It is a bit of a conundrum isn't it? I'm not terribly convinced that we need rational justification to make some idea of belief a part of the public square... After all relationships are also part of the public square, and are based on emotion and feelings, gut intuitions, that clearly people don't all share. And no doubt these relationship affect others directly and indirectly, postively and negatively.
But relationships aren't quite as encompassing as religion is. In fact few if any systems of beliefs are.
But I think we're looking at it from the wrong perspective here... Science can tell us about the world, but has no real business applying values to the world. It can tell us whether or not fetuses are alive, or even human, (yes in both respects) but they can't tell us whether or not they are persons, or morally valuable entities. It seems like we need a value system for that, which philosophy or religion can help supply. Now whether or not there are good reasons to choose religion over philosophy may just as well kick religion to the curb, but if viewed from this perspective, religion has, at the very least, some measure of legitimacy in the public sphere.

I have to agree that it is the sense of entitlement, and totalizing nature, of religous belief that is problematic within the public arena. That and the issue that, despite those totalizing beliefs, there is in fact far more than one group claiming religious truth extant in our world. But even beyond those issues, if everyone who subscribed to faith could be lined up in agreement, where would that leave the atheists and agnostics? Should they suffer the tyranny of the majority on issues of moral law?
In the U.S. we have a constitution that clearly divided the chuch and state, yet those framers were the product of a society that for much of its brief exisistance held membership in the Christian church to be a requirement for sufferage. It was their rational choice to leave their faith at the door. It seems to me that both faculties served them well, at least in this regard.
Because moral and ethical belief sytems are so dearly held and so much a part of self definition, no one is likely to give way quietly when considering the enshrinement of a religious belief contrary to their own into the arena of public law. Yet if I as a rationalist wish my ethics to be reflected and respected in the character of our law and public debate, can I doubt that those supporting faith based ethics have any less desire or right?
It seems that in public policy a bias toward reaching consensus through debate, while not giving any one group or belief a true voice, gives a more livable result than looking for a single faith or reason based answer to moral questions in the public realm. In the end, while faith based dialogue deserves some space within political moral debates as the personal belief of those making the arguement, it earns no place in and of itself as dogma, and should yield no greater sway than any arguement based on reason held as personal belief.

Well, religion clearly *does* form a valid basis for public reasoning. Regardless of the logical sense of any such argument, clearly a great many people /give credence/ to such arguments. That, really, is the only thing there is - politics is persuation. However, I think it is equally true that any particular view (say, free will, or whether to eat meat) is held and held against by religious people. Essentially, while people *claim* a religious basis for their position, it is not an objective basis. Many Christians hold opposing views, therefore Christianity does not imply any fixed opinion on those issues - rather they come from the interpretation of the people themselves.
一旦确立了这一点，我们必须简单地看一看，人们是否利用宗教作为持有特定观点的借口，或者是否像大多数人一样，它只是他们信仰网络中的另一个十字路口。

Just to respond to Tennessee...
我认为说有神论者之间不一致是不完全公平的，这表明伦理是非客观的....世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区因为伦理是非客观的。休谟曾如此简洁地指出，你不能从“是”中导出“应该”。
Moreover many of the ethical issues that we face today have no recommendation from the Bible, so it seems that there is no reason for consensus amongst them.

This is a timely topic for me. I've been trying to find a way to think about those who, through political action, work to impose a religious ideal on people who may or may not be in agreement with that ideal. An analogy I thought might apply is that the politically active religious believer is to those who don't agree with them like a criminal is to a victim. The criminal, either deliberately or without thinking, ignores the humanity of the victim. Does it seem as though the religious in the public square are ignoring the humanity of the non-believer, or even perhaps demonizing them? And can we also extend the analogy: does the non-believer do the same to the believer? If this is true, why do we do this to each other? Would it be because we want to discredit and discount the other's ideas and ideals so we can ignore them completely in favor of our own? Maybe that is perfectly normal. But even if it is normal, is it conducive to peaceful coexistence? If this analogy is seen by many to be true, perhaps we could create a less fractious and more civil society by acknowledging this tendency within ourselves, whichever side we are on, and thereby begin to contain our desire to overcome all others by remembering that in fact they are not demons or even strangers, but instead are people like us who have ideas that need to be heard by all so that we can have a society with a solid basis in democracy that allows for all to be heard and a true consensus to be built from that basis. Does this make me a hopeless optimist?

It may well be that if you assume religion to be irrational you get the result that the totalizing elements of religion should be kept out of the public square, but it's worth recognizing that such a conclusion is still only conditional. If these totalizing beliefs are rationally held, then why shouldn't they have a place in the public sphere?
我认为，最终大多数人的道德直觉是引导他们赞成或反对公共政策的因素。对一些人来说，这些道德直觉符合宗教框架。对另一些人来说不是这样。除了那些从不质疑任何信仰的极端主义者，在我看来，这种整体效应似乎并不存在。我认为自己是一名福音派基督徒，我认为《圣经》是没有错误的(一旦它明确了修辞、数字四舍五入、诗歌意象等可以算作没有错误的陈述)。然而，在很多问题上，我的想法已经改变了很多次，包括哲学辩论的中心问题，尤其是伦理问题。因此，我认为，你坚持认为宗教导致了这种整体效应，这是对宗教对一个人的要求不敏感的事实。
哲人:我不明白休谟是如何展示任何东西的。他的论点充其量是在问问题，因为只有在情绪主义之类的东西是正确的情况下，结论才可能是正确的。功利主义者相信关于幸福和不幸的事实是道德真理的基础。社会契约论者相信，理性的人会同意基于道德真理的事实。美德伦理学将使一个人成为好人的事实作为道德行为的基础。即使是一种过于简单的主观主义观点，也会把道德陈述的真实性建立在讲话者态度的事实上。几乎每一种元伦理观点都在某些事实中建立了道德真理。只有当道德陈述具有无真相的价值(如休谟所认为的)或者如果它们完全没有理由是正确的(我从未听到任何人为其辩护)，休谟才会是正确的。我碰巧认为这两种选择都很荒谬，但如果这是他的论点唯一有效的观点，那么在我看来，这似乎是在回避所有其他观点。
在任何情况下，假装休谟的论证只对那些将道德建立在上帝命令之上的神圣命令理论家起作用，只会错过休谟的声明是多么惊人的激进。它完全违背了常识性道德。

