. Both are examples of being political with one's religion in mind - and for those who are against religious interference in politics, neither should be allowed to have a voice because their motives are religious. Or should they?

The interesting thing is the freedom of religion was founded by religious individuals avoiding persecution from their beliefs. Not that they wouldn't vote based on beliefs or vote based on their conscience. The freedom is to prevent any particular religion from being persecuted. All laws are essentially based on some sort of belief, religious or otherwise but the laws don't need to be religious specific to prevent horrors. The laws should be able to stand on their own without having to resort to referencing any religious scripts. So for example if someone doesn't approve of abortion, great, just don't say it's cause my book/god says so. There is plenty to debate with abortion without having to even touch on religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not uncommon that I see folks using the term secularism to advocate total banishment of anything they perceive as "religion" from the public sphere, including the sort of thing mentioned in the OP. Whether or not this is a "misrepresentation" on their part is arguable. I wager the folks who use the term "secular" in this way don't think it is.

If it works better for you, replace the word "secular" with "irreligious" and then respond to the questions.

Your OP talked about denying religious people the vote. I've never heard any "secular", "irreligious", or even outright "hostile to religion" person so much as suggest this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure it's different, but it's also inevitable. We would have total anarchy otherwise.

I'm not sure why the idea is (apparently) foreign to you, but for plenty of people, the standards they think should be imposed on society and the standards they apply to themselves are different.

It is possible to acknowledge freedom of conscience while also acknowledging that there are important things that we need to work together on.

 

[Falvlun]

The interesting thing is the freedom of religion was founded by religious individuals avoiding persecution from their beliefs. Not that they wouldn't vote based on beliefs or vote based on their conscience. The freedom is to prevent any particular religion from being persecuted. All laws are essentially based on some sort of belief, religious or otherwise but the laws don't need to be religious specific to prevent horrors. The laws should be able to stand on their own without having to resort to referencing any religious scripts. So for example if someone doesn't approve of abortion, great, just don't say it's cause my book/god says so. There is plenty to debate with abortion without having to even touch on religion.

This exactly. Obviously, there's no way to really separate our values (derived from religious beliefs or otherwise) from how we would like our government to act.

The important thing is to have non-religious reasons for supporting legislation that would affect the lives of others. If there's no secular reason for the legislation, then it is probably not something that should be imposed upon everybody else.

Thus, for example, the pro-life argument needs to be something like "abortion is murdering a person" and not "abortion is against god's will".