How secularism defies common sense

[4gold]

In the United States of America, our tax dollars are used to pay for abortions, sex-change operations, and boob jobs.

But if a Christian organization wants taxpayer funding to provide faith-based healthcare, THAT's crossing the line?!

Can't we have a system of laws that rewards religious organizations for doing what is right, while prohibiting them from using the government to advance their doctrine or theology on the rest of us?

[4gold]

IMO, part of the problem is the 'faith based initiatives' are not being held to the same standards as the secular ones. They are not being scrutinized as throughly, or audited for accuracy. There is a lot of misuse of funds, abuse, and lying about the effectiveness of their activities. Faith based initiatives at least should be held to the same standards of scrutiny as everyone else. And because of the "seperation of church and state', those funds should NOT be used to proselytize

I can agree completely with this post. Religious initiatives ought to get the same amount of scrutiny as secular initiatives.

I do wonder about the last sentence, though. If you are saying that taxpayer money should not be used for proselytizing, I am wholeheartedly in agreement. If you are saying that taxpayer-funder proselytizing is a violation of the First Amendment, I'd say that it depends on who is on the Supreme Court. After the First Amendment was ratified, 9 of the 13 states continued to levy and collect taxes to support an official state church. Of course, some justices say the 14th amendment put a kabash to this practice, but Justice Thomas has expressed that he does not agree with this interpretation.

[4gold]

You're employing a logical fallacy known as a sweeping generalization.

Secular Humanists support secular policies.
SR is a Secular Humanist
Funding non-medically necessary procedures is a secular policy
Therefore, SR supports non-medically necessary procedures.


This is not true; I, nor any other Secular Humanist, do not blanket accept all policies because they are 'secular.' I support policies that are rational; I do not view those specific policy as rational, and therefore I do not support it.

You are essentially creating a spurious relationship between a few secular policies and funding religious organizations. No such relationship exists; I can not support one and then not support the other:


1. I do not support publicly paid for abortions
2. I do not support publicly paid for religious organizations.


Does this suit your fancy?

Fair enough. Please allow me to re-word my post:

So what you're saying is that not funding medically necessary procedures, because they are done by a religious group is okay with you, but funding *SOME* non-medically necessary procedures, as long as they are done by secular groups is also okay?

Essentially what I'm wondering is if you are against ALL medically necessary procedures done by predominantly religious groups, but okay with SOME funding of non-medically necessary procedures done by secular groups. To me, this defies common sense.

[Jose]

If you are saying that taxpayer money should not be used for proselytizing, I am wholeheartedly in agreement. If you are saying that taxpayer-funder proselytizing is a violation of the First Amendment, I'd say that it depends on who is on the Supreme Court. After the First Amendment was ratified, 9 of the 13 states continued to levy and collect taxes to support an official state church. Of course, some justices say the 14th amendment put a kabash to this practice, but Justice Thomas has expressed that he does not agree with this interpretation.

Interesting. What do you suppose would be Thomas's interpretation of state funding for Wicca and Scientology? I seem to hear him saying it's OK if it's Christianity...but what about the others?

Common sense seems to say that taxpayer funding must support all religions equally, or else it runs afoul of favoring one religion over another. If we allow support of one, we must allow support for all. If we find it distasteful to support a particular religion, then the common sense solution is to support none of them. After all, if we really like our own particular religion, we should be able to support the danged thing ourselves.

Where would you stand here? Funnel state money into Scientology? Promote Wiccan rites at the statehouse? Provide a federal grant to build a Gay Christian Fellowship church? Or just allow state funding of one flavor of Christianity? Does the secular view here happen to be good common sense, with the non-secular view reluctantly agreeing with it out of distaste for the possibilities?

[4gold]

Where would you stand here? Funnel state money into Scientology? Promote Wiccan rites at the statehouse? Provide a federal grant to build a Gay Christian Fellowship church? Or just allow state funding of one flavor of Christianity? Does the secular view here happen to be good common sense, with the non-secular view reluctantly agreeing with it out of distaste for the possibilities?

My position is one of pluralism, not secularism. I do not think we need to fund all religions equally. That seems a little unreasonable to me. But I would love to see Mormonism prominently displayed in Salt Lake City, Judaism prominently displayed in Brooklyn, Islam displayed in Dearborn, Catholocism displayed in Boston, and atheism/secular humanism prominently displayed in San Francisco. To me, America embraces its religious diversity, not rejects them. I think it ought to be decided at the local level, where the voters have far more power than they have at the federal level.

In my town? I would be upset if my taxpayer money was spent on a Ten Commandments display, when that money could have been used for healthcare, education, or law enforcement.

And I would be opposed to denying healthcare or education funds to a religious organization, as long as that organization worked for the good of all Americans, and not just their particular religion.

[McCulloch]

My position is one of pluralism, not secularism. I do not think we need to fund all religions equally. That seems a little unreasonable to me. But I would love to see Mormonism prominently displayed in Salt Lake City, Judaism prominently displayed in Brooklyn, Islam displayed in Dearborn, Catholocism displayed in Boston, and atheism/secular humanism prominently displayed in San Francisco. To me, America embraces its religious diversity, not rejects them. I think it ought to be decided at the local level, where the voters have far more power than they have at the federal level.

