Second Line of Reasoning - Religion

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) spent three years researching the issues of religious freedom and civil rights-- areas of debate that have found themselves in direct opposition of each other. They published their reasonings in early September.


A member of the USCCR, Peter Kirsanow, very adequately described this engagement by saying, “The passions involved may be fiercer than in any civil rights struggle since the 1960s… The first, which is secularism, holds an individual’s unfettered sexual self-expression as a preeminent concern because it is an aspect of their self-creation… The second (religious)… is that individuals are not their own judge, but rather are subject to divine law and divine judgment. The morality of a person’s conduct does not ultimately depend upon whether he thinks it is right, or whether it accords with his desires, but whether it conforms to divine law."


Those are two completely different world views trying to be reconciled by the nation’s best lawyers with very little success. Ultimately, Kirsanow concluded, "This debate will likely dominate civil-rights discourse for at least a generation."


According to numerous right-wing reports, in the studies that were recently published by the USCCR, the chairman had said, “‘Religious freedom’ and ‘religious liberty’ have become merely ‘code words’ for intolerance... and thus they must yield before anti-discrimination laws.”


Though that line of reason may not be cogent and very fallacious, Journalist Emma Green gives a great line of reasoning in response to this: “There’s no easy formula for pre-determining when each should be given precedence, particularly when they clash in fundamental ways.”


Green’s inductive reasoning is very careful and thoughtful, and as a result I find it cogent. She may not give a total solution to this war, but in essence she is saying if we forge ahead with the idea that one side will eventually ‘win’ and the other will be subject to it, we’ll have conflict which echoes the holy wars between Islam and Christianity during the crusades.


I also see no fallacies in her reasoning. Though she comes close, she does not make any sweeping generalizations, while also avoiding fallacious argument to moderation, by saying there are “no formulas” because she said there are “no easy formulas.” She also did not take a polar either/or position, because she recognizes these are clashes of cultures which have produced intrinsic values and beliefs with many conflicting definitions, which would be very hard circumstances to always find compromise or to always favor one side.