Banning religion from politics

[Kuya]

I know that by putting the words ban and religion together, i already have the support of a quarter of the forum, but let's preach to the choir anyway. In Puerto Rico, the pro-Statehood party senator Lucy Arce proposed a law where people wouldn't be able to use sperm/ovaries of anonymous donars and where selling the ability to have children (in vitro, surrogate mothers) would be illegal. I doubt the legislation would pass. But it reminded me of how annoying it is to have religion interfere in politics. So it made me think, why not ban it from politics?

Basically, would it be a good idea to prevent religious groups of explicitly endorsing any politician. Banning religious groups or figures from endorsing specific legislation (as well as opposing). Banning religious groups or figures from using religious grounds to make political speech which should be defined as endorsing or opposing specific political candidates or specific policy. What this would and wouldn't mean:

1- It wouldn't mean that, in public areas or their own private lives they can't engage in politics. They just can't identify as religious figures while doing so. People who are fanatical of religion would still recognize these figures and follow on their every word.

2- What it would mean is that they can't jump on the media and endorse anything relating to candidates or policy as religious figures, only as private citizens or as part of an explicitly political group.

3- Religious groups or figures cannot fund political groups. Meaning, the money that churchs, religious leaders (as relgious figures), or religious groups have cannot be used or given to political groups. So, for example, the catholic church cannot give money to an anti-abortion group.

4- Inside of church grounds or religious activities (endorsed by a religious group, in other words official), there can be no political speech, which means speech relating to specific policy and specific candidates. They can talk about how much they disagree with gay marriage, but they can't discuss, propose, or endorse any candidate or policy relating to that.

Now some problems with this stuff:

1- I think that any religious group that receives money from public coffers, that is, the government and its thralls, should certainly not be allowed to engage in politics, but what of religious groups receiving private money? Is it going to far banning privately funded religious groups from certain types of political speech?

2- How could such bans be realistically enforced? Is the government supposed to be in every church? Is it enough to just let other people report political speech inside of religious context?

3- How to handle private religious citizens congregating and talking about political issues in public? Perhaps as long as they're not receiving money from political groups or religious groups, they can be allowed to dabble in politics?

4- Would such bans only further radicalize fundamentalists?

If you don't disagree outright with banning some religion from politics, what parts do you disagree with or what would you add?

Let me put a translated version of where this originated from. The source is in spanish. Not all of it is quoted and translated:

As if it were a new version of the soap "El derecho de nacer", a bill in the Senate of Puerto Rico has created controversy in regards to assisted reproduction issues facing scientific, bioethic, religious aspects and the desire of citizens wishing to become parents.

Opponents of the measure filed by Sen. Lucy Arce catalog it as an unnecessary restriction, while its proponents see it as an action to ban the "inhuman commercial use" of genetic engineering.

The debate could not be more relevant: in recent years, several celebrities, including Ricky Martin, have used the appeal of renting the womb of surrogate mothers, while in recent days, questions arose about some frozen fertilized eggs that belonged to actress Adamari Lopez, and how these could affect the process of her divorce from Luis Fonsi.

For example, the Society for Reproductive Medicine of the United States (ASRM, for its acronym in English) warned the Criminal Judicial Committee of the Senate of Puerto Rico that imposing criminal penalties for doctors limits options to provide the best care for their patients is "bad politics" from government.

The Criminal Judicial Committee intends to continue consideration of the issue on a public hearing on September 29, when the cardiologist and religious leader Ivan Lladó, a leading proponent of the piece of legislation, intends to speak.

According to Arce, so far the biggest objection is not identifying of the donor, but argued that there is an international right to know one's ancestry. "You can't see an unborn child as a thing. It has rights.", she said.

http://www.elnuevodia.com/pugnaporel...er-773801.html

I'll post my reasoning in a minute.

[Kuya]

So what i consider to be the best objection is this: What's the point? Is there a need to furher distance religion from politics?

I'll discuss it in several points.

1- Historically, we know for certain that mixing politics and religion is a disaster. Not only because basing policy on religious grounds is troublesome and lacking in real analysis , but also because having the government imbued with religious authority is far too much power to give to a government. It's influence as a secular State is bad enough. This is why we have a separation between Church and State.

