Religious belief is no basis for law-making

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

A few years ago, Lord Justice Bingham observed that judges increasingly had to pronounce moral judgements in court. It no longer makes sense to say, "This is not a court of morals." Of course it never did make much sense; murder was always morally as well as legally foul. The criminal law reflected more or less shared moral beliefs; if it ceased to do so, it would become unenforceable. However, the comfortable assumption of coincidence between moral beliefs and the criminal law is no longer justifiable. Though much of the law remains squarely in accord with what society believes to be right, we are more conscious than ever before of sometimes irreconcilable differences. As private individuals, we may be content to advocate a practice of tolerance, a kind of moral relativism, but in public life, in legislation and the enforcement of law, there is no room for relativism. Society survives only if it is subject to the rule of law, and the law must be unequivocal, and must be seen to apply to everyone alike. So how can the law claim the authority on which it depends?

New Statesman - The politics of religion

even though the artical is to do with laws on human embryos.

Your views of keeping religion out of the law is what interests me

[Gods_Mercenary]

It seemed to me that the article wasn't only talking about religion, but moral codes period. Religion should never be the sole reason for a law, or even one's personal morality. You should always be able to give a reason why your religion proclaims something immoral, even if it only makes sense in light of your religious values. God says so should be supported by why God says so.

Moral codes, however, tend to be the basis on which countries are founded, Republican values in the case of america, marxist in the case of the Soviet Union.

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel Your views of keeping religion out of the law is what interests me

Exactly which religion are you talking about? Buddhism? Christianity? Taoism? Judaism? Islam? Scientology? Mormonism? It matters to the question.

[WearetheWorld]

If you want to keep religion out of law, don't vote for religious leaders, they shouldnt even make their beliefs known anyway... Too bad our elections are almost totally mudslinging contests

[grandpa]

Quote by: WearetheWorld If you want to keep religion out of law, don't vote for religious leaders, they shouldnt even make their beliefs known anyway... Too bad our elections are almost totally mudslinging contests

I think abortion is the main leg the religious right stands on.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

how when over half of america, from what I've seen, doesn't support complete banning of abortion.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary how when over half of america, from what I've seen, doesn't support complete banning of abortion.

It's not all about abortion, either. Homosexuality is another issue, so is evolution.

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: grandpa I think abortion is the main leg the religious right stands on. Grandpa h.

Right, because it is their middle leg that has made abortion so popular. As abortion started off as a way to cover up he immoralities of rightious men knocking up their "other woman". To be right down frank about it.

[Technosoul]

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.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: grandpa It's not all about abortion, either. Homosexuality is another issue, so is evolution. Grandpa h.

Evolution is relatively insignificant, but I'll give you homosexuality. But it tends to be the same people that are against these issues, so other people are obviously attracted to conservative ideaology.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel New Statesman - The politics of religion even though the artical is to do with laws on human embryos. Your views of keeping religion out of the law is what interests me

As long as you keep atheism, secular humanism or any other world view out of the laws also, I don't have a problem with it.

[JaneDoe321]

I think the basic problem is that SO much of the way people think is colored by either their "religion of birth" or "religion of choice" (not always the same...). So it's not always easy to separate the conscious religion-based decisions from the unconscious ones.

That being said, I think that it's useful/critical to try to say "Ok, which "tenets of my faith" are more or less universal, and which are supposed to apply JUST to members OF my faith, and by what right do I expect to legitimately ask NON-members to live by them too?"

Because MANY of the "articles of faith" claimed by MANY religions are actually like "Top Ten Ways To Survive In Group Living Arrangements", just reworded to sound impressive.

But there is NO compelling reason why I should not be able to purchase liquor *any* day of the week, eat shellfish OR pork (even together, with cheese sauce if I want!) nor ANY reason why my partner and I (regardless of gender) should be able to engage in *whatever* form of consentual activities we please behind closed doors.

Genetic manipulation, etc, granted those are not *simple* decisions, and I know there are situations where people are truly apalled by something and *really* feel it's against THEIR moral code to abide its mere existance, but... again... take a step back and consider the bigger picture.

[Jack]

Quote by: Chancellor As long as you keep atheism, secular humanism or any other world view out of the laws also, I don't have a problem with it.

Since secular humanism focuses on the people and their needs, I would suggest it's far more appropriate as a basis for law than any particular theistic view. But suppose we do eliminate both a religious and secular basis for law, what does that leave us? What standard shall we base law on?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul Right, because it is their middle leg that has made abortion so popular. As abortion started off as a way to cover up he immoralities of rightious men knocking up their "other woman".

Well, I do agree with the religious right on one kep point; that tax money should never support
abortion. Then again, I ultimately think tax money shouldn't be used to support anything.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Evolution is relatively insignificant, but I'll give you homosexuality. But it tends to be the same people that are against these issues, so other people are obviously attracted to conservative ideaology.

But I wouldn't downplay evolution as a factor. Creation is considered fundamental to Christianity.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Isherwood Since secular humanism focuses on the people and their needs, I would suggest it's far more appropriate as a basis for law than any particular theistic view. But suppose we do eliminate both a religious and secular basis for law, what does that leave us?

Nothing. It reminds me of those who call atheism a religion. Well, if everything is a religion, then nothing isn't. It only adds absurdity to discussions over religion. In order for the discussion to be useful, we need to differentiate between the religious and the non. If we don't, we're only pandering to the theistic view, which is just what religion's individual agents want.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Isherwood Since secular humanism focuses on the people and their needs, I would suggest it's far more appropriate as a basis for law than any particular theistic view. But suppose we do eliminate both a religious and secular basis for law, what does that leave us? What standard shall we base law on?

Now, go back and read the words that I wrote. I said "world view." In other words, no particular world view would be the basis for laws. I am so damned sick and tired of you people trying to deny people of faith any say in what happens in their own countries! So, if you're going to ban religion as a basis for law then I want atheism, secular humanism and all other world views - religious and non-religious - banned as well. I want an absolutely neutral system.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa Nothing. It reminds me of those who call atheism a religion. Well, if everything is a religion, then nothing isn't. It only adds absurdity to discussions over religion. In order for the discussion to be useful, we need to differentiate between the religious and the non. If we don't, we're only pandering to the theistic view, which is just what religion's individual agents want. Grandpa h.

Supposedly, a court in Wisconsin declared atheism a religion (Court rules atheism a religion).

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor Supposedly, a court in Wisconsin declared atheism a religion.

So because acourt in Wisconsin declares it, it must be true?

Atheism does not need to be further demonized by telling lies about it,
and calling it a "religion" is either a lie, or a complete misnomer. It's possible for atheists to feel strongly there is no god, even to the point where they appear devout, but something has to be considered irreligious.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: grandpa Well, I do agree with the religious right on one kep point; that tax money should never support abortion. Then again, I ultimately think tax money shouldn't be used to support anything. Grandpa h.

By who? I know I live in Catholic/Liberal Massachusetts, but I can't remember the last time I encountered somebody besides the bible dude who I ignore when he comes to the door who thinks Genesis is a science book.