interesting conversation tonight where again the atheistic statement that if religious people just practiced privately and didn't bring their beliefs into the light of running others' lives (think governmental policies), then we -- atheists -- should be happy. my question: if beliefs spur action and a certain shade of perception, can beliefs really just be held privately?

No, probably not. Not in a way that atheists would find satisfactory.

One's faith is going to alter his or her perceptions and decisions. You can't completely remove your moral guide from all your daily actions.

They probably can be privately held if those involved gain enough land and weapons to fight off even the most "Janet Reno" of attempts to take them down.

We have lots of beliefs about all kinds of things from racial stereotypes to belief in ghosts. All of them influence our decision-making process. Often we form opinions based on "gut-reaction" which is based on our own personal belief systems. It is after the opinions are formed that we attempt to rationalize them. And this is perfectly legitimate. If logic can be applied to our decisions, there is no need to delve into more amorphous beliefs, but I don't think that this was the focus of your discussion. You seem to have been speaking mostly of religious belief. "Spirituality" is something that can be privately held, but religion is a construct that requires group involvement. The belief system of every religion, down to the smallest cults, requires a specification of common postulates in order to provide unity to the group. These then become "beliefs." In order for consensus to occur, these "beliefs" cannot be privately held.

the whole point of religion is segregating the people who are going to hell it's pretty hard to do that privately.

But I think I agree that it should be a personal thing, personal in the way that your religion/spirituality is about you and not other people. But I guess again that's hard cuz how else will you know to not steal from the neighbors

basically what we would be creating is a society in which reasons are not needed for anything, right?

Theoretically. But could such a society function?

absolutely not.

Do you see how, until today, I totally held my beliefs about this opinion private?

And today?

Still not telling, but it's clear. As soon as I decide to act, they're revealed.

How privately one holds ones beliefs has an inverse relationship to how small a swimsuit one wears at the beach.

Those frequenting nudist beaches hold all beliefs in private.

I don't think that beliefs should be held privately. I appreciate that some nutter can knock on my door or stand in subway station and try to convert me, just as they (hopefully) appreciate that I am free to tell them to no thanks.

Just the same, office holders and the like who publically discuss thier faith don't trouble me so much (it would be hard to support Obama otherwise), nor do commentators who openly announce a lack of faith (I enjoy watching Bill Maher).

The problem obviously becomes not the public nature of beliefs, but instead the forcing of said of beliefs onto others and an inability to respect other beliefs.

For instance, if an Alabama judge wants to put a giant 10 commandments monument on his front lawn, its hard to argue that he doesn't have that right (though I will grant that it might make him a scary dude to have on the bench), but when that judge tries putting it in the damn state courthouse, it IS problematic. I think this is roughly the same argument that can be applied to religious holday displays in public places as well. A town's mayor can have the biggest Menorah ever in their living room, but it probably shouldn't be on the lawn of town hall.

So, overall, I think expecting (or even really wanting) beliefs to be held privately in unnecessary. However, what is necessary is the these beliefs not be taken as marching orders from God to impose strictly religious doctrines as law on unwilling persons or non-believers.

And here I thought they just held their briefs in private.

why? this country is based on judeo-christian principles, and the overwhelming majority of citizens here are christian.

And if we lived in a nation where the premise was that the majority ruled absolutely, that policy would make sense. Instead, we live in a nation where one of the primary designs was that religious endorsement would be avoided regardless of numbers.

isn't this a democracy? mob rule?

It is a form of democracy that respects minority rights. The Bill of Rights, like free speech, can be a pain in the ass at times but it sure beats the alternative.

how is erecting a giant monument of the 10 commandments outside the state courthouse infringing on anyone's rights?

Why are you playing God's advocate (see what i did there?)?

A "giant monument" of anything outside a state courthouse is bound to piss somebody off. A giant Christmas tree outside a courthouse pisses people off. It only infringes upon someone's rights if they feel somehow oppressed by it. Do you feel that a monument of the 10 Commandments is an infringement upon your rights?

The monument on the lawn becomes an issue for a few reasons, which have generally been explained by others here. What I was trying to get at is the idea that the 10 commandments in a state court house are, at least by implication, placing the rule of law in the hands of God. A giant monument of the state's constitution, however garish and tacky, would be fine all around, since that document has an obvious relevance to the operation of the court. The 10 commandments however should be irrelevant, in and of themselves, to the court's rulings (granting some overlap between common law and the commandments).

Also, rather obviously, those of non-Judeo-Christian beliefs are entitled to the same rights and status as all others entering that court house. This equal status is unquestionably threatened by a massive monument to a particular justice's faith, and suggests that this faith will be given precedence over secular law.

So, in as much as the 10 commandments statue represents an unlawful privileging of one religion at the expense established law and other faiths, it becomes a problem, regardless of public approval.