The part that bothers me about mixing religion and politics is that it weakens the arguments and it inserts an image of "belief without facts".
It weakens the arguments because it just ends them. In other words, there is some salient point under discussion, but it ends because somebody says "because it comes from God" or "because God wants it that way". That's not an argument. That's a belief.
Second, the lefties out there love to hate religion. Anything given in a religious context is immediately dismissed as fantasy. It gives them the opening to disregard everything you have said even if everything else was backed by fact.
The example that comes to mind is what is a "right". I've heard several of the right wing pundits say that all rights come from God. OK... what if you don't believe in God? Better yet, we know that God does not have a direct influence on us, or, if he does, then it is so undecipherable to us that we can't recognize it. So to say that rights come from God, or that morality comes from God, it weakens the arguments.
They need to make a case for their points without adding God. In writing, we call it Deus ex machina, the hand of God. It's what you do if you've written yourself into a corner and need something miraculous to save the day. It's a let down to the reader.
The same holds true to arguments.
There are a lot of people out there that hate and fear religion. I am not saying to pander to those people, many of them are idiots. However, if you make your arguments about politics or the way things should work using rational, well documented and researched arguments, then you'll win more minds.
I also get super sick of Beck's rants, just as I am totally sick of most of Micheal Savage's rants. Their conspiracy theories and other side topics do nothing but damage the image and credibility of the conservative movement. They do hit on a grain of truth from time to time, but they often miss the real importance of what they are talking about. You can be both flamboyant and entertaining without being a whacko. The best of the bunch so far has been Bill O'Reilly. He's more sane and makes good points, but still throws in too much religious context.
Religion can be the foundation of your life. I understand that. But to ignorantly say that "we deserve it because God loves us" or things of that nature, only prove to many other people that you're not right in the head. If you believe that, then obviously everything else you believe in is bunk, from the perspective of an atheist.
A more convincing argument is that people created God to provide a vehicle for our own emerging humanity and our belief that life is sacred and important. That every person has a right to live their life without persecution. That's the way that politics should be approached. There is a right and a wrong and we know what that is. Maybe God gave that to us, maybe we gave it to God. It doesn't really matter when the discussion is about why health insurance reform democrat style is a bad thing.
It weakens the arguments because it just ends them. In other words, there is some salient point under discussion, but it ends because somebody says "because it comes from God" or "because God wants it that way". That's not an argument. That's a belief.
Second, the lefties out there love to hate religion. Anything given in a religious context is immediately dismissed as fantasy. It gives them the opening to disregard everything you have said even if everything else was backed by fact.
The example that comes to mind is what is a "right". I've heard several of the right wing pundits say that all rights come from God. OK... what if you don't believe in God? Better yet, we know that God does not have a direct influence on us, or, if he does, then it is so undecipherable to us that we can't recognize it. So to say that rights come from God, or that morality comes from God, it weakens the arguments.
They need to make a case for their points without adding God. In writing, we call it Deus ex machina, the hand of God. It's what you do if you've written yourself into a corner and need something miraculous to save the day. It's a let down to the reader.
The same holds true to arguments.
There are a lot of people out there that hate and fear religion. I am not saying to pander to those people, many of them are idiots. However, if you make your arguments about politics or the way things should work using rational, well documented and researched arguments, then you'll win more minds.
I also get super sick of Beck's rants, just as I am totally sick of most of Micheal Savage's rants. Their conspiracy theories and other side topics do nothing but damage the image and credibility of the conservative movement. They do hit on a grain of truth from time to time, but they often miss the real importance of what they are talking about. You can be both flamboyant and entertaining without being a whacko. The best of the bunch so far has been Bill O'Reilly. He's more sane and makes good points, but still throws in too much religious context.
Religion can be the foundation of your life. I understand that. But to ignorantly say that "we deserve it because God loves us" or things of that nature, only prove to many other people that you're not right in the head. If you believe that, then obviously everything else you believe in is bunk, from the perspective of an atheist.
A more convincing argument is that people created God to provide a vehicle for our own emerging humanity and our belief that life is sacred and important. That every person has a right to live their life without persecution. That's the way that politics should be approached. There is a right and a wrong and we know what that is. Maybe God gave that to us, maybe we gave it to God. It doesn't really matter when the discussion is about why health insurance reform democrat style is a bad thing.
Comment