Comments on: Multiculturalism and animal cruelty

By: mic

mic — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:59:14 +0000

…. also, re: “special treatment” – I’m talking of the mentality of people who think that just because a certain group is religious, then they should get special treatment on everything, while other groups don’t… I don’t see that as literally happeing in the legal system, laws or regulations alike, yet. I do see it happening in the political arena. Even in countries where the main religions are mostly “watered down”, like msg said – ie. where fundamentalists or creationists don’t exist or are really on the fringe, but churches still have power, influence, money, financial connections… And then of course you got the situations where religious fundamentalists among minorities, practicing a religion that’s not the main one, start making demands. As with Islamic fundamentalists. Not on irrelevant things like butchering though, but polygamy, family law, parental rights, female genital mutilation… (Apologies to the vegetarians for that “irrelevant”, but in making comparisons, issues regarding treatment of human beings are more important than treatment of animals that are destined to butchering anyway). And those bigger issues are where that mentality about religion being somehow “special” can become very tricky, and the idea of “tolerance”, like msg said, taken to a lavel where it becomes invalidation of the principles of the law itself. Even when the laws don’t actually get changed. Political debate does, and so do notions about what laws are for. And that can be problematic enough.

By: mic

mic — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:40:47 +0000

bill carone: I said that religion should be given exemptions from “majority-based” laws and not “reason-based” laws. I don’t make a distinction between laws and regulations. I was hoping that your law/regulation distinction was the same as my reason/majority distinction. If so, then we agree. Er, not really, because I don’t see that difference between reason-based and majority-based. I’ve never known any legal system to make that distinction! Whereaas the distinction between laws and regulations is very much present. I’m feeling like an alien here… Laws include the constitution, statutes, civil code, penal code, and new laws and amendments voted by Parliament. Regulations apply to things like, how to process cheese, or indeed, butcher meat. Everything that gets voted on is majority-based, but it has to be reason-based as well. Otherwise, what, someone can stand up in Parliament and propose a law to make it compulsory to paint all houses in the country pink, and get a majority on that? What kind of country has a Parliament that approves law that are not based on reasoned discussion? I may not think some of those laws are wise, I may not support them, but gosh, there IS always a reasoned debate behind them. It’s the very nature of the legal system. Regulations are largely based on reasonable thinking as well. Not always evidently so, but the very concept of regulating things from food processing to telecommunications has a purpose. I still have no idea what you mean by “laws not based on reason”, really. if anyone can declare themselves a religion and get exempted from regulations any time they want to, then regulations have no force at all. No, Bill, that’s definitely not what I meant. I’m talking of cases such as this one, halal and kosher meat, which as far as I know is the ONLY case where regulations accomodate the religious demands even of a few. Because those demands do not necessarily contrast or void the regulations themselves, nor the larger laws on treatment of animals. It’s a matter of compromise on something that does NOT really threaten the secular nature of the law, or void its validity. That’s how I see it at least. There’s one other, bigger, area where religion gets accomodated in much heavier terms, and that’s education, religious schools, which do get to exist alongside non-religious ones, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish. It’s more to do with the private vs. public thing than with the validity of the law. But I thought you thought that religion could be given exemptions from regulations. Ordinary social clubs shouldn’t, should they? Look, I can’t argue on pure theory. I’m talking of real life examples. Like I said, I can’t think of any area of regulations where religion gets exemption. In fact, the whole halal/kosher thing is not even a case of exemption per se. It’s not proven that there is a higher degree of animal cruelty in those butchering techniques; and halal/kosher butchering still has to respect all regulations on hygiene, food processing, guarantees of quality, etc. The ‘special treatment’ I’m talking about has more to do with political discourse, in general, when politicians bring in religion and appeal to the votes of religious groups. Which still can happen even in very secular countries. So let’s not confuse things further… If religion is considered a source of truth, while ordinary social clubs aren’t, and the law subordinates itself to truth, then we would see the law making reasonable exemptions for religion and not ordinary social clubs. Bill, that’s your own assumptions and “ifs”, and you still keep on with that “truth” which is not even a concept the law uses, there’s no law declaring what is truth and what isn’t… I find it impossible to follow your arguments because you do mix up such different planes and concepts. Like Ophelia said, you’re using one word which actually means many different things in different – and separate – contexts. Religious truth, ie. what believers of a particular religion believe is true, has nothing whatsoever to do with the law, or with the fact politicians pander to religion for electoral purposes, in countries where religion has a strong influence (even when it manifests itself in different ways, see Europe/America). Again, the people I talk to don’t see it as a choice they made. They see it as something happening to them, outside their control, outside themselves. Ok, but that’s the people you talk to. Doesn’t mean it’s always like that for every religious person. Also, you did mention they were exposed to religion all the same, before that “revelation” happened to them. You can’t keep ignoring that fact, Bill. IF you end up being part of an organised religion, it means you have gone through a very organised process, even if you had that spontaneous impulse towards religion. It’s A + B, not A or B. Put it this way. You’d have to completely isolate a religious experience as something “from above” from the exposure to organised religion and religion in society, to be able to say that’s ALL becoming religious is about. But in that case, people would end up in a desert or the Himalayas, not in a church… Unless they’d been exposed to church-going, doh! A Church you attend is a social club, regardless of the purely spiritual aspects that may, or may not, be part of your being religious and belonging to a religious group. Get it now? So there is always a process of choice involved, when you do join an organised religion. It’s a simple, obvious fact.

