fucktoyprincess
Posts: 2337
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice So I'm curious: How do other folks see the Bible? Is it a cultural artifact, a moral guide, a source of inspiration? Does it deserve more regard than, say, the Koran? Should it inform our public policy and, if so, how? Thoughts? I see all religious scriptures, regardless of which religion, as cultural artifacts, moral guides and sources of inspiration. I also don't believe in god as anything more than an idea created by man (and I am choosing man purposely there). But I also believe in freedom of religion AND freedom from religion. So to the extent that we use any scripture as a moral guide or source for inspiration - this should be an entirely private matter. Scripture to me has no place in the political arena. Politics should be secular and should take into account that most societies today are pluralistic and relying on any one scripture is going to cause difficulty. The rules need to be strict enough to maintain order (murder is illegal) but not so strict as to favor one scripture and approach over another. If you find these sorts of discussions interesting you really, really should read Christopher Hitchens http://www.amazon.com/God-Is-Not-Great-Everything/dp/0446697966/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1331219264&sr=8-2-spell You need not agree with everything he says, but he presents a fascinating history of religion and competing theologies through the lens of secular humanism, and has, I think, some very insightful things to say. I do think some people really need religion (my mother is in that category). And I don't have any objection to that. If it provides moral structure, cultural pride and personal inspiration to someone as an individual I would never criticize them for needing that in their lives. But there should be respect for the fact that some of us seek that from a different religion or that some of us are able to do the same thing without either believing in god or observing religious ritual at all. So I am not in the camp of get rid of religion. No, I feel it has a purpose. But it should not really be directly part of the public policy debate. It is possible to discuss any aspect of public policy from first principles (think Platonic dialogue) without having to use any one religion as the guiding principle. And if the Establishment Clause means anything - it really does mean that one religion should not be favored over the other - even if it is the majority religion. Puritans who came to America were fleeing religious persecution because they were a minority. The country was founded on principles of not trying to force the will of the majority on the minority. Many Americans have forgotten that.
_____________________________
~ ftp
|