Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
In our LDS culture, I notice many persons who try to make public policy based on scripture, which although scripture does not offend me, policy in a diverse culture based on scripture or at least justifying it thereon is misplaced.
In fact, outside of a pure religion thread, it makes no sense to refer to religion at all in discussing any matters not specifically designed to be religious.
Most policies can be understood in terms of economics, taxes, security, liberties but usually end up as social failures when we rely upon a nonconsensus religious belief, "morality", "humanity" or other vague, standardless notions.
Now I don't see a need for religious arguments to necessarily rely upon scientific proofs or other tangible evidence, although it makes it more practical if they do.
The failure of the religionists makes it difficult to discourse with the nonreligionists especially in the political arena. Now the atheists or agnostics frequently debate in "human" terms which also should be dismissed as those are vague, meaningnless terms.
|
What if parts of your religion help to frame certain aspects of your political thought?
Does it then not make any sense to discuss religion?
For example, when it comes to abortion, it'll be pretty much impossible to the end of time to discuss that political topic without religious under or overtones being a prime part of the debate.
That's just one example.