| In so far as using religious argumentation on nonreligious subjects, it's no different than using other worldviews, like Lockean rights or fascist statism.
Using an example from the OP, a libertarian might argue that the illegaliziation of drugs is wrong because it infringes on individual liberties. A statist, however, is fine with government control.
At that point, you have two irreconcilable worldviews, so the argument is basically done.
This is analogous to using religious argumentation. At the point that you have a Christian appeal to the Bible oppose a Muslim appealing to the Koran (or an atheist who appeals to some other random philosophy), neither side will accept the other's argumentation.
My basic point is that using religion is no different than using any other philosophy or ideological background. If the religion's basic premises are accepted, then sure, go ahead and use it. But if not, it's as useless as a fascist appealing to revision of Marxist theory debating against a Lockean rights theorist. |