Social Contract

preferably free from religion

Published on July 12, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

If what one believes is the measure of a person how can belief be separated from politics — or should it? The Constitution states: ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Implicit in this clause is that Religion shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of democratic principles.

Obviously a patently devout citizen is not prohibited from thinking within the framework of his/her conscience, yet this does not mean that his/her conscience is to be imposed on the conscience of another. A woman who chooses to have an abortion dictated by her conscience is not to be prevented, regardless of another’s conscience that conjures an illusion of murder. Of course, the Constitution is not without morally universal laws, but somehow many presuppose that morals is exclusively the domain of religion. This is wrong: religion did not invent morality. The social contract did. Religion invented laws to protect its pre-ordained dogma supposedly handed down by divine will. The social contract through philosophic analysis tortuously over a period of time developed a system of law serving the common good. The founding fathers understood this in order to obviate some charismatic lord and master interpreting law as he sees it.

The social contract is foremost to protect the weak from barbarism; thereby underpinning the law of self-preservation. Secondly, the contract is designed so that there is relative harmony among people that understand the need for cooperatively structuring a society that meets the essential needs of its subjects in common. However, in the distant past, as well as during the forging of the Constitution, not all were permitted equal rights — women and slaves, for instance. Obviously, then, abortion was taboo — probably unknown, anyway — since multiplying the race was significant, in spite of the high mortality rate of infants and mothers, including the slaves. In addition, as I had mentioned in an earlier blog, theocracy was prevalent because scientific data were practically nil and fear of the unknown prevailed. Thus religion was the keystone of daily living and comfort, but to construe this as free will and intellect is wrong inasmuch as dogma was to be unquestioned. There can be no freedom in an authoritarian state. This is precisely why today we are plagued by world terrorism that operates under the guise of religion or some other unrelenting obsession.

In this nation today there are too many who fail to understand what religion really is in a modern democratic society. The many still believe that only through God is one able to arrive at wisdom and ideal morality. There is nothing wrong with that if these believers do not try to superimpose their wisdom onto others who differ with them. Unfortunately, many group together and conspire to proselytize their views as a father to a child. This is an affront to constitutional law and ultimately criminal as no one has the right to force self-styled morality on others as they apparently do within members of their own sect. To argue that child molestation would be permissible without religious teachings is absurd when such is patently a violation of a child’s well-being that it is a primacy of democratic and moral law. To postulate that homosexuality is an affront to God serves little purpose when an individual is hopelessly trapped in a body divorced from the norm. Yes, it is agreed that homosexuality is an unfortunate aberration but until such time medical science can “cure” this — psychology has tried to no avail — reality dictates acceptance, however one believes to the contrary. This said, however, does not rule out the choice factor of homosexuality which could very well be the product of normal relations gone awry — women abused by men, and men suffering from chronic unrequited love from women.

Terrorism was not invented by Islam, but it contributes to it by the fact that its relentless position on intolerance implants an inner fury in those who narrowly interpret the teachings of Mohammad, equaling the fury of the blatant corruption of Christian teachings highlighted by the Inquisition and the Crusades. Religion that becomes aggressively public and not held within the privacy of the soul threatens democracy.

Comments

bakerstreet

on Jul 12, 2004

" Implicit in this clause is that Religion shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of democratic principles."

According to who, you?

"Unfortunately, many group together and conspire to proselytize their views as a father to a child. "

Would you like a list of secular groups now imposing their values on the unwilling? Groups with lobbying power and millions to spend? Are they wrong, or do you just single out religious groups that speak out for the individual.

To me it sounds like NOW or any other highly political group is well within their rights to spend millions influencing politics, but religious people are doomed to operate only as individuals. If you can prove a belief has its roots in religion, it is then unfit for legislation?

Like I have said every time, at some point you are always going to have someone who differs with a law. All laws are moral judgements. So you simply can't have a system of laws without imposing specific values on those who don't agree with them. You pretend like your ideals are so self-evident, and yet we have to be educated by you?

You don't speak for freedom with your imposed secularism, you just speak for those who agree with you in hopes that you can counter the majority. Look around, you are in the tiniest minority. What sort of people believe that the tiniest minority should impose their will on the majority?

Your manifestos are becoming more and more authoritative and indignant. It really makes them difficult to read and almost impossible to take objectively. It reminds me of the revisionist historians that used to come into my book store and rant for hours as if someone were listening. They would take all of human history piece by peice and tell you what was wrong with it. They had everything neatly tucked away, but I never once saw them presuade anyone of anything.

Sometimes what seems logical inside your head isn't so self-evident to everyone else. You sound like every other totalitarian to me, lots of talk about freedom and how we have to accept just what you say in order to have it. In the end we just end up doing what you say. You're kind of scary these days.

stevendedalus

on Jul 12, 2004

"The many still believe that only through God is one able to arrive at wisdom and ideal morality. There is nothing wrong with that if these believers do not try to superimpose their wisdom onto others who differ with them. " Yu omitted this crucial prelude to the excerpt. I can't imagine what is scary about constitutional law. Your point is well taken on lobbyists which seems to be a necessary evil in a splintered nation. Nevertheless, lobbying for the violation of private rights or matters of conscience that are within the law is uncceptable.

Madine

on Jul 12, 2004

The social contract is foremost to protect the weak from barbarism

Isn't an unborn child the weakest of the weak?

religion did not invent morality. The social contract did.

If you are somehow trying to argue that the idea of a social contract predates religion, that is rediculous.

There is nothing wrong with that if these believers do not try to superimpose their wisdom onto others who differ with them. Unfortunately, many group together and conspire to proselytize their views as a father to a child.

Didn't Martin Luther King Jr. superimpose his view on others?

bakerstreet

on Jul 12, 2004

steve seems to think there is such a thing as universal truth, and he has the right to define it.

What he doesn't seem to fathom is that all the absolutes he imposes in his article are no less moral than the religious edicts he finds so suspect.

In a thousand years they'll probably call his philosophy a superstitious religion. In the meantime he is the voice of reason, though. Sadly for him, the votes of the religious count just the same as his.

stevendedalus

on Jul 15, 2004

If you are somehow trying to argue that the idea of a social contract predates religion, that is rediculous.

THe social contract is a symbol for unrecorded primitive tribes that were desirous of protecting the weak from self-styled masters. It was primarily a matter of survival, not religion.

As for MLK--there is such a thing, you know, as universal laws that preclude discrimination. The pregnant woman who believes there is a living soul within the womb will choose to have the child, provided her health is not in jeopardy. There are other women, however, who think that it's but a cell divorced of life until born. Granted, this could be a falsified perception and motivated for selfish reasons, but it is inadvisable to legislate against self-interest unless it afflicts secular society granted under the constitution.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!