Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

Again, thanks to Lwerd. I will order my responses according to Pros numbering. 1) Pro says that the concept of God is not considered rational to her and others but the rejoinder here is easy: I don't consider the concept of secular ethics rational. That has no bearing on whether the concept is actually rational or not. Pro takes that to be a great asset of secular reasoning and ethics. 1a) There is a logical or rational basis for imposing one's "oppressive" beliefs onto a non-believer on the basis of religion alone if that particularly religious belief is conducive to peace which is what Pro mentioned as the purpose of law. I noted that earlier with examples of opposition to slavery, apartheid and no civil rights for minorities who's proponents endeavored to influence the legislative process with basis ground mostly, if not entirely, in religious ethics. It is no good to point to specific religious beliefs like opposition to gay marriage or civil unions viewed as dangerous and unjust and then argue from that that no religious ethics ought to be prioritized in the legislative process because, again, an analogous situation can drawn with secular ethics. 2) Fair enough. 3) I misconstrued Pro's position slightly. Apologies. But, the objection can easily be modified to be applied to secular ethics in general. If it's argued that religious ethics ought to be de-prioritized because not everyone is religious and would not accept the reasoning behind the legislative process then by the same token it ought to be that secular ethics ought to be de-prioritized because not everyone is secular and would not accept the reasoning behind the legislative process. The main thrust of my argument is that Pro argues that references to God (i.e. religious ethics) ought to be left out be legislative process due to reasons x, y, and z but yet, similarly, the same type of reasoning Pro uses to argue for that conclusion can also be applied Pro's own position. It's special pleading to reject the thesis that at least some of the time religious ethics should be given priority over secular ethics in influencing the legislative process on certain grounds when, by those same reasons and grounds, Pro should also reject the thesis that secular ethics should be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process. 3a) I did not make the claim that because there a variety of religious beliefs and ideals that we cannot know which ones are right or wrong. What I said was the exact same problem plagues secular ethics/beliefs so proclamations of secular ethics coming to definitive answers where as religious ethics cannot are premature and should be rejected a reason to prioritize secular ethics over religious ethics in the legislative process. I agree with Pro's purpose of the law but this still doesn't make it clear that secular ethics ought be prioritized as it could very well be that some religiously influence legislative process is more conducive to peace than some secularly influenced legislative process. Like, say, belief that God prohibits murder contrasted with everybody must dispose of their gas-guzzling cars and trade them in for electric ones. And of course I have the right to impose my standard of right and wrong on someone if I believe murder is wrong and I further belief that anyone who murders ought to be punished due to my standard. 3b) Pro claims that notion of respecting peoples' right to adhere to their own belief system is a secular concept. Actually it is not. The concept of religious tolerance came from earlier religious thinkers - not from any secular sources. For example Thomas Aquinas wrote: "Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) that "it is possible for a man to do other things against his will, but he cannot believe unless he is willing." Therefore it seems that unbelievers ought not to be compelled to the faith." [1] And Tertullian wrote: "It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man's religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion— to which free-will and not force should lead us— the sacrificial victims even being required of a willing mind... " [2] Pro's point seems confused here. I does not necessarily follow from me advocating the influence of religious ethics in the legislative process that it will become a theocracy and neither do I advocate that. As wikipedia points out: "Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts..." [3] 4) Apply religious reasoning also leaves room for rectifying mistakes. It's quite possible for human reasoners to misunderstand a divine command for instance. Also, Pro makes several mistakes: 4a) I don't have the space to get into exegesis of the Bible as it is irrelevant to debate anyhow but...actually, the Bible does not condone slavery. John Locke refuted that claim centuries ago. "I confess, we find among the Jews, as well as other nations, that men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service; and the master of such a servant was so far from having an arbitrary power over his life, that he could not, at pleasure, so much as maim him, but the loss of an eye, or tooth, set him free, Exodus. xxi." [4] Put shortly his main argument was that the Hebrew word "ebed" is not correctly translated to the word "slave" - it means more like "indentured servant". There also numerous injunctions against slavery all throughout the Bible. (Exodus 21:16, Revelations 18:13, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 for example). 4b) Pro's attempt to say that the abolishment of slavery wasn't motivated explicitly by religious belief seems contrived since Pro's exegesis of scripture is faulty. William Wilberforce once said, "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners [moral values]". [5] Which he explicitly backed up with bible verses about the equality of all men before God. That goes back to the point that really the issue is about certain religious beliefs or ethics - that does not give Pro the license to make a general argument against religious ethics influence on the legislative process as secular ethics are subject to the same criticism. 4c) I do not need to prove that we need to prioritize religious ethics - all I need to proves that we ought not prioritize secular ethics over religious ethics. Nor do I need to prove that people are not capable of being ethical and moral without being religious. ======== Conclusion ======== Indeed, my response (after a fashion) was secularism does the same thing because it is pertinent to the issue. Pro rejects religious ethics being prioritized over secular ethics in the legislative process on certain grounds; by the same reasoning Pro ought reject secular ethics being prioritized over religious ethics on the same grounds. Also, the separation of church and state has to do mainly with establishing a state (national) religion - it has nothing to do with whether religious ethics sometimes having an effect on the legislative process. Resolution negated. ========== Sources ========== [1] http://www.ccel.org... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government Ch IV, sec 24 [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...