However, I make the following claim:

1) That these individuals advocating religious laws (in particular, those advocating evangelical Christianity) aren’t bemoaning the lack of *religion* from public policy, they are bemoaning the lack of *their religion* from public policy. The difference between “religious laws” in general and “religious based upon my religion” are quite distinct.

This point may seem obvious. However, I suggest that it is not, given that conservative Christians who advocate this view speak about the desire to include “religion” in public policy, not “evangelical Christianity” into public policy. This is the rhetoric used in the public debate, and in discussions, it is commonplace to hear inclusive terminology such as the “Judeo/Christian” moral framework. This suggests that these advocates are interested in further injecting the abstract idea of “religion” back into public life, regardless of the particular religious views.

The purpose of #1 is merely to highlight that Christian evangelicals really want to impose Christian evangelical public laws, not generally “religious” public laws.  Why is this important?  Because I suspect that most evangelicals would be less supportive of public laws implementing the views of other religions.

To highlight this, I propose a thought experiment to help individuals advocating this view understand why religion in public policy is not a good idea.

1) Agree to allow “religion” in the law-making process

2) But let someone else select the religion to be used as a basis for the laws (say, Islam, in this case).

If these advocates are really for allowing “religion” in public policy, they should be perfectly happy with this arrangement. In the scenario suggested, religion dominates public policy — it just happens not to be the religion of evangelical conservatives.

The point of this thought experiment is to is for those on the part of he majority religion to understand how it would feel to be on the receiving-end of religious based laws based upon a different religion. It’s easy to support religious based laws if they represent your religious beliefs. But once one is forced to live by laws based upon someone else’s religion, it becomes clearer that religious based law making is not a good idea in general.

I suspect that evangelicals would not be happy living under an American legal system implementing Islamic laws.  For this reason, it is not hard to understand that it is not a good idea to have a legal system implementing Christian evangelical laws.  Religious views are personal beliefs, and implementing them not only makes for bad public policy, it is a form of subjugation to make people with other religious beliefs live under those rules.  In essence, religious based laws forces people to practice a particular religion.
This thought experiment was inspired by the philosopher John Rawls, who (roughly speaking) proposed the idea that to design a “fair” social system, the system designers should create the system before they know how they will fare in the future system (whether they will be a person of power, or powerless). Without knowledge ahead of time of one’s place in the future system, one will try to design a system that is fairest to all, or risk hurting oneself once one finds out where one stands. In the case that one turns out to be powerless in the new system, one will try to design the system to be as fair to the powerless as possible. The point of such an approach is to remove the element of self-interest from system design. Otherwise, people will attempt to design the system to advantage themselves.

Similarly, in my thought experiment, if we allow someone else to choose the religion to be implemented as public policy, I believe that people would be less supportive of the idea of religious based laws, out of concern that the future religion adopted into law would not be their own. The only fair application is to remove all religion from public policy. This thought experiment is designed to engender empathy with of the inequality of imposing the religious-based views of the majority on the minority.

FAQ

Why are you an atheist? I believe in god, why don’t you?
Simply put – it makes no sense to me.  I tend not to believe in things that do not make sense to me, and the idea that I should just accept that there is an invisible, all-knowing creature, with the power to do anything, and which routinely influences human affairs — well, that doesn’t pass the plausibility test.  Maybe if there was some evidence of god…just a little bit of unambiguous evidence, that would be helpful.  But no, there is no such thing.   And for the same reason that you probably reject magic — if somebody told you that your computer ran on invisible, magical elves you would probably laugh at them — I, quite reasonably don’t accept the similar notion of god.

Compare your belief in god to Greek Mythology. We have no problem saying that Zeus and the other gods of antiquity are mythology. So, a better question to ask yourself is, why don’t you believe in Zeus? Whatever your answer is to that question, apply that logic to the issue of god, and see what happens.

Think about it. If you went around telling people that you believed that magic creatures were running your life…they’d probably think you were crazy. If you have no trouble disbelieving elves, tooth fairies, and other myths and magic, why choose to believe this one?

Why don’t you want me to believe in god?

Honestly, I’m perfectly happy for you to believe in god. Please, do whatever makes you happy. The United States is a great country because of the religious freedom it provides.

Although I do object to people forcing their religious beliefs on others. In the US, this takes the form of religious groups attempting to implement their religious views into public policy.

I don’t mind social policy that is the result of critical thought and reasoned debate.

I do mind social policy that is the result of “My god says so.”

If you’re not doing that, than we have no problem.

But, if there is no god, then there is no meaning in the universe, no meaning in my life!

Ummm…I’m sorry I’m the one that has to break it to you.

But the fact that there’s no god doesn’t mean that your life has to be meaningless. You have friends, family, a world to help out…go out there and make things a better place to live.

But my priest/rabbi, etc. said that god said…

Really? What the do they know that you don’t know? Do you really think that they’re talking to god? Have you ever had a conversation with god, and if so, what did he say?