By: mic

mic — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:14:56 +0000

I mean, for me it’s a given that secular law has to be respected, and I don’t know anyone who thinks that’s “state control over religion”, even among the most religious people. I used to think that even in America, that was the prevalent mentality. But probably it isn’t so… I can’t tell cos I’ve never lived there. I cannot even understand how in the most advanced democracy that kind of fundamentalist view of religion could be spreading. Maybe it’s due to the lack of a history of battles against church powers? I don’t know. Tolerance won’t do much about that, and there’s nothing in the system to prevent the acquisition of power by groups with that dynamic – as current events so ably illustrate – so then what? Now what? I don’t know, there just isn’t the same problem at all here. It’s completely different in Europe. And that’s the kind of secular law framework I’m talking about. Because Europe and Britain is where secular law was defined first… and it’s such a part of the legal system it’s not going to get challenged. Though of course those battles with church powers still come up in the political debate. I just don’t see such a threat here, though. Is it really that bad in the US?

By: mic

mic — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:05:52 +0000

msg: Watered-down versions of those religions co-exist peacefully, and I think that’s what’s meant by the secular side here “having no problem” with religious belief, as long as secular law is observed. Er, not really. That’s not “watered down” religion. That’s non-fundamentalist religion. Ie. the default, ordinary religion as is practices in modern advanced societies. I have to clarify I’m talking from a British and European perspective. I don’t have direct experience of how things are in America, and judging from things like the creationists putting their foot in the door at Harvard too, well, I can see where your paranoia about theocracy comes from :-)) But in Europe or UK, even people for whom religion plays a big part in their life, do accept the separation of church and state, for the most part. The nutters are on the fringe. Religions have evolved from the time when they were political powers and legal powers. That’s not a watering down, anymore than abolishing slavery is watering down… It’s religion moving back to its place after centuries of history involving theocracies and religious despotism. But if you’re in the US, then we’re probably talking very different perspectives here… I just don’t accept your idea that, because a society is more secular, it means that people who practice a religion are practicing a “watered down” version, just because they’re not out there demanding creationism be taught in schools and the like. That seems a fundamentalist view to take. There’s another sense I get, of the inheritance of secular law as something arising out of the clay of human progress and experimentation, instead of what it really was, a marriage of biology and spirituality from the beginning Uh? Not where I come from… It arose out of completely secular philosophy and ethics, and a good healthy dose of anti-clericalism, like in France. Out of battles against churches as despotic-like political powers. Again, we’re probably coming from very different backgrounds, and that’s probably why I really cannot follow the rest of your post…

By: bill carone

bill carone — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:40:02 +0000

Albert, “How about “credo quia absurdum”, does that sound like Augustine would have bowed to reason?” I have read a secondary source that supports a “yes” answer to this. I haven’t gone through Augustine’s writings, but this is from Adler’s Truth in religion. “His [Augustine’s] first precept was: Hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. Since it is the revealed truth, we must never abandon our belief in its truth. “His second precept followed: Since Sacred Scriptures can be interpreted in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular version only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it should prove to be false … “Augustine’s second precept leads to the logical disproof and rejection of articles of faith that are incompatible with what is known with certitude in one or more fields of natural knowledge, such as mathematics, science, and philosophy.” Adler goes on to say what I said, that “certitude” is a sticking point, but “beyond reasonable doubt” almost always should imply “beyond religious doubt.” Also, the interpretation given by Adler of the “credo quia absurdum” (attributed to Tertullian) matches mine as well: to believe without reason, not contrary to reason.

