Religion and Public Policy

A few things here but one overall question.

The first thing is-is there anything to support the validity of any religion that goes beyond the statement, "I believe it's true."?

If your answer to the above is yes please support your position and I would like to point out it needs to be something you don’t have to have faith in-in order for it to be valid.


To the main question of the thread which is in blue followed by a few supporting questions.

If the above answer is no, why should religious beliefs hold any weight in public discourse especially regarding public policy and politics?

How can the fraise “I believe it’s true” be the foundation for laws or the foundation of ideas that affect laws?

As a theist do you move God and your religion to the side when making decisions or forming opinions about public policy?

If your answer is yes how does your religion have any impact on society?

If the answer is no how could you claim people can keep their religion to themselves?

 

Hmmm....perhaps I should have added something insulting in the OP.

 

I guess it's not controversial enough...

 

I think there is more agreement from religious and non-religious folks on this issue than anyone might have thought. At least for the people who frequent this subforum. If you posted this in the Opinions section, it would probably get a little more traffic. I can't recall anyone in this section ever explicitly saying that religion should be a basis for public policy in general. Even in the ID/evolution debates, the creationists couch their argument as just giving equal time to ideas rather than basing any educational policy on religion. Really, I think "base public policy on religion" sounds like a bad idea to most anyone who says it out loud, even the very devout.

 

How about "only a idiot bases anything on any religion"

 

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.


I'd say you have to be one stupid individual to not want someone like this help formulate public policy.

 

And? What if I say the opposite how do we determine how to proceed? Our feelings, desires and beliefs are our own and in should no way should affect the freedom of others and furthermore have no place deciding matters of science and nature.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree and yet it happens all the time. Perhaps the conversation should then move to why it happens if theists and nontheists agree on the matter.

It's one thing for an atheist to speak out against it but another thing entirely for a theist to do so.

 

Science and nature? I thought we were talking public policy.

 

First off, I trust you know i was not being serious.

Second, those are great principles, in general. We dont want meekness in the air force of course.
Unless it is theirs!

Ths ideals expressed in Christian teachings are of course not unique or exclusive to that religion.

I think any good ideas should be considered regardless of source.

Anything for us to disagree about here?

 

(8-9) and who give food – however great be their own want of it – unto the needy, and the orphan, and the captive, [saying in their hearts,] “We feed you for the sake of God alone: we desire no recompense from you, nor thanks”.
(267) O you who have attained to faith! Spend on others out of the good things you have acquired, and out of that which We bring forth for you from the earth; and choose not for your spending the bad things which you yourselves would not accept without averting your eyes in disdain.

It would seem one would be stupid to not want someone like this help formulate public policy.

 

Stem Cell Research.

 

Here's a Creationists who has studied adult stem cells. Do you think all of his colleagues dismissed his work because of his faith?

http://www.icr.org/nathaniel_jeanson/

 

I hope so?

 

Most unlikely that anyone did.

I wish this would be understood by those who so loudly claim that there is this conspiracy
against any who challenge the ToE, that nobody who expresses an idea contrary to it could get published, that they will be mocked and ridiculed for this dread heresy.

Always nice to see some sanity. Tnx.

- - - Updated - - -

what is it you are hoping??

 

I watched the video in the link and couldn't help make a joke about it, as in hoping they dismissed his work because of his faith.

Obviously we know this is not how it works in science, they could care less what your favorite sports team is, they care about data.

 

You would've said the same thing about Louis Pasteur, too. Poor old George Washington Carver and his stupid Christian faith.

 

As long as they don't just revert to "god said so" when challenged on the value of these things, then I agree such a person would be ideal for guiding public policy.

 

Who would I of said this to and do they have a sense of humor?

 

I am for the moment just going to comment on the subject of the thread itself. IMHO.. this is a fantastic thread topic, as it also points to one of my previous claims that there is NO "separation of church and state".

Church being any gathering of people wherein there religious or non-religious views on any particular matter of policy are discussed and are used as a means of influencing the decisions that are made by the assembly. Because people of all religious and non-religious persuasions are involved in the making of public policy, I believe it impossible to form such an assembly of people for the purpose of making public policy without those in the assembly carrying with them the precepts of religion or non-religious teachings into that assembly. It was pointed out by one of the SCOTUS judges that she has a plaque on the wall (citing a scripture from the book of Deuteronomy) of her office to remind her of her duty. Another example is the entire legislature of the United States passing a bill just a few years ago, naming that particular year as the 'Year of the Bible'.

Nuff said for now.

 

Honestly, liberals have no problem invoking God when it suits their narrative. That may not be you, but it's certainly true of many progressives. And I say thank God for it! But what I do find interesting is the union between gay activists and the church is, well, there isn't one, save for a few denominations. Their strategy seems to be more to discredit God (perceiving God and believers as their enemy) than to use God to defend their unalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

 

I'm not sure how that connects with my post.

Anyway, at the risk of heading off on a tangent, that strategy is probably due to the fact that 99% of opposition to gay marriage comes from religion. Even when dressed up as tradition, that tradition is almost always religious in nature. Also, the argument from the gay community is about human rights, but there isn't any need to invoke the creator because we all agree that these unalienable rights exist.

 

I'm not trying to hijack your thread. Just making an observation.

 

Perhaps that may be due to the years of persecutions by those claiming to be christian?
Or what appears as christians not wanting them to have the same marital and perhaps adoption rights as non gays?
Think that may have something to do with their demeanor?

 

Perhaps you shouldn't have demanded that people prove things to you to respond to your OP. In a democracy with religious peoples, then religious positions hold merit because they are the positions of some of the electorate.

 

so if I were to suggest nude pentagram dancing at midnight on a full moon because, by the goddess, it promotes social cohesion and community spirit, you'd be a stupid individual to not want it considered in formulation of public policy?