Religion and Policy Part Two

Everyone reading this has a set of faith assumptions about the nature of things, and we call these assumptions a "worldview" (see previous post). And by implication every worldview is a religion in itself. You have core beliefs that informs your life. Maybe you did not even know it, but you do. As soon as you start arguing about something you betray it.

So how then can we possibly leave our deeper worldviews behind and find consensus about "what works" when our view of what works is determined by what we think people exist for? The purpose of human life is defined differently by each belief, by each worldview. So who gets to be the ONE worldview that does not have to leave their religion at the door of politics and the public square?

What if in one of these "religion free" discussions, the idea to starve all the poor is proposed in the name of "survival of the fittest"? On what ground will anyone argue against it? If anyone argues against it, it will be because of a worldview that values poor people as much as the rich and "fittest". But ooops that would have to be left at the door. No religion!

There is no neutral and universally accessible arguments that would convince everyone that we must not starve the poor to death. Can we prove scientifically that people are more valuable than rocks? Then on what basis can we say this proposal is "wrong".