#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Religious Ideology versus Political Ideology: What\'s the differenc
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What do you think people should make decisions based on? [/ QUOTE ] personal preference. [/ QUOTE ] Do you think "personal preference" encompasses your religious and political beliefs or that they are somehow separate? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Religious Ideology versus Political Ideology: What\'s the differenc
[ QUOTE ]
When you argue only from belief then counter arguments feel like personal attacks against you. [/ QUOTE ] All arguments are based on belief... hell, all thought is based on belief. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Religious Ideology versus Political Ideology: What\'s the difference?
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing most will sacrifice there beliefs more money [/ QUOTE ] No, that just means they're lying about their beliefs. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Religious Ideology versus Political Ideology: What\'s the differenc
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Nothing most will sacrifice there beliefs more money [/ QUOTE ] No, that just means they're lying about their beliefs. [/ QUOTE ] Or just that money lies as a higher priority. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Religious Ideology versus Political Ideology: What\'s the differenc
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What do you think people should make decisions based on? [/ QUOTE ] personal preference. [/ QUOTE ] Do you think "personal preference" encompasses your religious and political beliefs or that they are somehow separate? [/ QUOTE ] I think it encompasses both. They [political and religious beliefs] are not a matter of being right or wrong, which for the most part isnt demonstratable anyway, but, rather, represent a diverse range of personal preferences. Just like we have a diverse range of nations following different preferences, so too each nations have diverse ranges of people's beliefs within. To divide people by their national borders rather than through preferential association is a big mistake IMO. The goal of the state's purpose claims to be the public's interest however only private political divides exist so far as i can tell. For example, half of america wanted to go to war and a slightly smaller half didnt, how do you think this issue is best settled? I compare it to the bridge analogy offered by bryan caplan: You have 100 people standing by a bridge, 51 say jump, 49 say no. Do the 51 have a right to jump AND push the 49 who refuse? |
|
|