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

Thanks to theLwerd for challenge; this should be a good debate. theLwerd propounds a common strain of argument(s) against religious beliefs being involved in the legislative process but I shall argue that this line of argument is faulty. I shall also point out how there seems to be special pleading and double standards here; many of the reasons L offers for secular ethics being prioritized over religious ethics can equally be applied to secular ethics and philosophies. If the same line of reasoning can be applied to her own position how is it that religious ethics are to be singled out and excluded from the legislative process? My answer is there is no good reason for this to be so. L's arguments for the prioritization of secular ethics seem to fall into groups so I will try to deal with them in each section. ========== We can't know for certain God exists/God's intentions whereas secular ethics doesn't have that issue with ambiguities ========== L states in various places: "Another problem lies in the fact that no human nor scientific measure can either prove or disprove the existence of god. As such, we have no reason to apply religious ethics over secular ethics when secularism is based on tangible, verifiable standards, and the basis for religious ethics is questionable, at best ...However considering there is no evidence for god nor is there absolute evidence to prove that the Bible or any other religious book accurately portrays god's desires, then again we come to the conclusion that secular ethics ought to be prioritized in the legislative process. There we have concrete answers to reconcile disputes whereas with religion we do not." I think there are some good arguments for God's existence [1] but I want to challenge an assumption here - does one need proof for a certain class of beliefs in order for them to be considered rational? It doesn't seem to be true. For one that leads us to a nasty, nasty, regress problem where you have to provide proof ad infinitum for any substantive claim and for two there are certain beliefs that I don't need to proof for but nonetheless rationally hold. The reliability of my memory for instance. I could not produce an argument for the reliability of my memory without first presupposing that my memory is reliable which is clearly question begging. Surely I'm still rational for holding that *in general* my memory can be trusted. Why could not belief in God be considered one of these basic beliefs? I also want to question the sometimes explicit and implicit argument L makes here - that secular ethics are somehow verifiable or tangible in a way religious ethics are not. This seems false to me. Secular ethics covers a wide variety of philosophical systems - everything from utilitarianism to virtue ethics to Kantian ethics. There is just as much diversity and disagreement among secular people on which ethical system to use as there is among religious people. As L points out there's still disagreement among secular philosophers and laypeople if morals are subjective, objective, or just don't exist at all. That hardly seems to paint the picture that secular ethics can provide definitive answers whereas religious ethics cannot! ========= Imposing Religious ethics would be unfair/unjust because not everyone is religious ========= L notes: "Let's consider the reality that not everybody believes in the same god (or rules), yet laws are intended to govern all citizens regardless of creed...Therefore, if we plan to prioritize religious over secular reasoning, one of the most pressing concerns is not knowing which religious doctrine to adhere to. Imposing one particular creed on citizens against their will is tyranny, and why many original settlers came to America in the first place...I fail to see why everyone shouldn't have that same opportunity to either choose or not choose whether or not religious ideals will play a part in their standard of life. If not, what right do believers have to impose that standard upon them?" The basic argument seems to be that because not everyone is religious or doesn't believe God exists (or believes in a different God) secular ethics should be given priority. The problem is if the line of reasoning were extended this would apply to pretty much every ethical system. If it is to be argued that religious ethics shall be de-prioritized because America is a religiously diverse nation then by the SAME token it can be argued that *secular* ethics should be de-prioritized due to America being a secularly diverse nation. Not everyone will endorse the same secular ethical theory so it'd be unjust and tyrannical for any legislative process o be influenced by a particular secular ethical theory. This leaves us at an impasse where it seems that that no system of ethics, religious or secular, should be involved in the legislative process. Obviously this is impractical and absurd so there must be something wrong with the line of argumentation; if the same line of reasoning can be applied to L's position then how is that secular ethics are to be prioritized over religious ethics? It seems Pro is excluding one option unfairly and engaging in special pleading when there is no relevant difference between the lines of reasoning between both cases. ========== The Dangers of Religion ========== L points out that: "Furthermore, let us consider the ways in which sometimes religions call upon people to (violently) harm others or contradict modern science or standards of morality. For instance, Bishop John Shelby Spong rightly points out, '...texts from the source we call Holy Scripture have been used in the past to defend the divine right of kings and to oppose the Magna Carta; to condemn Galileo and to assert that the sun does indeed rotate around the earth; to justify slavery, segregation and apartheid; to keep women from being educated, entering the professions, voting or being ordained; to justify war, to persecute and kill Jews; to condemn other world religions; and to continue the oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian people" [9]. This is proof that upholding religious ethics can have devastating effects on individuals and even entire nations. Religious ethics are not infallible or able to be defended as inherently righteous simply by applying the word 'god.'" This applies equally well to secular ethics. Secular ethics and philosophies have been used to justify numerous breaches of ethics to say the least. Any one looking at the history of 20th century will note that most of the brutalities of that century were committed in the name of a secular cause - communism, nationalism, fascism, economic strife, etc. This blanket prioritization of secular ethics over religious ethics is strange to me - after all, the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, and movements against communism, fascism, and apartheid were explicitly motivated by religious ethics and beliefs. Ought secular ethics have been prioritized then when these people motivated almost purely by religious reasons seeked to influence legislation that effected everyone - religious and non-religious alike? All Ls' arguments amount to proving is that some religious reasons can be bad to allow to have influence in the legislative process. So what? This gives us no reason to prioritize secular ethics over religious ethics - because the exact same can be said of *secular reasons*. I contend that Pro has not successfully shown that secular ethics should be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process as the arguments she uses to show this apply equally well to her own position. This leads us to the conclusion that neither secular nor religious ethics should be prioritized in the legislative process and either should be analyzed on their own merits. I will deal with the other objections next round if space permits. ========= Sources ========= [1] http://www.theapologi...