I am out in the cold here.
在我看来，我们需要以某种方式让人类得出一个所有人类都能接受的结论。当教条取代了神秘，宗教信仰似乎对文化和个人都是失败的。对上帝的信仰似乎源于被压抑的童年印象。对于小孩子来说，成年人不仅仅是巨人。，他们也能创造奇迹。这表明，每个人都会寻找自己以外的东西来保护自己。并照顾他们。这就产生了一个问题，如果这些寻求自我之外的保护的人被灌输到一种信仰体系中，这种信仰体系不仅保证了此时此地的社区，而且像基督教和伊斯兰教那样，在一个神话般的“来世”中提供保护。需要被保护的个人会转向现有的宗教或者创立新的宗教来获得那种感觉?的保护。
There is and will always be a great number of mysteries and unanswered questions.
This we know;
我们生活在一个叫地球的星球上，在一个叫银河系的星系里，它是不断膨胀的宇宙的一部分。
There are laws of nature that have been discerned by wise men that always and everywhere hold true.
There are things that are good for humans, intelligent mammals, and things that are bad for humans.
Joseph Campbell suggested that a new mythology that encompasses the whole Earth and the entire human race is what is needed to get us past our petty differences.
Perhaps there is a definition of God that all mankind could agree on?
God is the Creator. It really does not matter how or why, creation exists.
God is within and without. (ie. God permeates reality, turn within and find God or turn outwards and find God in the beauty of nature.)
上帝设定了宇宙的自然法则，万物都遵循这些法则。如果我们不理解某件事，那是因为我们的头脑目前还不够充分。上帝给了我们破译现实的智慧，所以我们应该尝试。
地球，由造物主创造，供养我们，保护我们。(Atmosphere blocks gamma radiation)
神是赐生命的。生命是上帝赐予的。(人可以操纵生命，但不能创造生命，除了通过生殖。)
Looking at God this way solves the fundamental problem of defining that which can never be defined, God.
This way of envisioning God as well will cause a new respect, as all is of God, disrespecting or abusing any part of the natural world is defiling the body of God.
I suspect that many, many ?religious? individuals cling to their respective religious dogma but do not actually ?believe? it, ?seeing? something of value but without understanding.
This statement comes from a reading of all those deep thinkers, many considered, religious that accept that there is something beyond their selves that can not be defined by the dogma of their respective organized religion.
Well, naturally, if every one could see the sublime simplicity and beauty of this definition then we might have peace on Earth. But then those in power would lose their power and, naturally, the awakening of mankind?s soul would not allow them to control their fellow man as they do now.

Ken,
如果我告诉你，宗教和哲学本身就提供了分裂(罪恶)和妄想(精神疾病)的手段。你知道怎么把宗教和哲学联系起来吗?在我的网站上，我解释了宗教之神和哲学之神之间的联系。我声称自己是美学哲学的上帝(从宗教的角度来说)。他被奉为高于他的(优秀)艺术家和科学家同行的人。这是一个有趣的角度(天使)，我想我要传递给你。

More than any other type of entitlement whether it be land or the thought that one perspective is more "true" than another.Men have fought wars to their own means. We must answer the question. Which is best for a civilized Society?
Emperical knowledge through scientific testing is an extreme need for growth but is it best to disallow an intelligent design type belief system and simply say that all spiritual knowlwedge is illusion? Cannot we construct a society which understands the need for both?
I tend to believe that all which we see before us has the fingerprints of an intellegent designer behind it. Forget all of the "Testing" part of life. To be sent to a hellish fire is only a way to keep a Society civilized. It seems to me that our free will only is involved in about twenty percent of what we are born into and encountered within this life. Choices do come but within that environment of which we have been born. As a play one character must be poor to define rich, one slow to define fast and ultimately one to experience life, to give life to that which is not in this life. The "Designer" must be defined by what He is not, here with us.
The computers of the day are based on 0 and 1. One cannot be absolute, and by that definition, it is no thing. A zero on the other hand is simply "undefined" except for the fact that it is different than one. Like a play we must assume our roles and make our "free will" choices toward the means of goodness.
Maybe next time you will be "God" so please get through this hard finite life for the Spiritual to exist as defined by you.
Thankful we are that this realm is finite and not the other way around.
It is a case of this and that. There is no room for a third realm of eternal damnation. It does not fit mathematically. This must be brought to the forfront. We must start to realize that there is another side defined by the very basics of this experience. Another "Fingerprint of the "Designer".
Why have millions of years of Dinosaurs without "conscious thought of them". Were they placed at the moment of our ability to understand our existence, "counscious thought"? I believe this to be so. Would we not now have the wings to fly and the gills to swim through the ontological sequence of evolution?