By: bill carone

bill carone — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:09:30 +0000

Mic, “but that’s not what you were saying at the beginning, was it?” I said that religion should be given exemptions from “majority-based” laws and not “reason-based” laws. I don’t make a distinction between laws and regulations. I was hoping that your law/regulation distinction was the same as my reason/majority distinction. If so, then we agree. Your argument then has the same difficulties you and Albert brought up e.g. if anyone can declare themselves a religion and get exempted from regulations any time they want to, then regulations have no force at all. “But for society at large, organised religion must be treated like any social club, yep.” But I thought you thought that religion could be given exemptions from regulations. Ordinary social clubs shouldn’t, should they? “So why isn’t it? (at least in politics, if not in laws)” If religion is considered a source of truth, while ordinary social clubs aren’t, and the law subordinates itself to truth, then we would see the law making reasonable exemptions for religion and not ordinary social clubs. The complexity of the conversation has stemmed from the first “if” clause. I agree that, just at the level of a social club, religion will command many votes in a democracy. This is one reason, I think, that an atheist politician would ask religious leaders their opinions on policy matters; not because they want God’s wisdom, but they want to know how religious people will vote. “I’m not judging the worth or truth of that “I was given faith by God” statement, no one can, it’s a personal choice, I see no problem with it.” Again, the people I talk to don’t see it as a choice they made. They see it as something happening to them, outside their control, outside themselves.

By: msg

msg — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:52:07 +0000

“It’s the system of secular states …requiring every citizen to obey and recognise the authority of secular laws, regardless of their personal opinions or beliefs on the matter” Or, the secular state will tolerate personal opinions or beliefs, provided the first recognition is to the authority of secular law. A reasonable and practical attitude for a philosophically diverse culture. This has led to some pretty vague spiritual states, though. People who are nominal members of differing religions, whose tenets are historically mutually exclusive, and currently to deadly extremes. Watered-down versions of those religions co-exist peacefully, and I think that’s what’s meant by the secular side here “having no problem” with religious belief, as long as secular law is observed. But watered-down religion can be a foot in the door for the real, intolerant thing. Religious tolerance works as long as there’s a balance of powerlessness. Even buddhism can morph into bigotry and exclusion. – The trivialization of fundamentalism has allowed it to prosper. Thirty years ago the idea of anti-evolutionists having serious political power in the 2004 presidential election would have been greeted with disdain. At the heart of the argument I hear, here, is this sense of fundamentalists as marginal and on their way out. Only needing to be catered to for a while until the Second Enlightenment happens. But I don’t think so. There’s another sense I get, of the inheritance of secular law as something arising out of the clay of human progress and experimentation, instead of what it really was, a marriage of biology and spirituality from the beginning. Hammurabai’s gods were no more real than anyone else’s, and we have no way of knowing how devout his lawyers were, but there was religion entwined in every legal code I know of, until the French revolution. So it isn’t really a question of believers coming in from the wilderness to the warm fires of secular order. The reverse as it happens. The believers own the idea of law, if it comes to that, or a claim could be made they do. – We’re having Scopes re-enactments nationally. And Puritanical assertions in Congress. The question would be, is this likely to subside with steady doses of reasoned argument? Or is it a growing phenomenon? Is there an advantage in asking the question stripped of its politesse? Isn’t it really something like, “Look, your gibberish may be comforting to someone with a dull mind, but it’s wasting time and energy. You’re slowing down our progress. Either get out of the way, or we’ll push you out of the way.” I realize no one’s even coming close to suggesting that, but I’m pretty clear it’s what’s at the heart of the argument of tolerance. And what’s more, those most threatened by that attitude are responding to it, though without knowing they are. This explains a great deal of what seems to be irrational and nonsensical posturing on the part of religious groups and individuals politically, especially in the areas of science and sexual morality. It’s not about what it purports to be, evolution or gay rights or the slaughter of meat animals, it’s about the survival of the group and the individual members of the group; belief is secondary to survival. This is borne out by the steady shifting of dogma over time as it incorporates irrefutable scientific fact, and adapts to it. Until that adaptation threatens to dissolve the integrity of the group, which is when an irrational stand becomes more viable than the truth. Tolerance won’t do much about that, and there’s nothing in the system to prevent the acquisition of power by groups with that dynamic – as current events so ably illustrate – so then what? Now what? Demanding recognition of the primacy of secular law creates tacit observance, but it also creates and fuels an impulse toward state control on the part of the believers. The arguments get couched in various terms, belief/non-belief, science fact/fiction, but it’s more elemental even than that, it’s about survival.

By: mic

mic — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:45:14 +0000

… msg – in case you were responding to Bill instead, then sorry for the confusion. I’m not sure who you were responding to because I didn’t speak of ‘tolerance’, I just see it all as an issue of separation of state and religion, rather than secondary and above/below.