The fact that some religious leaders claim to talk to god and know what god wants is a dangerous thing. First of all, there is no disproving what they say. Secondly, if you believe such things, you’re ripe to be taken advantage of by individuals using the mantle of god to advance their own interests. Remember Oral Roberts and his claim that god would “take him away” unless he received $100 million in donations? Doesn’t that sound a little suspicious? Could it be that he was taking advantage of people’s belief in god and his supposed ability to know what god knows to get money?

By the way, god says that you should be an atheist. He just told me.

But I feel spiritual, I have this uplifting feeling of joy when I talk to god and pray.

Interesting…but many people do when they do many wonderful things in life: meditate, see a beautiful sunrise, hear news of a baby being born. The human mind is able to generate many complex emotions and feelings, some which are truly “spiritual” feeling…It still doesn’t mean there’s a god.

So go ahead, keep praying, do whatever makes you happy.

So, how do you explain the existence of life, the majesty of the universe?

Well, I don’t really need to. (See, the burden-shifting fallacy), but physics, cosmology, and evolutionary biology do a pretty good job here. At any rate, nearly any modern scientific theory is better than your proposal, that the universe was created by a magical creature that has always existed (god).

If you believe that theory, then answer the following question: Who created God? (I’m burden shifting now. ). And, if your answer is that God has always existed, then clearly you believe in the possibility that things have always existed. If you’re willing to accept that God always existed, why not just skip the middle man, and go with the simpler (and probably wrong) explanation that life always existed. There’s no need for this magical creature middle-man (Occam’s razor).

Why do you keep calling god “magical”? God is not magical!

Really? What’s the difference between what you claim that god does and magic? I could claim that life was created by an all knowing magical elf who watches over our lives, turns water into wine, parts the red sea, etc. How is that any different from what you’re saying? How can you prove me wrong?

Well, what happens after we die, if there is no god or heaven?

Well, I can’t claim to know that, but if I had to guess, I’d say: it will probably be a lot like it was before you were born.

Do you remember life before you were born? Probably not. You accept the possibility that you did not exist before you were born, so why should it be any different after you die?

But my god is my savior! You have to believe in my God!

There are six or so major religions in the world. Isn’t it a coincidence that you just “happened” to be born in the right religion which worships the true god.

Isn’t it strange that all of those billions of people in other religions are praying to false gods? How lucky you were born into the true religion.

Wait a second, all of those other people believe that their god is the true god, and that you’re god is false. How can that be?

If everyone thinks that their god is the true god and that everyone else’s god is wrong, something doesn’t add up. Either 1) you all have the same god, and the particular beliefs of the religion don’t matter or (think about it) 2) maybe god doesn’t exist and is just a by-product of your religion?

You really, really don’t believe in god or miracles?

No. Sorry. Don’t believe in magic either.

How do you explain the fact that a huge portion of the world believes in god?

Well, there are many complicated sociological and psychological reasons why people believe in god. I’m not saying that I don’t understand why people believe in god. It gives people a sense of control over their lives, psychological comfort. The brain is primed to avoid factual situations that cause people psychological discomfort. People live in communities where religion is an important part of their social and family life. And, quite frankly, for much of the world, that is all that they are taught. You only know what you are taught or have the ability to learn, and many know nothing else.

But this is a Christian country, founded by Christians, why shouldn’t we implement the views of the Bible?

Well, first of all, this isn’t a “Christian Country.” The founding fathers thought long and hard about whether to make a state religion, and explicitly decided against it. In fact, they thought not having a state religion was so important that they put in the the very first amendment to the Constitution. To suggest otherwise is misleading.

Secondly, it is true that this is a country that is majority Christian. But that really means little. There is a huge diversity among people who count themselves Christian, many of whom are liberal, secular, or atheist. Also, this country was founded by individuals escaping persecution by a religious majority. With the possibility of religious tyranny in mind, protections against this were firmly embedded in the Constitution. So the idea of a religious majority forcing its ideas on the rest of the country is an anathema to what the United States stands for.

Moreover, religious based public policies violate my First Amendment right to free practice of religion. The First Amendment guarantees everyone that the government will not pass laws prohibiting my ability to freely practice my religion. By implementing religious public policies, you are essentially forcing me to practice your religion through laws, which violates my religious practices, which is the decision to practice no religion at all.

Finally, engage in this thought experiment (a la John Rawls). If you (as a Christian) really think that the general idea of religion in public education an policy is a good idea, do the following: 1) Permit religion in public education and 2) Let someone else choose what religion to implement.

If you’re happy to let Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, or other religious laws run your life and your children’s education, then fine. But I suspect you’re not. Remember the golden rule — do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is what you’re doing to others who don’t share you religious beliefs when you try to implement your Christian religious views as law.

Are you agnostic or atheist?

Well, basically I think that the idea of the existence of god is a silly as the existence of the Easter Bunny. I state that god doesn’t exist with the same certainty that I say that the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist. Of course, we can’t disprove either, but people would look at you strange if you were an adult who swore that you believed in the Easter Bunny. In sum, I don’t really care about the terminology…the point is — there is no god. Sorry.

You’re going to go to hell!!!

That’s okay, because I don’t believe in hell. That’s like saying, you’re going to Oz or Narnia.

How ironic, you’re using the very straw-man argumentation tactic in creating this FAQ, that you (probably) decry!

Yup.