[kudzudemon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you "wouldn't mind" morality laws against gambling, alcohol, violence/sex in movies/videogames/television, or most stuff on the internet?

Sounds good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop polluting my thread with this garbage. I don't care about inane points you can find in 100 different posts on the forum. It's a philosophical challenge, not a freaking cakewalk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but juntmonkey makes a solid point. Your challenge that "religous morality is given a bad rap" and, I think, your assertion that it is something you'd be willing to live with is self delusional and indicative of why your question can't be answered simply. Most of the policies you may have been soliciting, from both sides, spring from similar ethical and spiritual thought, and can't be so easily divorced from one another.

Religious morality does not exist in a vacuum, and any attempt to use it as a legislative tool is almost sure to unleash the negative aspects Juntmonkey is alluding to.

You posted the original question (and a very interesting one, I think) to engage in dialogue and debate, and he just punched a little hole, fairly, in one of your answers to your "philosophical challenge". I don't think his point was inane at all.

That said, as a sort of lesser of evils argument, I would be willing to live with less government regulation of corporate environmental policies, and hope like hell the bastards could govern themselves.

If I misunderstood your "religious morality" argument, my apologies. But I tend to agree with Juntmonkey.