2- In truth, the polity won't collapse from having religion interfere in politics, the problem stems from religion's convincing power and its propensity towards irrationality, which is anathema to good government. People aren't all stupid, yet, because religion is such an important aspect of a lot of people's lives, it forms part of their community and world view. In some instances, religious arguments are like a drug, convinces with emotion and a pretense of morality, while in reality lacking all reason and justification.

In other words, what i'm saying is that religion is dangerous and difficult to crush. And that it interferes with real reasoning and a real use of empathy in order to formulate policy. It's a given why it interfers with reason, but it also interferes with empathy, because religion is tribalistic. It has a tendency to condem those who don't form part of its group. If an entire society isn't of the same religion, then real emphathy based on the fact that we're all human is blocked by religion in politics. Not completely, but religion has a sweet allure to it, and as a consequence, it can create a false divide among the polity.

So, if religion's interference in current politics is not fatalistic, let's discuss the benefits. By banning religion from explicitly engaging in politics, we make it harder for it to influence politics. We don't exterminate its influence in politics, as long as people can be privately religious, it's impossible to exterminate it. But we can disarticulate it. It becomes difficult for relgious groups to organize against and for candidates and policies, leaving them only to discuss abstract ideas. In other words, this is a tool to marginalize it from politics. In this argumetn of course, i am already assuming that interference of religion in politics is bad, but i only do this because my audience is generally anti-religious. I only briefly and inadequately discussed why it can be bad.

3- In order to argue that religion in politics is bad, that, at the very least, religious groups cannot interfere with candidates and specific policies and that they cannot donate to political groups, we need to say that when religion interferes in politics is corrupts its real purpose and abuses its authority.

We can say that religion is meant for personal enlightment, that religion is a personal thing, something that should be cherished, and that no one should have their personal beliefs stripped away or be prevented from practicing their beliefs. When we allow religion into politics, we allow a very narrow interest decide on the interest of society as a whole. When these religious fundamentalists interfere in politics, they impose their personal morality on the rest of us.

Religion is involved in morality, and some legislation may be based on morality, but since legislation needs to take into account the general interest, we need a general morality, and not a narrow and specific one, of the likes of religion. When we use morality for legislation, it should be based on empathy. It should be based on putting ourselves in the shoes of others, and seeing and feeling for them. It should be based on understanding the pain and hardships they go through. It should not be based on personal beliefs.

We can say that, when religion involves itself in politics, it abuses its influence, by unduly steering debate away from the merits of the arguments themselves and on the legitimacy of the person making the argument. Religion holds great power, and in order to protect religion from the corrupting effecs of politics, where it can most effectively use its power, we must keep it away from politics. Politics can corrupt religion, so in order to keep religion pure, we need to keep it from politics.

Finally, we can say that by letting religion involve itself in politics, we risk the existence of political/religious groups such as the Taliban. This is a disingenouos argument, but it can't be denied that part of what violent islamic fundamentalism is is fusion between political agendas and religious ones. In other words, we should look toward Islamic Quietism as a model for religion's place in society.

[Eratosthenes]

Organized religions are systems of government which are incompatible with democracy; they should never be allowed to have any real political authority. What we need is a system that prohibits dogmatic laws regardless of how much popular support they may have, such as Prop 8. Aside from that, I really don't see how it would be possible to prevent religious influence on the government; religious groups already hide behind secular facades such as the Discovery Institute.

[Khajit]

The main problem is that the people involved in said religions are people too so they have as much a right to care about politics as atheist groups do. However I think the reverse would be more palatable. Aka ban the politicians from involving religion in their decisions.

[Kuya]

Take note that, if one should attempt to further pry religion from politics, it should be done at first with small, and soft limits. And then further increase the limits as the decades pass. If we suddenly impose 20 different harsh limits on religious interference in politics, we can expect severe backlash. What needs to be done is to make most people feel that actions taken are being taken against a small minority of religious fundamentalists who want to impose some sort of theocracy. If too many harsh restrictions are imposed too quickly, the religious right can effectively convince even moderate religious people that the meassures taken are really aimed at them.

[Hyan]

We have a party called "Christian Democrats" which is the only party that is allowed to enforce religion in politics iirc. I think it works well, their influence is pretty much nonexistent, although partly because most people here don't give a shit about religion. Most people agree that religion and politics should be kept separate.

Maybe not on topic, but whatever.

[Gadritan]

Wow you were bored.

