No. We are to determine what is best for society regardless of anyones religious beliefs.

Who determines which religious belief is correct?

Religion or non-religion doesn't even have to be part of the question. Politics should be based on what is best for scociety .. PERIOD .. not what conforms to religion or non-religion.

I believe as Thomas Jefferon believed on the question of religion in politics.

Then the boy is confused. I have done no such thing.

And yes, IIIX, I'm showing uncharacteristic patience here - trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

But the point is "what is best for society" depends on your metaphysical and moral beleifs! It's not like we can objectively "test" what is "best for society" and come to an answer everyone agrees on.


I'd prefer the individual did. Including individuals in politics.

Again, "best for society" means different things to different people. Some of those differences are based entirely on which religious precepts they believe (or do not believe).

Once again you open the discussion by disparaging my knowledge of history based entirely upon your own bias, assumptions and need to attack.

Since this is your second repeat offense, I have only two letters in reply for you.

F-U

You are incorrigible and not worthy of civil discussion. You just throw insults. I refuse to play that game.

Insulted twice in one day is more than enough for me.

Goodbye.

Excellent religious response.

I've offered no insult. You refuse to debate because you are incapable of doing so .. which I already knew.

True, but that does not mean that ones morality or metaphysical beliefs are based on religion. Morality does not begin and end with religion, which is often a stated or presumed befief that has little to do with reality. Christians are the most divorced people in America.

That would be a personal choice, but fortunately, America does not share that view. When John Kennedy was elected President he had to demonstrate that he would NOT impose his religion on his political descisions. The same is true for Mitt Romney as he runs for President.

No better demonstrated than on the question of abortion. Regardless of ones religion, you don't have to raise the child.

To another poster:
In your own words Mad_Michael, You just throw insults. I refuse to play that game. Our readers, if there are any, will be best judges.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Why can't I buy beer at 08PM sharp? What's the why here?

Now, I don't really expect an answer here, as I can't imagine you're the kind of christian that supports these laws. What I'm saying is religious people have already stepped over the line and should clear up after themselves pretty quickly.


This whole morality thing depends on the moral in question. If you propose a rule (wheter originally religious or not) if it can be justified in a non-religious way, I'd say it's ok. Like, the Kosher was 3-4000 years ago (perhaps for health reasons). However, Kosher today is a rule that cannot be justified, since there's no reason to believe pigs meat are more 'dirty' than for other animals.

Likewise, the perverse abrahamic laws about killing women if doubt that they've been cheating was much more valid back then, as you do want to be the father of your own children. Nowadays, we have scret cams, private detectives, and DNA-tests, which can deal with most of these issues (thought not completely).

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

I'm not sure what to make of this post. Much of it seems pointlessly imflamatory.

But I'll still stand by my basic premise that we can't tell some people that their morality and metaphysical views are forbidden in politics just because we have decided to call them "religious" while other moralities and metaphysical views, which we've chosen not to call "religious" are just fine.

In the end I think that the people and their representatives should be able to propose and vote for (or against) any politcal policy they want, regardless of whether it's origins were religiously inspired or otherwise.

As you suspected I have no idea why you can't buy a beer after 8. The possible justification for that eludes me.

However it makes me wonder (in a rather off topic kind of way) about the demographics of Norway. Is there a religious majority there? If not, doesn't the existence of these laws imply that quite a few people are supporting them for non-religious reasons? I honestly don't know. Just curious.

My only concern with this view hangs on the meaning of "it's ok".

If you're saying that a rule must be justified non-religiously in order for you to support it (vote for it), then I think that's a fine position to take and makes good sense.

But if you're saying that a rule must be justified non-religiously in order to even be put to a vote, then I think that's an unjustified restriction on democracy that prohibits a specific (type of) metaphysical view.

Nothing I've said was meant to be inflammatory .. which is also the problem with religion in politics. Religion is not to be questioned.

It does not matter if individuals use religion, science, or belief in aliens in determining their individual choice in politics. Individual choice is not the question. The question is whether religion should be imposed in the politics of the country.

Take the question of homosexuality. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what christianity or any religion has to say about homosexuality .. tell me what the rationale, factual, or common sense reason is that homosexuals should be banned from society. The truth is that there is none.

If ones religion says that they shouldn't be a homosexual, then don't be one, but that has nothing to do with society.

Individual choice is not the question.

Now I'm just playing devils advocate here, if you look at my posting history I don't personally believe this next part. But the people in the religious right will tell you they believe banning homosexuality is beneficial for society. You might not agree, but they will argue till the end of the world that they are doing a good for all of society (including the homosexuals)

Just a reminder i I don't agree with this logic.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Again, I fully agree that religion should not be imposed.

But the notion of forbidding that a piece of legislation be allowed to go through the system because it is of "religious" origin is absurd, as is telling people that they can't act on their metaphysical or moral beliefs because those beliefs happen to fall into the "religious" catagory.
That's all I'm trying to say. I hope you'll agree with that.

There's about 80% or norwegians being christian, but that's on paper. I'm christian myself on paper, because I was baptized (which is very common in Norway) and we have a state-church, which means I'm "born" christian. I myself find this rule despicable as I was not born unable to make any theological choice. But I don't think it's fair that I should resign from something I never joined. But I'm thinking of doing it, just haven't got around to do it... In practice, something like 20% or norwegians believe in God "for real", althought almost 50% of the population wants to keep the state-church, because it is then partially under the control of the government which again

I work at the local store (and have worked in another one before) and no one has ever expressed support of that law. There's just no common sense in it...

If laws can be put foreward justified with religion (nothing) we will end up getting laws that forces incestous rules on us. Do you think non-religious people should be forced to do that?

It doesn't prohibit a metaphysical view, but the enforcement of that rule upon others.

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash