[The Clockwork Rat]

This is the Sociology sub-forum. I am not rejecting the validity of religious-moral arguments in general, only saying that they do not belong in a social science sub-forum. Thank you.

[Drlee]

This is the Sociology sub-forum. I am not rejecting the validity of religious-moral arguments in general, only saying that they do not belong in a social science sub-forum. Thank you

Tell me. How do you discuss sociology without discussing the elephant in the corner. No institution, bar none, has a greater effect on society than religion. Sociology is, arguably, the product of religious-moral arguments. I think you should reconsider.

[Pants-of-dog]

Tell me. How do you discuss sociology without discussing the elephant in the corner. No institution, bar none, has a greater effect on society than religion. Sociology is, arguably, the product of religious-moral arguments. I think you should reconsider.

There is a difference between a religious argument (i.e. we should do something because God said so) and a sociological argument about religion (i.e. this social group does x because they believe God said so), thus it is possible to discuss religion and sociology without making arguments based on religious or supernatural beliefs.

To relate this to the topic, you are correct that religion is one of the most important factors in the debate about homosexuality. And as we both know, it is more complicated than simply saying "religious people don't like homos". There is a great diversity of beliefs about homosexuality in most religions, including Christianity. Religious arguments about homosexuality should only have weight when debating within these religious communities.

[Drlee]

Religious arguments about homosexuality should only have weight when debating within these religious communities.

Or the communities which these groups influence politically and socially.

The purpose of this forum is to understand the context in which people hold their beliefs. Only by arguing that context can one hope to change the opinions and actions of those who hold them.

An argument based solely on "You think God said that, but I think this...." is hollow and unlikely to carry the day. Conversely for someone to tell a participant in a forum that they can't express the basis for their opinion is stultifying to say the least.

How does one tease out the diversity of belief you correctly point out without articulating the process by which they are determined.

If you notice I almost never quote Biblical sources or religious texts UNLESS I am speaking to another religious person or correcting a misapprehension on the part of a non-believer. I agree that it is pointless.

But I will disengage in this argument. Since we are no longer allowed to discuss the reasons for how homosexuality became demonized or the validity of those arguments within the community doing the demonizing it seems rather pointless. This is the danger of too narrowly defining debate. More control....less engagement. It is a history test graded on ones ability to remember dates.

[Pants-of-dog]

You can state the basis for your belief.

That is different from basing an argument on it.

[Drlee]

You can state the basis for your belief.

That is different from basing an argument on it.

No it is not. No difference at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

No it is not. No difference at all.

Allow me to illustrate:

An example of stating the basis for my belief:
I believe that racism is wrong because my mother raised me that way.

Basing an argument on it:
The gov't should enact anti-racism policies because of the personal beliefs my mother taught me.

Can you see how the first makes sense, while the second does not?

[Drlee]

An example of stating the basis for my belief:
I believe that racism is wrong because my mother raised me that way.

Basing an argument on it:
The gov't should enact anti-racism policies because of the personal beliefs my mother taught me.

Can you see how the first makes sense, while the second does not?

It makes perfect sense.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that the government should enact anti-murder laws because I believe that God forbids it in the 10 commandments. There is equally nothing wrong with you agreeing for other reasons. For that matter one could hold a variety of objections to murder and believe the government should ban it for all or any of them. Perfectly sensible.

Does it make no sense to argue that Native Americans should protect areas of their property because they believe these areas are sacred?

[Pants-of-dog]

It makes perfect sense.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that the government should enact anti-murder laws because I believe that God forbids it in the 10 commandments. There is equally nothing wrong with you agreeing for other reasons. For that matter one could hold a variety of objections to murder and believe the government should ban it for all or any of them. Perfectly sensible.

It holds no weight in a sociological debate. This is because sociology is a science. Religious beliefs are personal.

Does it make no sense to argue that Native Americans should protect areas of their property because they believe these areas are sacred?

It makes no sense to anyone who does not believe the lands are sacred.

[Drlee]

It holds no weight in a sociological debate. This is because sociology is a science. Religious beliefs are personal.

Nonsense. Try having a debate about the society in the ME without discussing the beliefs of Islam.

What are you thinking?

[The Sabbaticus]

It holds no weight in a sociological debate. This is because sociology is a science. Religious beliefs are personal.

Sociology is basically the study of people in groups. Religion is one of the major sources of influence of human behaviour in groups and is thus a (major) and legitimate object of study of sociology. Religious-moral arguments within a sociological framework can not be excluded.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Topic split.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you cannot tell the difference between a scientific discussion about religion, and a religious discussion about society, then I do not know what to say.

[Drlee]

If you cannot tell the difference between a scientific discussion about religion, and a religious discussion about society, then I do not know what to say.

The ought not be a difference. You can't do the science of sociology without studying and discussing religion. Get a grip. And a dictionary.