Political and policy arguments:

[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.

[RockyBalboa]

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.

[pecking]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

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.

How about simplying debating whether or not abortion is humane? That's a great discussion without religion having to be a part of it at all.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by pecking

How about simplying debating whether or not abortion is humane? That's a great discussion without religion having to be a part of it at all.

I see your point, but it inevitably comes back to why it is or isn't. Get my point?

[pecking]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I see your point, but it inevitably comes back to why it is or isn't. Get my point?

Why does religion have to determine whether or not something is humane?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by pecking

Why does religion have to determine whether or not something is humane?

Why does it not?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Why does it not?

A lot of great humanist thinkers were atheists.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

A lot of great humanist thinkers were atheists.

Ya think?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Ya think?

The only logical starting point is utilitarian point of views. If there isn't some utilitarian purpose, then we don't even need to start.

And if Mormons shed their reliance upon faith-based arguments, it will strengthen their intellects and useufulness in the modern world.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The only logical starting point is utilitarian point of views. If there isn't some utilitarian purpose, then we don't even need to start.

And if Mormons shed their reliance upon faith-based arguments, it will strengthen their intellects and useufulness in the modern world.

I would argue a lot of Non-Mormons base their opinions based on upon faith based issues as well.