Religion & Law

[IndigoSensor]

I don't normally make topics on these sorts of things, because they often go in circles and I just get queezy and tired of it. However this is one sticker that stands out for me that I want to see where people stand on it. I am going to quickly explain the idea, and my vent/opinion on it.

To me, it seems completely and utterly illogical and unfair for people to register a law, based on religious contexts. One example that stick out in my mind are sequelshing the theory of evolution in the classroom. How is it right, to create a law that everyone must follow, just because you feel it is best based on your religious views, that not everyone else follows? That is completely horrid and it is the one thing in politics that will anger me. It is forcing a clearly illogical set, into a system that is supposed to be based in pure logic. For the record I have strong spiritual beliefs of my own, but when it comes to politics and making decisions throughout life, I never under any circumstances allow it to effect my judgement. The fact is not everyone agrees nor beleives in what I do, so it is wrong of me to use it as a base. I truly to the core of my being do not understand how anyone could be so cruel as to justifiy a law based off their own religious views, just because the feel it is correct. This is one of the largest (if not the largest) breech of logic and fairness that I have ever seen in my life.

So, I want to see what everyones take on this. How can you possibly explain how it would be justified to include a law, that is based off of a religious context?

I am also going to say this up front, don't derail this thread into a mess. I realise it has the potential to do so.

 

[Satya]

 

[the]

Law is a hard concept for me to wrap my mind around. It seems to me that it is more of a strong suggestion that will change through hard work once the 'exception that makes the rule' comes to light.

But law is basically about having everyone acting in a similar manner so I dont see what is wrong with a religious community having religious laws. If you dont like it then leave.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I don't normally make topics on these sorts of things, because they often go in circles and I just get queezy and tired of it. However this is one sticker that stands out for me that I want to see where people stand on it. I am going to quickly explain the idea, and my vent/opinion on it.

To me, it seems completely and utterly illogical and unfair for people to register a law, based on religious contexts. One example that stick out in my mind are sequelshing the theory of evolution in the classroom. How is it right, to create a law that everyone must follow, just because you feel it is best based on your religious views, that not everyone else follows? That is completely horrid and it is the one thing in politics that will anger me. It is forcing a clearly illogical set, into a system that is supposed to be based in pure logic. For the record I have strong spiritual beliefs of my own, but when it comes to politics and making decisions throughout life, I never under any circumstances allow it to effect my judgement. The fact is not everyone agrees nor beleives in what I do, so it is wrong of me to use it as a base. I truly to the core of my being do not understand how anyone could be so cruel as to justifiy a law based off their own religious views, just because the feel it is correct. This is one of the largest (if not the largest) breech of logic and fairness that I have ever seen in my life.

So, I want to see what everyones take on this. How can you possibly explain how it would be justified to include a law, that is based off of a religious context?

I am also going to say this up front, don't derail this thread into a mess. I realise it has the potential to do so.

I have a great distaste for religion that refuses to accept scientific evidence. This distaste is amplified when it is forced, not by strength of arguement, but by political maneouvering into mis-education.

I have no problem with the opinions of scientists (distinct from thier verifiable conclusions), such as of Dawkins concerning the value or motives for religion, being squashed. Science is not opinion.

 

[Skathac]

Can't, because every fiber of my being believes that government should be completely separated from religion. Laws should be forged with logic and tempered with compassion, with the final goal focused on the well being of all the citizens it effects. My spiritual beliefs carry a good amount of weight on how I walk my path, but it is just that...my path. I believe that no human being should consciously infringe on another human being's spiritual beliefs, be they of a strict religious adherence or not.

 

[IndigoSensor]

When I saw law I mean government laws. Religious laws within a religious community is a totally different matter.

 

[Kavalan]

When I saw law I mean government laws. Religious laws within a religious community is a totally different matter.

what happens when those laws stray into legal matters?

Sharia laws demanding a stoning for XYZ for example

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Fear.

People who believe strongly in particular belief systems have a great deal of fear. They fear the social consequences of allowing behaviors which could undermine long held institutions like the patriarchal family and marriage. They fear that if they do not impose their belief system on others, then societal stability will decay to the point that it collapses. They also fear spiritual and emotional desensitization. Some belief systems hold that the "soul" or "spirit" is of greater significance than the mind or body, and it is better to imprison or destroy the mind or body in order to protect the "soul" or "spirit" from actions which could have consequences beyond the limitations of life.

To combat these fears, they justify the use of control. Using scare tactics and shame becomes a justified means to achieving the end of protecting societal stability and the eternal essence of an individual.

Generalisations might also be employed to prejudice one demographic group against another.

 

[IndigoSensor]

what happens when those laws stray into legal matters?

