| There is little difference between relgion controlling people via fear and a government controlling people via fear.
Other then that the government can cover more stuff then just moral concerns, such as how fast you can go in your car, which is something the Bible has no mention of.
The Pope has yet to make speeding in your car a "deadly sin". None the less, it is like digging your own grave.
Interesting difference is that under law a girl should be 18 before she gives consent to marrage (without consent of a parent). Where as religion would determine that by the how fast the girl has matured physically, if she is ready and suited to be reproductive or not, which could lower the age in some cases to age 15 or even less, depending. The law uses age 18 because (in many states) because then you are sure that the girl is physically developed enough to reproduce without any problems, removing any potential doubts that a personal choice might be subjected too. Because having sex with someone who is not physically fit to bear children is child abuse.
In religion they even overlook child abuse and only advocated that reproduction should be controlled by seeking the apporval of the church.
Lesser sins can be tolerated in religion as long as you confess and seek forgiveness but having children out of wedlock is viewed as a more serious sin, one they do not wish to tolerate. Because forgiveness does not make the child go away, and you cannot really change the fact by some religious ritural.
Any kind of sex that does not have the motive to make babies is a sin, and making a baby without permission of "god" via the Chruch is viewed as a serious sin, making all sex that is non-reproductive an abuse of the god-given sex drive so that we can "go forth and mulitiply the earth". Based on a scientific observation that when the sap rises in the tree the tree must bear fruit, otherwise the tree is unworthy and useless.
Therefore should the government, which replaced religion in regulating social behavior, support the scientific facts of nature? Should we support the scienific fact that a tree should bear fruit when the sap rises from the tomb of winter? Or should we support the notion that it is okay for a apple tree not to produce apples, if it had the intelligence to subsitute making apples with the rising sap by some other means of statisfaction?
Should the apples be used to fatten the snakes or to make more apple trees?
Indeed, eating the apples is a from of birth control relaive to the tree. And birth control has the same purpose as an abortion. To prevent natual reproduction is with is the intent and the will of Nature. It is very un-scientific of us to advocate otherwise, is it not?
Pleasure has a purpose, to take the pleasure without allowing for the purpose is like trying to have your cake and eat it too. |