Yeah, we have separation of church and state, but that's ignored for the most part. Political candidates will always use religion to boost votes as long as the majority of the voters are religious. Religious people will never see eye to eye with pretty much anything you posted. Should be vs reality.

It'll make a nice trollercoaster of a topic though.

[Gadritan]

Most people agree that religion and politics should be kept separate.

Not here in the states my friend. It's the exact opposite. Good ol' Glenn Beck's rally that had over 500k in attendance was all about how our fundamental problem as a country is that we need more God, not less.

[Kuya]

Wow you were bored.

Yeah, we have separation of church and state, but that's ignored for the most part. Political candidates will always use religion to boost votes as long as the majority of the voters are religious. Religious people will never see eye to eye with pretty much anything you posted. Should be vs reality.

It'll make a nice trollercoaster of a topic though.

I don't talk politics out of boredom, but because it's my hobby and interest. Also, how this topic can be a trollercoaster in a forum full of atheists is a fascinating question.

[Hyan]

Not here in the states my friend. It's the exact opposite. Good ol' Glenn Beck's rally that had over 500k in attendance was all about how our fundamental problem as a country is that we need more God, not less.

Damn, that kind of rally would be a national laughingstock here.

But I agree it depends on the people, not the laws.

[Gadritan]

Also, how this topic can be a trollercoaster in a forum full of atheists is a fascinating question.

Because it's just a circle-jerk of "yeah, fuck religion," while waiting for Vajra/Egon/Swampy to step in and get owned. C'mon now.

[Priran]

1- It wouldn't mean that, in public areas or their own private lives they can't engage in politics. They just can't identify as religious figures while doing so. People who are fanatical of religion would still recognize these figures and follow on their every word.

2- What it would mean is that they can't jump on the media and endorse anything relating to candidates or policy as religious figures, only as private citizens or as part of an explicitly political group.

3- Religious groups or figures cannot fund political groups. Meaning, the money that churchs, religious leaders (as relgious figures), or religious groups have cannot be used or given to political groups. So, for example, the catholic church cannot give money to an anti-abortion group.

4- Inside of church grounds or religious activities (endorsed by a religious group, in other words official), there can be no political speech, which means speech relating to specific policy and specific candidates. They can talk about how much they disagree with gay marriage, but they can't discuss, propose, or endorse any candidate or policy relating to that.

None of this would fly in the states because it egregiously violates the first amendment.

[Gadritan]

Ever heard of censorship? Yeah, it's like that.

[Kuya]

Because it's just a circle-jerk of "yeah, fuck religion," while waiting for Vajra/Egon/Swampy to step in and get owned. C'mon now.

I only expected 2-3 people that i know to make for a decent conversation.

[Kuya]

None of this would fly in the states because it egregiously violates the first amendment.

Probably, and more than likely. Hopefully someone can suggest something more practical. But fortunately, if we're having a discussion over the Constitution, we have the amendment that separates Church and State, so what's needed is a more generous interpretation of that. What's important, however, is forcing the SC to hear these cases, so it's not a good idea to not present legislation like this because "they might violate the first amendment". Let the Supreme Court decide that.

[pohibaba]

None of this would fly in the states because it egregiously violates the first amendment.

This, pretty much. Just because we hate what they're saying and the influence they bring, it doesn't mean that they don't have the right to say it. It's also important to remember that the American Constitution does not have a separation between church and state. It just keeps the government from respecting an establishment of religion.

[Kuya]

I'm not having a discussion over whether they have a right to mix religion and politics. This thread's intention is on making it so they don't have that right.

[alt]

Whether you agree of disagree with this is moot, it's never gonna happen in the United States to this degree.

[pohibaba]

I'm not having a discussion over whether they have a right to mix religion and politics. This thread's intention is on making it so they don't have that right.

Then you're going to have to amend the Constitution. And remember that in the 223 years since the adoption of the Constitution there have only been 2 amendments that have limited a citizen's rights: the 13th and the 18th, and the 18th was later repealed.

[Kuya]

Whether you agree of disagree with this is moot, it's never gonna happen in the United States to this degree.

Then propose something practical.

Then you're going to have to amend the Constitution. And remember that in the 223 since the adoption of the Constitution there have only been 2 amendments that have limited a citizen's rights: the 13th and the 18th, and the 18th was later repealed.

No need to amend the Constitution. What is necessary, if it ever is, is producing enough evidence that certain types of religious interference in government leads to enough harm as to justify intervention.