Trisha asked:

Should religious doctrines and practices be regulated according to their moral worthiness, or should
religion be permitted to operate free of outside interference?

How would Socrates respond to this question?

============

As to your first question — the answer is — Neither!

What characterises almost all religious beliefs is the adoption of some particular form of moral
standard. In fact, one might almost define a "religion" as the adoption of some particular moral
standard. Certainly one can identify the flavor of religious belief involved by knowing the particular
moral standard adhered to. The problem is that, by the very nature of religious belief, there is nothing
that might tend to generate any commonality of moral standards between different religious beliefs.

Now, I am assuming here that you are intending your question to be one of regulating or freeing the
doctrines and practices of different religions. Obviously (I hope), within the confines of one particular
religion the moral standards of that religion should be (quite properly) used to regulate the particular
doctrinal interpretations and practices of its adherents.

But since moral standards are particular to specific religions, it would be impossible to regulate the
doctrines and practices of one group of religious believers using the moral standards of another
religion. Not, at least, without being (properly) accused of arbitrariness and unjustifiable coercion.
How do you think a Christian would react to being governed according to the moral standards of
Hinduism? Or vice versa? (How do you think MacDonalds might fair in a regulatory environment
where cattle are sacred?)

On the other hand, granting unrestrained liberty to any religious belief is not the answer either.
Properly interpreting the "Word of God" (whichever God might apply) is an exercise in unconstrained
imagination. There are absolutely no limits to the doctrines and practices that can be dreamed up and
claimed as "religious". Rastafarians smoke marijuana as part of their religious ceremonies. Voodoo
demands animal sacrifices. Certain sects of Devil Worship and some ancient Incan religious beliefs
demand human sacrifices. Most so-called "civilised" societies frown on such behaviors.

The proper approach, I think, is to identify a single natural moral standard that is based on nature and
not on religious beliefs, and then constrain people's flights of religious fancy by that moral standard. I
would suggest to you that the proper moral standards to apply are "no initiation of the use of force"
and "accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions". With these two secular moral
standards enforced, I think society can tolerate just about any other religious doctrine or practice.

As to your second question — Who cares?

Socrates lived over two millennia ago, in a social environment pretty homogeneous (everybody he
ever met believed either in the Greek Gods or the Egyptian Gods — and there was not a lot of
difference between Greek and Egyptian moral standards). Socrates never had to face the religious
diversity one can find in any moderately sized modern metropolis. How could his thoughts on the
matter have any practical bearing on the modern problem?

Stuart Burns

89