| User | Comment |
|---|
they    | | posted 20-May-2008 10:26am |
it shur dont sound gud |
Melf  | | posted 20-May-2008 10:38am |
Yes, but only because it exists. Secular law should establish that religion has no place in it and that religious doctrine can not influence the rightness or wrongness of actions when they are judged according to secular law. Otherwise the law is suseptible to people using religion as an excuse. |
| dilfreak | | posted 20-May-2008 10:52am |
Yes absolutely. It's obvious that our United States Constitution was highly influenced by Christianity. I don't see why it shouldn't continue to be influenced by religious ideology. |
| Melf | | (reply to dilfreak) posted 20-May-2008 11:03am |
Even when the very scripture that ideology is derived from is laced with murder, rape, infanticide, and incest? |
| Enheduanna | | posted 20-May-2008 11:13am |
Not at all. |
bill   | | posted 20-May-2008 11:22am |
I'm saying "no" but it's mostly because I don't like the world "should". If you worded it differently, I might have said "yes".
I think religious ideology clearly does influence law. I don't think we can honestly say our laws are secular. They may try to be, but they don't succeed entirely.
I think it's reasonable to allow and expect many things to influence our laws. The "should" seems very subjective to me.
I think there are many things that influence religious ideologies and they also change over time.
It all just feels like a stew of human opinion. You can slap a label on part of it saying it's "religious", but I think it's more accurate to say that most things are coming out of the way people tend to be thinking at that time in history.
Maybe a good example of this would be homosexuality. There are periods in history where it has been more or less acceptable. Religion is sometimes a factor, but not always. In current times, religion seems to be a primary force against acceptance of homosexuality, but in the past it has not.
I don't think the basis for people's aversion to homosexuality is religious. I think it comes from other sources (learned or perhaps innate, people being wary of anything that's different). Religion, more likely, just tries to explain the feelings people already have. Most religion is adapted to current social beliefs. Religion used to be racist, but it has mostly adapted as our society changed. For most religions, it seems like you can find scripture that supports whatever current societal belief you want. |
| Galomorro | | posted 20-May-2008 11:27am |
No. There should always be separation of church and state, especially in the schools. One should not try to force their religion on anyone else. This is a diverse world with many religions and many people who have NO religion. Everyone has a right to believe or not believe what they want. It can, however, be suggested to kids that they study World religions so as to be exposed to what other people believe, and there are plenty of books on religions and philosophy in the libraries and bookstores. In SF there was an incident back in the 1990s where separation of church and state was enforced on our Mt. Davidson where at its summit is a 103-foot concrete cross. It used to be lighted up at night and religious services were held up there every Sunday. Now it is only lit a couple days a year with only a couple of religious services held. The cross is still there in this park because a private group bought it, but the public is allowed on the grounds around the cross. Something like this wouldn't have bothered me -- to have the monument lit at night and to still have Sun. religious services as they did in the old days, as I just like idea of it visible from afar at night -- it has nothing to do with religion. But the courts said that the City was not allowed to have a religious symbol at its highest point (like Rio de Janeiro has Cristo Redentor, the huge statue of Jesus on their Mt. Corcovado), so Mt. D's monument is still up there because of this private group buying the cross and the immediate area around it. |
| dilfreak | | (reply to Melf) posted 20-May-2008 12:11pm |
Assuming we're speaking of the Bible, that scripture doesn't condone murder, rape, infanticide, and incest.... so yes. |
| LindaH | | posted 20-May-2008 12:57pm |
No. That's not to say it won't influence voter's and lawmaker's opinions and decisions. Any number of things could, hypothetically, like a dream, a friend's insistence, or even a whim. That doesn't mean they should, it's just that there's no way to prevent it.
Nonetheless, I don't like the idea of non-religious people having to live by some law that only has real value and meaning to religious people. If a person isn't religious, should it matter to you that he or she is doing things that your religion or God doesn't like? |
| Melf | | (reply to dilfreak) posted 20-May-2008 1:15pm |
You're right in that the Bible does not usually condone these things. I'll take another approach:
In 2 Kings 2:23-24, God commands two she-bears to kill 42 children who call a man 'bald head'. We are also taught in the Bible that He is a loving God. So it is part of being loving to kill 42 children like this. I don't think that is a very good principle to give to people who are supposedly to follow his word.
Of course, the New Testament is different. Jesus's teachings are much nicer. But what good does it do to follow something which isn't claiming to be a political text? The Bible is concerned with religion; but some of the things it tells to do are illegal for a reason - of course we shouldn't kill children from saying things like 'baldy'. The Bible is outdated and we must move with the times - it is no longer easy to simply shun gays or women on their period (or women at all, for that matter).
Religion is about belief and laws cannot rest on belief alone. It requires faith to believe in God and faith is, by definition, something which isn't concrete. It is therefore (logically) an unreliable system to build a set of laws which rest on religion.
