How long until FlyFishingUte and WestCoastCutthroat get into a major argument?

[leftyjace]

Sorry, just pictured this in my head. A fisherman… with a Cutthroat jumping out of the water and nipping at him as he flies by… or taking his line and wrapping it around a rock or two…

[AZswayze]

I propose they settle their differences with a fish-off. Loser is never allowed to discuss politics again (no pressure FFU).

[Anonymous]

Cutthroats are the easiest Trout to catch  they’ve been known to take bare red hooks    They aren’t much of challenger to catch and they don’t fight much.  In fact the ones in strawberry reservoir have been known to just lay on their sides and let you drag them in. 

 

Since  S you mentioned politics I saw on the news this morning that Tru p vows to “destroy” laws seperdting church and state.  The next thing after that was Nordstrom drops IVanka Trump clothing and accessories line.  Somebody in the news room has a sense of humor.  I may open a Twitter account just to bait trump 

[Utah]

I’d be careful if I were religion. Religion is already losing a ton of their subscribers. If they were to suddenly go backwards and political from the pulpit, they’d lose a lot of their wavering followers. 

I attend Church weekly, but if they started pushing candidates and let down the shroud of being nonpolitical, that would be the last straw for me. 

I’d go find Jesus in the mountains, away from the money and greed. 

[Anonymous]

My “church” has been the mountains, the oceans, the flats on beaches for the last thirty years. I was raised Episcopalian but stopped going a long time ago. I did go to Christmas Eve services with my mom while I she was still alive so that she wouldn’t have to go by herself.
I’ve gotten to the point where I believe organized religion isn’t much different from a business. Some more so than others.

If people want to believe in religion I’ve no problem with that UNTIL it starts to bleed over into politics, then it becomes an issue.

[ironman1315]

If people want to believe in religion I’ve no problem with that UNTIL it starts to bleed over into politics, then it becomes an issue.

What do you mean by bleed over into politics? This is the confusing thing for me. When is religion “bleeding” into politics? Is it when the specific tenets of the religion bleed over? Because if so then it is arguable that murder is a tenet of religion. Or that liquor laws are a tenet of religion. Hell, abolitionism was a tenet of many northern religions. Even the Civil Rights movement was the product of some religions. Of course, a lot of these things also had good public policy reasons attached to them to make them good laws.

To me then, the question shouldn’t be about the source of the idea, whether it stems from religion or not, but rather whether the notion has a reasonable justification under a public policy analysis. Meaning that if an idea in politics comes from a religion it should not be dismissed out of hand because a religion dreamed up the idea. Rather it should be dismissed if the proponents of the idea cannot use public policy to convince the majority of legislators and the executive branch that enacting a certain statute would be good for the general public beyond, “This is what god says so pass it.”

[AZswayze]

Religion doesn’t have a monopoly on morals, and many of the values that the major religions espouse are completely immoral imo. Laws should never be created off the basis of personal faith. Murder, rape, robbery, etc, are bad for society, thus illegal. The bible is a testament to god’s vanity and immorality. Nearly half of the ten commandments deal with praising god for christ’s sake.

The god of the bible often condones murder, rape, slavery, and genocide, all while giving vague hints of the horrible place you will be sent to if you refuse to worship him. The last place we should be looking for moral guidance is the bible.

[ironman1315]

This is somewhat irrelevant to my question. The question was when does religion bleed into politics. For example, I believe that overprescribing narcotics is bad. I believe it sinful and immoral based upon an interpretation of my religious texts. If I run a bill that disincentives the overprescribing of narcotics is that religion bleeding into politics, assuming that I have reasonably strong public policy arguments to support the moral belief.

[AZswayze]

Definitely went on a bit of a tangent, but what set me off was your comment that it’s arguable that being against murder is a tenet of religion. While that is somewhat true (at times it’s perfectly acceptable in the bible), it doesn’t mean that this concept originated from the bible or any otber religious text, and it certainly has nothing to do with the validity of the law today.

As to your question, so long as there is evidence supporting the notion that something is a negative for society, then it’s irrelevant where the initial idea stemmed from. Now, if the basis of your argument refers back to a religious text, then we’re gonna have problems.

