Mitt Romney and Mormonism

[scaeagles]

Where does it say that religion has no place in politics? This is an opinion, just as saying that religion has a place in politics.

Religion in many builds a sense of right and wrong that is no different than the sense of right and wrong that you may have, though they are most likely different. Because my sense of right and wrong may include religious influences and yours does not does not mean mine is less valid.

You would be just as much against someone who says that because a fetus can experience pain at such and such a week in utero or that since a fetus is viable after such and such a week in utero that abortion should be outlawed after that point as you would to someone who used religious justification for the same desire to outlaw it. You may say you respect the reasons more, but you would still be against it. Those are non-religious reasons.

Not to bring up a sore subject, but there was a discussion about the horrible practice of aborting a baby in India simply because it is female. Why is the disgust at that reason any more valid than disgust at it for a religious reason?

Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the founders of this country were religious individuals (overall) and without those religious individuals involved in politics with their religious viewpoints coming into play, this country would not exist.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Where does it say that religion has no place in politics? This is an opinion, just as saying that religion has a place in politics.

Religion in many builds a sense of right and wrong that is no different than the sense of right and wrong that you may have, though they are most likely different. Because my sense of right and wrong may include religious influences and yours does not does not mean mine is less valid.

You would be just as much against someone who says that because a fetus can experience pain at such and such a week in utero or that since a fetus is viable after such and such a week in utero that abortion should be outlawed after that point as you would to someone who used religious justification for the same desire to outlaw it. You may say you respect the reasons more, but you would still be against it. Those are non-religious reasons.

Not to bring up a sore subject, but there was a discussion about the horrible practice of aborting a baby in India simply because it is female. Why is the disgust at that reason any more valid than disgust at it for a religious reason?

Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the founders of this country were religious individuals (overall) and without those religious individuals involved in politics with their religious viewpoints coming into play, this country would not exist.

Ok, so it's an opinion. Fine. The thing is, that in using religious justifications, how do you tell someone of a different religion that they have to live under the rules of your god? Saying a fetus is viable at a particular point or can feel pain are reasons that all people can discuss, arguments that I could accept, regardless of my agreement or disagreement, where "my god says it's wrong" is countered by "your god is not my god and my god says it's fine". When making laws, we need rational reasons, to be accepted by all people, not just people of a given religion.

For you personally, yes, your religious values systems hold value. But if you wish to convince me, of a competing religious system, you will need more than just religion.

I'm not sure how religious our founders really were; they lived in a time of essentially compulsory religion, though it had eased somewhat. Belief did not matter much. Yes, our founding documents call on god, but I have a feeling it was more form than substance. Maybe it had to appeal to the broad spectrum of citizens, none of whom would have found it easy to stand up and object. I think it was kind of like the rounds a while ago of "why do you hate America" if one objected to current administration policy.