Seen online

[markbark]

Since the Bible says to not charge interest on loans to the needy, Democrats should introduce a bill that removes all interest on student loans and use Exodus 22:25-27 as justification. Let Republicans state out loud and repeatedly that the Bible should not be used to make policy. (since the whack-job right seems to have an affinity for Leviticus 18:22 as justification for so much horrific legislation)

[ret5hd]

1. We should not cross that line.

[Eko]

2. Why shouldnt we?

[Mr. Evil]

6. Exactly.

The bible should apply to everyone and their relevant situation.

[Eko]

10. I wouldnt say that

But I have no problem with using someones logic against them. As for me I'm an atheist so I dont care about it.

[markbark]

3. Why not?

The untethered attack squirrels of the ridiculous right have been using scripture to justify their most heinous legislative agenda for decades. Using their tactics against them would seem to be fair play. I know Rs are immune to shame, logic and hypocrisy is just business as usual for them, but dammit why leave ammo in the can? Again I say since they're happy to use the fanfic of their invisible friend to further their agenda, why shouldn't the left use the same tactics?

[ret5hd]

5. When we cede the argument that we...

have a secular government we have lost much more than we have gained.

I, for one, do not welcome our religious overlords.

[Eko]

11. Its more using their argument against them.

No one here is saying to make laws based on the bible just to help justify morally right laws in the language they might understand.

[ret5hd]

12. Use logic, explain the rationale, and leave the religion...

in church.

[Eko]

13. As much as I wished that would work

It just doesn't for the most part. Its not using religion as much as speaking the language they are. If logic worked we wouldn't be in this problem would we?

[Eko]

14. Besides, using rationales

from their religious book to effect positive change is using logic.

[ret5hd]

15. You are acknowledging the legitimacy of...

using the government to accomplish a particular sects religious goals. In what section of the law would you quote this text? In the title? Subsection d of paragraph 3?

Carry on. I believe a secular government is best.

[Eko]

19. What religous goals?

For some reason I can't find removing interest on student loans to low income people in any bible. Anything other than a secular government would be insane. I'm not sure if you realize it but I am an atheist.

[ret5hd]

20. That religion is a legitimate basis of governance.

[Eko]

21. I have never said that at all.

[Eko]

22. Is not killing a religious goal?

It is in the 10 commandments so maybe we should not have it as a law since its furthering a religious goal. You dont have to explain to me that it is a universal thing, I know that. So is helping low income people.

[ret5hd]

24. You seem really invested in this idea.

[Eko]

25. Yes, I am very invested in the idea that killing is not something we want.

I'm surprised that its a surprise to you.

[ret5hd]

26. Now you choose to be obtuse. Good bye.

[ret5hd]

16. For simplicity, maybe we could name the laws...

after the Bible verse, like “Exodus 22”. Then everyone would know where to find the verse that gives our laws legitimacy.

[live love laugh]

17. I agree ret5hd. This is a very slippery slope. nt

[Eko]

23. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

Its not a good reason for a argument for or against something.

[Fozzledick]

4. Why not go all out and just declare a Jubilee Year?

[NQAS]

7. Religion aside...

Late payment and fees for installments on tax payments should be eliminated. It’s an unnecessary penalty on those who need or want to pay over time, especially at the lower end of the income spectrum.

[seta1950]

8. It is good strategy

[mwooldri]

9. It's also un-Islamic to charge interest.

So we can throw that out there too.

[Duppers]

18. K & R