[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I'm not walking a fine line... I'm not discussing religious ideas in themselves. I'm discussing the role and place of religion in society.

And you haven't really addressed my point. I was saying that law in most Western societies are based on rationale not belief.

The laws which tax cigarettes and alcohol higher than the price of food can be justified rationally.

Also... of course I don't expect people to put away their moral compass when making laws. However I do expect (at least in my country)... that my government, (whether I agree with it or not) can rationally justify their decisions in the spirit of the principles it was founded on.

To me that means that religion remain in the domain of the individual.

Oh and what was wrong with my Iran comment? Iran is a society which implements Muslim Shari'a law. I'm sure you can connect the dots.

Oh please, that comments speaks much of what you think about "certain" people.

In essence you want people to think your way to justify themselves when it comes to them proposing ideas and laws. NO go. Religion is not just some behind the closet deal, those who hold such ideas have the same "rational" as you do when it comes them supporting/non ideas and laws. A lot of the government ideas and practices can arguably find themselves based in religion. To say the government needs to justify themselves based on YOUR belief is the same coin. They only thing that matters when it comes to law is the base of the Government of which it is founded i.e. as long as the law doesn't go against those, there's no argument as long as the majority of people agree to it.

did you not see the point in that line? In the context I was connecting to how laws cannot be fair to everyone, to do so would be anarchy.

In what point does " most western societies are based on rationale..." have with this? I'll say again what I'm arguing, each person has the right based on belief of what they will support/non, by that if so the majority agrees that value can be interpreted into law in support of the documents of the government. That is saying government is the extension of the common people right to support that which they fine legal and just. That is not to say all laws are right, and everything that is right is law. Wither the people say based on whatever philosophy that they agree to, it is there right to judge that, and vote/non against what they believe in.

even discussing this matter in the tone that we are, IS walking an fine line.