Also, not everyone follows the same religion. Everybody will say that their religion is the true one. Why should Christianity be given credence over every other religion. |
| Frostbrand | | posted 20-May-2008 2:20pm |
Not directly. If someone reads something in a religious text that makes them go "You know, I don't practice this religion, but this idea could be made to wrok for everybody" however, then by all means go for it. |
| Frostbrand | | (reply to dilfreak) posted 20-May-2008 2:21pm |
> Assuming we're speaking of the Bible, that scripture
> doesn't condone murder, rape, infanticide, and
> incest.... so yes.
Then one can safely assume you haven't read it. |
| dab | | posted 20-May-2008 2:31pm |
My ideal answer is "no". They really should be entirely separate. Religion should be a private issue between someone and their god. But for people who really believe that stuff, everything they do is influenced by their belief. Their religious beliefs are going to impact on every decision they make. And it would be a mistake to try to omit believers from being involved with society as a whole. So... |
| aquawolfy | | (reply to Melf) posted 20-May-2008 4:43pm |
> Also, not everyone follows the same religion. Everybody will say that
> their religion is the true one. Why should Christianity be given credence
> over every other religion.
Yes I'll have to agree with you on that point.
|
Iseult  | | posted 20-May-2008 8:04pm |
No. Although there are some things in religion which I agree with (thou shall not kill/steal and such), they should be implemented on their own not because of the religion. |
| RGirl | | posted 20-May-2008 9:48pm |
Of course not silly! Trix are for kids! |
| romkey | | posted 20-May-2008 9:48pm |
No, by definition it should not. If it does, the law it has influenced is simply not "secular".
Beyond being literal, why should one person's religion write the law when it disagrees with another person's? Why is their religion right and everyone else's wrong?
|
| romkey | | (reply to dilfreak) posted 20-May-2008 9:50pm |
> I don't see why it shouldn't continue to be influenced by religious ideology.
Which one? There are so many to choose from. |
| dilfreak |
Wow, I can't believe you just said that to me. I have read the Bible, cover to cover. I studied it in depth for two years. I won't say I know it perfectly, but I do know enough to claim that the Bible does not condone murder, rape, infanticide, and incest.
You show me in the Bible where God condones murder, rape, infanticide, and incest. |
| Frostbrand | | (reply to dilfreak) posted 20-May-2008 10:33pm |
Oh where to start? God commanded the rape, murder and sacrifice of the Midianites. God ordered the destruction of the Amalekites as an act of revenge. God approved of the destruction of Laish, a "peaceful and unsuspecting city." God punished the Israelites by forcing them into cannibalism, particularly during the siege of Jerusalem described in the book of Jeremiah. God killed David's infant son to punish David's sin. God had a man killed for refusing to injure a prophet. God slew the righteous along with the wicked when punishing Israel. And here's an article by a guy to tries to defend incest in Christianity by basically saying that when Adam & Eve were around there had to be: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qincest.html. Of course, if you don't belive that bunk, then it's just a way to avoid creeping out potential followers that Adam & Eve's kids had to fudge each other. |
| dilfreak | | (reply to romkey) posted 20-May-2008 10:35pm |
There's good things in every religion.... all of them should have an influence. |
| romkey | | (reply to dilfreak) posted 20-May-2008 11:09pm |
I do agree that there are good things in every religion.
And when they conflict, how is that resolved?
Do athiests get a say as well? |
| JessicaWoman99 | | posted 20-May-2008 11:24pm |
Really i have no clue on this one and no need to start a war all over again , been through 10 wars in only
one week and gee i am worn out no more please! |
| Zang | | posted 21-May-2008 11:36am |
I don't think it matters. Each law should be examined for its own merits. The origin isn't relevant. |
| icurok | | posted 21-May-2008 11:55am |
I want to say no, but the reality is that religious ideology does not exist in a vacuum. It's unrealistic to expect all lawmakers in a secular society to be nonreligious and equally unrealistic to expect lawmakers with a personal religious belief to not be influenced by it during the process of formulating secular law. |
| cloudhugger | | posted 21-May-2008 12:49pm |
Maybe. Every one has rights, and to be safe in pracitcing what you believe in deserves to have laws to protect your interests.
It would be interesting to see that a wiccan can practice in thier yard maybe a crone ceremony whilst the Christians next door are baptizing someone. And everyone lives happy.  |
| cloudhugger | | posted 21-May-2008 12:55pm |
Maybe. Too many big words for me.
I believe in the laws to protect those who wish to live their lives in their spiritual beliefs to be able to do so without judgement or punishment. As long as the guidelines of no one loses an eye are followed. It would be nice if a Wiccan neighbor could have a beautiful Crone Ceremony in their back yard as their Christian neighbor might be having a baptismal in their backyard with complete respect towards each other.
Happy each one shall be. |
southernyankee  | | posted 21-May-2008 9:00pm |
No under MOST circumstances, though I can see a few certain philosophical issues where religious believe can enter the debate (eg: abortion, death penalty, warfare, right to die, etc). |
| docgbrown | | posted 26-May-2008 1:03am |
Explain |
| kcthedog |
WTF? I'm stupid, what? |