[ironman1315]

I agree there with murder, hence why I called it arguable. And I also agree that religions do not have a monopoly on morality. And murder has significant public policy considerations to support it. So, to me the question isn’t the “source” of the law but the policy analysis. If a “religious moral” (like my narcotic example) has sufficient policy reasons to back it then the law should be backed regardless of whether it started as a religious moral. Same thing with any other non-religious moral, if it can be backed with convincing policy then I believe it should be backed. But I think we are in agreement there.

[AZswayze]

I edited my post and answered your question, so you may have missed it. Yes, I believe we are in agreement. Sorry if my post came of a little rude. I’m just very passionate about this topic.

[Stone]

I completely agree. The source of hte policy is irrelevant. The policy should be judged on its merits, regardless of source. I do think that many so-called “religious” policies have reasonably good policy considerations that have nothing to do with God, but those reasons are often not well articulated by supporters of the policy.

For example, take prohibiting non-essential businesses from being open on Sundays. Because of the day (Sunday), it would seem purely religiously motivated. And, frankly, it probably generally is religoiusly motivated. However, one could argue that the idea of reducing the number of days a week that an employee needs to work is good for society on a whole (allows employees to spend time with friends/family, relax, be less bured out). The politcal left (which would shudder to endorse a religioiusly motivated law) typically endorses such policies that reduce work hours and improve working conditions. So even the left would agree that there are merits to limiting the number of days businesses can force their employees to work. The point being, the source of the policy should be irrelevant, the debate should be about the merits of the policy, not the motivation or source. The reason for the law should never be “because God says so.”

[utefansince79]

The great outdoors is a great place to find spirituality.  

 

[Anonymous]

when Larry Miller is able to convince the legislature to pass a law mandating car dealerships be open only six days a week is when it bleeds over into politics. Larry didn’t want Carmax to be able to sell on sunday so he went to Margaret Dayton and got the law passed.

People come to the U.S. for Freedom OF and Freedom FROM religion.

[ironman1315]

So, to be clear, you’re saying that religion bleeding into politics means that someone uses a religious tenet and enacts it into law for reasons not tied to legitimate public policy concerns, or for arbitrary and capricious reasons, correct?

[AZswayze]

I’ll give you some examples:

1. Gay marriage. I don’t know any non-religious people who are against it, and the “secular” arguments I’ve heard are devoid of evidence.

2. Creationism in public schools. Yes, this is still a topic of concern in the South, and with Betsy Devos poised to take over as Secretary of Education it may rear its head on a national level.

3. Abortion. Not as cut and dry as the previous two, as roughly 19% of non-religious people believe abortion is immoral. Still, the argument made by the vast majority is that life begins at conception, and that precept was taken directly from the bible.

[ironman1315]

You have provided examples which are instructive. But the common thread seems to be a lack of proper policy justifications, is that correct?

[Anonymous]

pretty much. I’m saying that religious reasons, which was larry’s reason for the law, google Margaret Dayton’s comments about the law, should not be the ONLY reason for public policy. Her comments were very telling about this law

you cited murder in your earlier post, I would hope that in this day and age we wouldn’t need religion to tell us that murder, theft etc is wrong. Granted those types of laws have religious roots but they are also for the common good.

[leftyjace]

Moved to Politics due to thread hijacking of a fun post made in jest.

😀

[AZswayze]

Sorry, didn’t mean for it to go that route. My comment was just due to the fact that both those posters like to argue politics. Had no idea it would spawn actual political discussions.

[leftyjace]

No worries. I figured it might go in that direction 🙂
I moved categories. No harm done.

[ironman1315]

My fault. Sorry.

[leftyjace]

It’s fine, amigo. Free flowing discussion is the name of the game, right? All good.

[Anonymous]

I respect my fellow fisherman. I don’t mix politics with fishing. I’d prefer don’t ask, don’t tell. However, in my experience, very few fishermen are liberals. Same with hunters. I’ll leave it at that.

You can check the records, but I am pretty certain that I have never/ever directly replied to the person in question on these Forums, which is consistent with my statements above.

[Author]

Posts