By: mic

mic — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:38:19 +0000

msg, are you responding to me? if so, I’m not quite sure what you’re arguing with, but let me just make a couple of things clearer. First, I am not such a ‘rationalist’. I might even have religious beliefs, for all you know. The thing in discussion here was not religion itself, but the relation between secular laws in democracies, and religion and what Ophelia asked. It’s not that I have a “position” on this, a peculiar view that is just in my head. It’s the system of secular states itself that works by requiring every citizen to obey and recognise the authority of secular laws, regardless of their personal opinions or beliefs on the matter. I just don’t see that principle in contradiction to religion at all. Only religious fundamentalists and fanatics see a contradiction there. Asking people to obey secular laws and coexist in a secular system is NOT “tantamount to asking them to not believe”, msg. Otherwise we might as well give up any social order and embrace total anarchy. Separation of churches and state means both coexist, and can live happily along each other – it happens, in many countries. It’s not a matter of “laws trump belief”, I don’t see it like that. It’s a matter of giving unto Ceasar, etc. Keep different things separate, where they belong. Belief has little to do with norms, in itself. Of course, religions that make the heaviest normative demands of their followers, and set their own laws that enter in conflict with the norms set by the nonreligious authorities, are incompatible with a legal system. But I don’t see that struggle to create theocracies anywhere except where theocracies already exist. In the west, seems to me that the secular mentality is still prevalent, and even among religious people, the secular-minded outnumber the fanatics who think religion is all about setting norms. Religion doesn’t have to be about norms, and is not so for the vast majority of people. The problem is when politicians start pandering to fundamentalists… it’s not something that automatically leads towards theocracy, or theocratic laws, it’s just very disruptive of principles of public life. But all this has little to do with Chris’s original topic of halal and kosher meat. If only conflicts with religious demands were only about that kind of thing.

By: msg

msg — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:24:23 +0000

The rationalist says law trumps belief, but we’re talking about people who believe that belief trumps law, and in spite of a multitude of very confident paragraphs throughout this thread you never address that essential question. You cover it with “it’s a personal matter”. But the personal matter is a belief in a higher-than-civil law. Same with people participating in a democracy who dont’t believe in democracy. And they’re just waiting until they get enough political power to shut down the whole democratic experiment and create a theocracy in its stead. Tolerance there would be, I’m suggesting, counter to the democratic ideal. – Religion is a tool for social control, despotic terror is a tool for social control, water fluoridation is a tool for social control; even the filibuster, it too, is a tool for social control. In the wrong hands. In the right hands even despotic terror can be a force for good. The real issue isn’t recognition of diverse belief systems, it’s the intersection of two conflicting belief systems, and what happens, who wins, who says what’s what. Asking someone who believes unequivocally in the tenets of a religion like Christianity or Judaism or Islam to place their religious beliefs in a secondary position relative to democratic processes and civil law is tantamount to asking them not to believe. This essential and pertinent question goes entirely unanswered, because it makes the rest of your position untenable.

By: mic

mic — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:47:56 +0000

Bill -Religion as social club should be treated just like any other social club. Perhaps we actually agree: religion cannot be given exemptions from laws, only from regulations. Yes, exactly – but that’s not what you were saying at the beginning, was it? All the rest, regarding revelation, truth, etc. well it’s kind of irrelevant to that point of religion and the law. And you’re putting it all a bit too theoretical. It is very confusing. For me it’s a lot simpler. How we each view religion and beliefs and faith and religious experiences and organized religion and the difference thereof, is a personal matter. But for society at large, organised religion must be treated like any social club, yep. So why isn’t it? (at least in politics, if not in laws) … back to square one… It is all a matter of yielding political power and having social control because of making high demands of followers that it affects large sections of their public life too. That’s what differentiates religious groups from any other ‘social club’. That’s why even if laws don’t give religion a free pass, outside of theocracies, politicians still do apply very special treatment to religion. A very very practical matter of reciprocal interests and compromises. A final note on the upbringing thing – well you said it yourself: “Most religious people I know have told me they were given faith by God. Many started going to church because their parents took them, but later were given faith.” – Bill, the point is, even if you’re not brought up by religious parents, organised religion is everywhere. Everyone has been exposed to it. I’m not judging the worth or truth of that “I was given faith by God” statement, no one can, it’s a personal choice, I see no problem with it. BUT it’s a fact that those people were exposed to religion as a social, organised thing – or they wouldn’t have been able to join that social organised thing! you know? There’s not a contradiction between the two things – being taught religion, and being spontaneously driven towards religion, or enthusiastically embracing religion, even based on a strong feeling one has – they can happen at the same time. But, if we’re talking organised religion, not merely “mystical experiences”, you have to go through a religious education process, either in childhood, or later, by choosing to convert, to become part of an organised religious group. That’s all. Seemed pretty obvious to me.