This sounds like a way to alienate the Catholics in Salt Lake City, the Muslims in Brooklyn, the Evangelicals in Dearborn, the Humanists in Boston and the Mormons in San Francisco. Make them all compete for local tax funding. I really don't think that a democratic government has any business financially supporting any religious activities.

[Jose]

My position is one of pluralism, not secularism. I do not think we need to fund all religions equally. That seems a little unreasonable to me. But I would love to see Mormonism prominently displayed in Salt Lake City, Judaism prominently displayed in Brooklyn, Islam displayed in Dearborn, Catholocism displayed in Boston, and atheism/secular humanism prominently displayed in San Francisco. To me, America embraces its religious diversity, not rejects them. I think it ought to be decided at the local level, where the voters have far more power than they have at the federal level.

This will inevitably cause problems, though. What of the Episcopalian trying to raise his children in Salt Lake City, where they are taught Mormonism, and where his own religion takes a back seat? What of the Christian in your version of San Francisco? The Christians there now (at least my relatives; I don't know most of the others) are quite happy with no other religion promoted above theirs, but all given equal respect. Pluralism already is, and must be promoted within each locale. I agree that America should embrace its religious diversity, and that requires equal treatment before the law, equal tolerance, and equal respect. Promoting one religion over others is unequal, and rejects the religious diversity we hold dear--whether on the scale of whole-nation, city-by-city, or neiborhood-by neighborhood. The question is how best to ensure equal treatment and equal respect.

In my town? I would be upset if my taxpayer money was spent on a Ten Commandments display, when that money could have been used for healthcare, education, or law enforcement.

I agree entirely. Interestingly, the Dalai Lama was in town recently, and our mayor put up a welcome display. The local Christians claimed discrimination, and brought in their 10-commandments display. They insisted that honoring a person whose brother lives in town is the same as saying "thou shalt have no god before me." Very interesting.

And I would be opposed to denying healthcare or education funds to a religious organization, as long as that organization worked for the good of all Americans, and not just their particular religion.

It depends on how they do their work. Some religions seem to allow their members to hold the belief that what's "good for all Americans" is strict adherence to their particular religious beliefs. Who would you have choose the organizations, and the causes within those organizations, that receive funding? Do we allow education funds to teach anti-science? Do we allow education funds to teach anti-history? You'll find strong differences of opinion not just between secular and religious views, but between differing religious views. What if the religious organization promotes a "health for all" ideal, but uses methods that have been shown to be ineffective? Do we still give them money to continue their imagined-to-be-good works?

I would prefer that these decisions be made dispassionately, on the basis of the merits of each program. This must be done by a decision-making process that wholly divorces religion from the criteria...which may mean a non-religious body must do so. How else do we avoid potential bias in favor of a particular religion due to members of the deciding body being of that religion themselves?

[ShadowRishi]

Fair enough. Please allow me to re-word my post:

So what you're saying is that not funding medically necessary procedures, because they are done by a religious group is okay with you, but funding *SOME* non-medically necessary procedures, as long as they are done by secular groups is also okay?

By medically necessary, I would assume you are trying to state that the person will die without it, or have problems without it? From that point, I would find it hard to create a strict test for "medically necessary". Does a schizophrenic need medication to live? No, not really; that is to say that he can both live without it, and in some cases function without medicine (Take the mathematician John Nash for example). Should we not provide him with medication because it is not, in the strictest sense, something he *must* have when he gets on medicare? (should he not already by on medicare and be accepting the medicine, anyways, lol; he refuses medicine)

As for funding programs: Yes, they must be secular, via our constitution, in order to be funded by the government.

Essentially what I'm wondering is if you are against ALL medically necessary procedures done by predominantly religious groups, but okay with SOME funding of non-medically necessary procedures done by secular groups. To me, this defies common sense.

I'm against funding certain procedures, yes.

And I am against funding any and all religious groups.


Does this clear things up?

[Chancellor]

Abortions are legal medial procedures provided to those who do not have a religious objection, why should a secular government not pay for them?

Because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to pay for any medical procedure.

Persons born with ambiguous genders have often been fixed shortly after they were born to be the gender that seemed most correct to the doctor at the time. If they had been subsequently shown to have made a mistake, should the correction not be covered?
Breast reduction surgery is often medically necessary.

Not relevant: it's not the role of the federal government to provide health care for people.

Praying that demons go away has not been shown to be an effective medical practice. Why should a secular government pay for it?

Well, it's not a medical practice, it's a religious one! But it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pay for it.

[Goat]

Abortions are legal medial procedures provided to those who do not have a religious objection, why should a secular government not pay for them?

Because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to pay for any medical procedure.

Is it? Please, show me the passage in the constitution that says this. Show me the
ruling by the supreme court that backs up this interpretation of said passage in the constitution.

[Chancellor]

Abortions are legal medial procedures provided to those who do not have a religious objection, why should a secular government not pay for them?

Because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to pay for any medical procedure.

Is it? Please, show me the passage in the constitution that says this. Show me the
ruling by the supreme court that backs up this interpretation of said passage in the constitution.

The powers given to the federal government are all enumerated in the Constitution. Since funding health care is not a power enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.

As for what the Supreme Court rules, that would be entirely irrelevant since there is nothing in Article III that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution. Further, Supreme Court rulings are not laws or amendments to the Constitution and they can be overturned by the very same Court.