I figure if you want to say, well this particular concept or example from such and such religious source _suggests_ (not mandates) some potential solutions in a particular situation, why not. It's no different from saying, they do it this way in X country or under Y theory or Z piece of law or literature was so inspiring -- on some particular, maybe useful point.
However, we have seen way too many efforts that run more to the tune of, so and so says this is the One True Way. The implication is often an outright condemnation of any dissent. No other religions in the land (or in the Holy Land), beards for all the men, 10% of income goes to the church, no meat on Fridays or no sodomy on any day. (One of these days they'll find the Biblical passage that illuminates who shall have nukes and who shalt not.) Doubters will/should presumably go to Hell, or suffer your other retribution of choice.
In these cases, whatever the issue is, more emphasis is placed on harping the speaker's self-asserted holiness. When it becomes an intimidating but simplistic cover for complex policy, or a claim that no one else counts, I think it needs to go.
Perhaps this leads back to the thread about evangelism (err.. it was titled monotheism, but I'm guessing the methods of evangelism are central)?