By: bill carone

bill carone — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:00:36 +0000

“For one thing, of course, one has to decide what kind of truth one is talking about.” What kinds are there? I only know of one (many definitions, but all trying to articulate the same idea). “Of course all kinds of things are true (that X loves Y, etc) that have little (though not necessarily nothing) to do with evidence or reason.” Wait a minute here; I’m confused. The statement “that X loves Y” is true or false. We can find evidence for and against it, we can argue for and against it, etc. Why X loves Y may have nothing to do with truth (maybe it just has to do with beauty). Which were you referring to in your post, or were you referring to something different? “I think one of your basic problems is that you conflate evidence with proof.” What do you mean by evidence, and what do you mean by proof? I have been using sloppy formulations (think how long my posts would be if I hadn’t :-). Where has it confused you? Where has it weakened my argument?

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:01:17 +0000

Bill, No, that isn’t what I was saying. For one thing, of course, one has to decide what kind of truth one is talking about. Of course all kinds of things are true (that X loves Y, etc) that have little (though not necessarily nothing) to do with evidence or reason. I think one of your basic problems is that you conflate evidence with proof. And another is that you’re using one word – truth – to apply to many different ideas. It all makes a bit of a tangle.

By: bill carone

bill carone — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:48:21 +0000

Mic, “But that’s regulations – not laws, which always imply ethical principles, born of reasoned debate.” Perhaps we actually agree: religion cannot be given exemptions from laws, only from regulations. I can’t quite make out the distinction you are making, but it might be like my “reason-based” vs. “majority-based”. Maybe if I called it “politics-based” instead we would agree? “I am talking of “religion” here merely in its social aspect, I don’t see why that should be inherently less “worthy”,” I do. Religion as social club should be treated just like any other social club. Religion as truth-seeking-method should be treated analogously to other truth-seeking-methods.

By: bill carone

bill carone — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:42:03 +0000

Mic, ““revealed” by who, Bill? Who, if not your parents, or teachers, or someone who taught you about religion?” Most religious people I know have told me they were given faith by God. Many started going to church because their parents took them, but later were given faith. So, according to them, it isn’t simply a matter of upbringing, or teaching, or a system of beliefs, or “memes”, or a social club. That isn’t how they see their religion; they think they have been given a gift from God. I don’t like relying on what people say, as it is notoriously innaccurate, but it is what they say. I have addressed the point about Jewish parents inexplicably :-) tending to have Jewish kids in a response to Albert above. Perhaps people of different theistic religions are simply interpreting the same revealed knowledge differently, the same way that different Catholics interpret the Bible differently. “[Science and philosophy] accept that separation from each other and from the law; whereas many religious people have a little problem grasping that separation concept.” I respectfully dissent. I thought we agreed that science and reason dominate the law. A law cannot rightly say “The sky is green” (although the law doesn’t usually try to say scientific things). A law cannot rightly say “It is allowable to beat your kids.” Science and reason trump law. My guess was that truth should trump law, so if you believe that revelation might be a source of truth, then religion might also trump law. I thought you agreed; for example, I thought you said that there are fundamental human rights, correct beyond reasonable doubt, and that a law that doesn’t respect those rights shouldn’t be followed. Also, science and philosophy don’t accept a separation from each other. There are points of overlap, and science trumps philosophy. For example, there are philosophical arguments that show that machines will never have human intelligence. Guess what; if a scientist goes out and builds one, the philosopher can’t say “But science is separate from philosophy; his results don’t have anything to do with mine.” The philosopher says “My philosophical argument has been proved wrong by scientific observation.” “You really cannot make that sort of “just like” statement. Please.” You are right; I am being sloppy. I have no idea what it is like to have a revealed experience. I do know what it is like to have special experience (i.e. observation of nature). They aren’t “just like” each other, but in order to understand what it like to deal with revelation, I think analogously from what it is like to deal with observation. Aristotle gives the example of the word “sharp” used in different domains. We can think of a sharp point (feeling), a sharp sound (hearing), or a sharp light (sight). I can’t say what it is about “sharpness” that is common to these three domains; I’m clearly not using the word univocally, or as meaning exactly the same thing. But I’m clearly not using the word equivocally, or as meaning entirely different things. This is what is meant when a word is used analogically. The word “experience” in science, philosophy, and religion is used analogically when we speak of “special experience”, “common experience”, and “revealed experience.” It isn’t that they are the same, but they do have something in common that is difficult if not impossible to put your finger on.