[–] BoiseNTheHood [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
No one can argue from facts and with logic as to why we should tolerate any sort of influence from supernatural religion in government or social policy, just as one example. I appeal to reason, the religious do not and cannot.
That's a remarkably closed-minded and simplistic view. I agree that religion when taken to extremes should not influence the law. But I don't see it as reasonable to dismiss all of it entirely either. The Constitution - one of the most important documents in world history - was influenced in some ways by religion. Our bottom-up republican form of government had its roots in the system of "presbyteries" established by Reformed churches during the Reformation. Religion set the template for the American Revolution, played a key role in educating the colonists, and later helped movements like abolitionism and the civil rights movement. Without any religious influence at all, this country would be in a much different (and probably worse) place. So no, you are not appealing to reason when you write off religion as a force for good.
[–] Kurplow 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
But I am, nothing you said offers any valid reason to think that religion should play any role whatsoever today. Religion is not the source of moral intuition, religion is kept in check by moral intuition. Religion is not the source of education, and certainly not of real, applicable knowledge of the world, instead religion is kept in check by science. Religion is not the source of charitability, it merely occupies a place of unjustified lack of scrutiny among charitable organizations. None of the good done by religion requires religion.
However, religion does motivate others to do considerable harm, and never for logical or rational reasons. From stem cell research bans, to abstinence mandates in anti-aids aid money being sent to Africa, to the opposition of the HPV vaccine that occurred under the the Bush administration--all religiously motivated, and all resulting in unnecessary loss of life to preventable and treatable diseases--there are numerous and well argued downsides to letting people's irrational beliefs dictate public policy. I have only scratched the surface here.
I need to take a moment in retrospect to address your abolitionism argument: while it is true that abolitionists tried to use scripture to justify abolition, they were on the losing side of a theological argument and they knew it, if you go back to rhetoric from the time, the Bible was likewise mustered into service by anti-abolitionists, who had far more pro-slavery verses to draw from than there were anti-slavery verses (only one I know of) for abolitionists to choose from.
Edit: one last thought--you're essentially arguing that it is not rational (appealing to reason) to argue that faith-based religion (by definition, belief without reason) is not a valid way of asking and answering questions of supreme importance in society. Think about that.
[–] BoiseNTheHood [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
So, we should scrap the Constitution, abandon our republican form of government, and beg Britain to let us move back in with them, then? We don't want any of that religious influence anymore, right?
You are now putting words in my mouth that I never said. Your criticisms have merit, but it's also worth pointing out that its influence has been used for good throughout history. Dismissing religion altogether for its flaws is like dismissing science because it's often been used for evil.
I'm an atheist. Organized religion just isn't for me. I don't deny that there are drawbacks that come with religion. But I'm not going to begrudge people who do take part in it, nor am I going to deny the good things that religion has done.
No, religion is not required to do good, but I don't see what the harm is when they do influence society in a positive way.
[–] BoiseNTheHood [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Again, not what I'm saying. I pointed out at the start that religion, when taken to extremes, is a bad influence. I didn't think I'd have to point out to you that blind faith and the intolerance and ignorance that come with it qualify as religion taken to extremes.
That being said, not every religious person is an [insert holy book here]-thumping bigot. There are plenty of people who see religion as an uplifting, positive community and a way to give back, and I guess I don't see that as a negative influence on society. You can feel free to bitch and moan every time the Salvation Army provides disaster relief in the third world or Habitat for Humanity puts a roof over someone's head, but don't expect most people to agree with you.