Sharia laws demanding a stoning for XYZ for example

Then the obviously need to be removed, as they are based of a religious context, as I explained in the OP.

 

[the]

When I saw law I mean government laws. Religious laws within a religious community is a totally different matter.

So basically government law in lets say san franscisco where (in this hypothetical) 100% of the people happen to be athiest, if they decide that Hare Krishna worshippers who come and set up shop and should get 25 years in prison... is that not what you mean?

It isnt like some invisible creatures are passing laws in government. Real people are doing this, if there is a large or an influential religious sect in an area then there are gonna be religiously based laws.

For this reason I feel that to govern least is to govern best.

 

[IndigoSensor]

So basically government law in lets say san franscisco where (in this hypothetical) 100% of the people happen to be athiest, if they decide that Hare Krishna worshippers who come and set up shop and should get 25 years in prison... is that not what you mean?

It isnt like some invisible creatures are passing laws in government. Real people are doing this, if there is a large or an influential religious sect in an area then there are gonna be religiously based laws.

For this reason I feel that to govern least is to govern best.

Thats regulation of a religion itself which is a different beast. Regulation of religon should never be done. What I am saying is laws based off relgion to influence other things.

 

[Satya]

So basically government law in lets say san franscisco where (in this hypothetical) 100% of the people happen to be athiest, if they decide that Hare Krishna worshippers who come and set up shop and should get 25 years in prison... is that not what you mean?

It isnt like some invisible creatures are passing laws in government. Real people are doing this, if there is a large or an influential religious sect in an area then there are gonna be religiously based laws.

For this reason I feel that to govern least is to govern best.

If you want to get into San Fransico, then you are talking an American city. Americans are protected by the law of the land, also known as the Constitution of the United States. This document serves to protect the rights of people, and in this case, the right to freely practice religion. This is a secular law, based upon the principle of an implicit social contract. So I'm not entirely sure of the rational behind your argument as it is disproved by the reality.

 

[acd]

From where I stand, I am not a fan of religiously influenced laws that legislate morality, or peoples lifestyles..

I like laws that serve to protect people from legitimate harm and afford them the freedom to do as they please so long as their actions aren't infringing upon someone else's well being.

 

[Norwich]

^^+1

 

[bamf]

I support laws that grant individuals freedom (whether or not freedom is something we are born with or is given is a different arguement, and not one I want to get in to here) to do as they wish, when and where they wish, when not harming someone else (again, one could argue that every action harms someone else, and I'm not going to debate that either, I mean things such as rape, murder, theft, and the such) There has to be some common morality in a society, and I don't think you can escape that. It also is highly likely to be influenced by religion.

Take Antebellum America for example. The "Christian Gentleman" was the ideal citizen during this time period, and people were judged on their piety, purity, and moral compass. It's not an idea society in my mind, because such a vast number of people practice the same religion and more or less force their morality on people (a morality beyond the sense of murder, rape, theft) Gender roles were a highlight of the legal issues back in that time period. There are many cases of murdered women by men, but the trials didn't go as you would expect today.

In this time period, religion was not a law, and neither was one certain religious morality required by law, but the religious morality affected the law and was prescribed to the law. When these men went to stand before court they often times had admitted to murdering the woman, however, they did not admit guilt. The judge and the jury would deliberate over whether or not the woman was partially or fully guilty for her murder. Her moral compass was brought under scrutiny, and should she be found to be promiscuous, or had she led on the man, he could be released completely innocent because her moral fiber was low and she tempted the man. If the woman's lifestyle didn't line up with the common morality of the Christian beliefs, the man would often times be set free. The defense did not have to be innocent, they merely had to prove the plaintiff to be morally questionable--morals that were Christian based.

So after a nice rant, I think religion can influence law in a number of ways, and I think it's somewhat inescapable, but I don't particularly like it.

 

[the]

Thats regulation of a religion itself which is a different beast. Regulation of religon should never be done. What I am saying is laws based off relgion to influence other things.

............

OP: So, I want to see what everyones take on this. How can you possibly explain how it would be justified to include a law, that is based off of a religious context?

I feel my hypothetical situation (not necessarily as Satya suggested is San Franscico, US) is when a law will logically and justifiably be based off a religious context. Please note, I wasnt talking about defining some religious codes or doctrines, I was talking about them making that the law of the land.

 

[acd]

I feel my hypothetical situation (not necessarily as Satya suggested is San Franscico, US) is when a law will logically and justifiably be based off a religious context. Please note, I wasnt talking about defining some religious codes or doctrines, I was talking about them making that the law of the land.

Stop it. Just stop it.
P

 

[the]

Stop it. Just stop it.
P

Strawman.