|
Post by amoyensis on Nov 15, 2006 11:15:45 GMT -5
You're missing the point. For sure it isn't as clear-cut as 'REAL Christians vote for ___ party'. It's not about whether or not we read the Bible, it's about whether we should use Christianity as a tool for political influence. That's how 'Christianity mixing with politics' is being used. As I said before, I think Christians should care enough about political issues to be more aware voters, rather than less.
|
|
|
Post by safehaven on Nov 15, 2006 11:46:17 GMT -5
So we should use the Bible for our own political decisions, but we shouldn't try to influence other people with it or what?
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Nov 15, 2006 15:46:30 GMT -5
Again, missing the point. For sure it isn't as clear-cut as 'REAL Christians vote for ___ party'.
|
|
|
Post by safehaven on Nov 15, 2006 15:59:43 GMT -5
Excuse me for asking questions for clarification.
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Nov 15, 2006 16:29:32 GMT -5
No worries, I do the same.
|
|
|
Post by jupiter on Jul 23, 2007 21:52:27 GMT -5
Peoples religious sensibilities should be left out of politics entirely. Political decisions need to be guided by reason and logic, not superstition.
We shouldn't have a political system where people are trying to guess if Jesus would raise property tax, or if Allah wants changes to the drug laws. "Spiritual truths" are fine for anybody to talk about in their home, at their church or where ever, so long as they stay out of politics.
I hate what religion does to politics. It completely stops conversations on important issues. Instead of having reasonable discussions about the morality of stem cell research, abortion, or gay marriage we have idiots yelling back and for "I think God is for it." "I think he's against it." "You're evil, and not a real (insert whatever religion here)." "No, you're evil, and not a real (insert whatever religion here)." ad nauseum.
The sooner religion is completely removed from all political discussions, the sooner we can start actually solving problems.
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Jul 25, 2007 17:13:27 GMT -5
Well... you're describing a certain type of religion, to be sure. But I think religion can certainly be used to make up your mind, if you really respect the opinion of your God. But when making a political decision based upon religion, the decision-maker needs to actually back up what they're saying with good evidence and reason that they're right. If the majority of the people are religious, and make a decision based upon their religion, I think it is absolutely right that they win the argument. majority is majority; the reasons for their decision don't come into it. But not all religious arguments are irrational, just as not all secular arguments are rational.
|
|
|
Post by jupiter on Jul 26, 2007 22:02:02 GMT -5
But, as you say, religiously motivated political decisions should still be backed up by reason and evidence. If thats the case, then why not dump the religion part all together? If your reason and evidence are good enough, you don't need to even factor in religion.
Suppose someone decides "I'm going to vote for a better health care system. Here are my reasons:
- All people deserve health care. - Our reactionary health care system is near useless. - Privatized health care leads to two tiers, and problems with some hospitals getting doctors. - I believe that Apollo is unhappy with the current system."
Is the will of Apollo really relevant? Of course not. Insert any deity you want there, and it still doesn't matter. The first 3 reasons are fine all on their own. There's no need to waste time deciding which gods are or are not on board with this plan.
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Jul 28, 2007 18:13:30 GMT -5
Yes there is. As someone who is distant from religion, you do not seem to understand that a God's opinion influences a religious person's decision. This makes sense; you just don't see it. The wishes of Apollo are enough without the others, to someone who believes in Apollo.
You are also assuming that religion has nothing to do wth reason and evidence. However, I know many people who back up their religion with reason and evidence, and vice versa. Ever read C.S. Lewis?
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on Jul 28, 2007 19:55:11 GMT -5
Yes there is. As someone who is distant from religion, you do not seem to understand that a God's opinion influences a religious person's decision. This makes sense; you just don't see it. The wishes of Apollo are enough without the others, to someone who believes in Apollo. You are also assuming that religion has nothing to do wth reason and evidence. However, I know many people who back up their religion with reason and evidence, and vice versa. Ever read C.S. Lewis? Logic is flawed because it is human. To be human is to be flawed. Logic comes from humans, and is by logical principle, flawed. While logic can be applied to most things, sometimes it fails. As Holmes said in "The Sign of Four", “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” Philosophy rises and falls in popularity. The age of the Philosophes was directly followed by the Romantic period: a time of fantasy and surrealism. Neither school of thought is supreme. Both must be used with the other.
|
|
|
Post by Heretic on Jul 28, 2007 21:28:17 GMT -5
Leave it be, Azrael. He was agreeing with you.
|
|
|
Post by jupiter on Jul 29, 2007 11:16:09 GMT -5
Yes there is. As someone who is distant from religion, you do not seem to understand that a God's opinion influences a religious person's decision. This makes sense; you just don't see it. The wishes of Apollo are enough without the others, to someone who believes in Apollo. But, in a mature political discourse the will of Apollo (or Jupiter, or Horus, or Mithra) couldn't matter less. They are simply time wasters. But if people want their magic god's opinions to be heard, we can strike a deal. Whenever a political debate is being had any god who shows up (in person) may offer his or her thoughts on the matter. You are also assuming that religion has nothing to do wth reason and evidence. However, I know many people who back up their religion with reason and evidence, and vice versa. Ever read C.S. Lewis? I have read C.S. Lewis. I didn't find any "evidence" in his writings. He used the same arguments to justify his god that people have been using to justify their gods for ever. He avoided some of the sillier religious nonsense, but thats about all the credit I could give him.
|
|
|
Post by jupiter on Jul 29, 2007 20:22:13 GMT -5
I disagree. Seperating religion from politics means just that. It does no good to simply seperate only the least popular religions from politics.
Suppose 60% of a population believe in the Roman gods, 20% the Greek, and the other 20% are Christians, Muslims and Jews.
Give these stats is the opinion of Jupiter really greater than that Zues? And the opinion of Zues really greater than that of Jehovah? Of course not. A god's popularity at any given time would have no impact on their existence.
Its easy to see that the inevitable debates of "Jupiter thinks x" "Zues thinks y" and "Jehovah thinks z" would be an incredible waste of time as they would only slow down debate. It would be just as worthwhile as a debate like: "Superman thinks x" "Aquaman thinks y" and "Speed Racer thinks z".
|
|
|
Post by Heretic on Jul 29, 2007 20:37:47 GMT -5
Oh aye?
And endlessly worrying about which minority or extremely politically correct wingnut, atheist or otherwise, is going to be offended by such and such a bill or law is much better, I suppose?
|
|
|
Post by jupiter on Jul 29, 2007 22:07:05 GMT -5
I'm not talking about being politically correct. Political correctness is a waste of time, honesty is much better.
I advocate a political discourse where we check our religious view points at the door. Politics can be dogmatic enough on its own, there's no need to compound the problem.
|
|