tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20796873.post8257914035373009733..comments2016-05-06T06:34:04.108+01:00Comments on Wouldn't It Be Scarier?: Are "religious rights" special?Andyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15432543456476489561noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20796873.post-40788170491213281712008-07-12T04:23:00.000+01:002008-07-12T04:23:00.000+01:00Firstly, yes, yes, yes.Secondly, onto the nit-pick...Firstly, yes, yes, yes.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, onto the nit-picking. There is very little to argue aginst, the failure of the state to insist that whilst in its service, staff abide by its values, is depressing.<BR/>But your conclusion I think is perhaps misdirected.<BR/><BR/>This case is not an example of religion's inherent absurdity or falsity. Granted, it is an example of religion's potential prejudice (large swathes of the christian populace's actual prejudice), but most pressingly it is a failure to divide personal 'morality' from state functions and requirements. This is a largely seperate debate, in which generic isn't-religion-bad-stupid-and-ridiculous polemics contribute very little to. It is possible, and I would hope usual, to be religious but not theocratic; and it is possible, I believe, to convince most religious people to get to that position - most (claim) are sufficiently reasonable and intelligent. But you will not do so by calling what forms the central core of their lives childish and pathetic, and fuelling a general superior sneer towards them.<BR/><BR/>I guess from another angle, Dawkins et al might have a role to play in lending conviction to those in local government leadership making such flawed decisions. But here again it is not polemics that are required. Obviously as a point of liberal principle, those in government must be willing to accept that the vast portion of religious life that does not suffer any glaring ethical problem is a valid form of life.<BR/>I would take a small step further, and claim that the best kind of public official is able to understand the lives that have led people to forming the beliefs they have, to understand the opinions and concerns and internal rationalities, and to respect, in a way that Dawkins et al cannot, and up to the point of said glaring ethical issues, worldviews that they have decided against.<BR/><BR/>I am aware that I might well be missing the full picture on the state of annoying capitulation to God-induced counter-ethical nonsense.<BR/><BR/>But in short, the road to religion cavng in to secular society's demands is argument in which there is the possibility of convergence and agreement. Dawkins, Hitchens, etc do not provide this.coragohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02294675316444449208noreply@blogger.com