Board Thread:Suggestions forum/@comment-174.22.192.132-20161104024309/@comment-26041296-20161213021937

Catfishperson wrote:

Rocket Engineer wrote: @catfishperson is it acceptable to you to agree to disagree on the matter of where morals come from? In all honesty neither of us have any evidence which can stand up without making assumptions.

Let me clarify a bit. When I say religion should be involved in politics, I mean the general ideals which are held almost universally by religions, something which I believe is referred to as the religion of America. (I can dig up a source for that if you want)   I don't mean a specific church or anything like that.

Regarding the quote, this was my main source, but I can find others if that one isn't satisfactory. Are you sure your quote was from George Washington? All I can find is that it was from Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, and it seems to be a point of contention as to what exactly it was supposed to mean. Sorry, what assumptions was I making?

Alright, but which of these "Universal religious ideals" would we not have without religion?

My question was as to which ideas in the constitution were religious in origin, I had not heard of that before. I am also fairly certain that my quote was from GW as well, it being from a treaty doesn't delegitimize it. What points of contention were there?

@Eoros, As Grievous pointed out, the Vatican is hardly an example of a political center. Its entire population is literately less than a quarter that of my school. However, I guess my statement was a little too broad. There have been times in history where religion and politics have mixed and been okay (Still many, many more where they has not.) In today's age with a society so diverse as ours, people making political decisions based on thousand year old scriptures, will do nothing but slow our society's progression, if not directly cause violence and suffering where it is not necessary. On that last part... Human Progress (at least the original idea) has roots in the Bible. While you are correct to say some in politics use scriptures to hinder the progression of society, it is incorrect to say political decisions based on scriptures cause violence or slow down the progression of society, because that particular statement is an assumption.

However, I find it interesting that you didn't specify what kind of progress the scriptures hinder when it's used in making a political decision... (Society can progress forward or backwards if you take my meaning.)