For those who want to make their religious beliefs the law of the land... (enemy, ethics)

[AllenSJC]

...I would ask for them to consider this: how exactly does forcing people to be morally good and holy through a secular government actually cultivate morality and holiness in people's hearts? Isn't the whole point of, say, Christianity (which, of course, is the largest religion in the United States by a considerable margin) to make a personal choice to accept Jesus Christ into your heart and then spread his Gospel to the world at the level of small, tightly knit - yet open and welcoming to others - communities of believers?

As a follower of Christ myself, I thank the Lord every day that I - we - live in a country in which we all have constitutional guarantees of the freedom to follow our own religious paths in life. I am eternally grateful that I have the freedom to develop and strive toward personal responsibility and firmly grounded holiness in myself through my own relationship with Jesus as well as my relationships with others - as opposed to being bound to a certain dogma via the force of the secular State. Isn't that a blessing? After all, many people in many other countries around the world have no such freedom. Whether or not you are a person of faith, I encourage you to count your blessings and never take this for granted.

Don't get me wrong; I certainly believe that most people are more or less in agreement with me on this matter. I just wanted to remind you all of our extremely fortunate circumstances in the United States - or other countries that have a strong sense of religious freedom, for that matter.

Anywho, thank you for hearing me out, and peace and blessings on all of you as we head into yet another week!

[RipCityBassWorks]

Completely agree, couldn't have said it better.

[Redshadowz]

A society cannot exist without rules governing it(IE laws). There is no fundamental difference between a religious law, and a secular law. Both intend to regulate behavior. Thus they both serve exactly the same purpose.

The idea that a secular law is legitimate, and a religious law isn't, is illogical.


The only thing which gives secular laws an appearance of legitimacy, is that they are "supposedly" supported by a majority of the population(IE Democracy).

Of course, secular laws provide no protection for the minority who opposes them(and many of our laws are actually opposed by a majority of the people).


The only intrinsic value that secular laws have over religious laws, is that secular laws are more flexible, and the authority to interpret the meaning of the law, is held by only one centralized tribunal. Thereby preventing multiple interpretations.

To understand why that is a problem, imagine if there was no Supreme Court, and that every single state could interpret Federal Law however their own state Supreme Courts decided(or county courts). That is roughly the equivalent of what happens when each Christian denomination can interpret the bible independently.


I'm not remotely concerned about this debate between secular and religious. All laws have the capability of being oppressive(and most are).


Your objection to religious laws, is grounded in your objection to Christians using government force to coerce people to behave morally. You believe that forcing people to behave morally, removes their ability to choose(IE free-will). But if you are truly against moral laws. Then in a sense, you should be opposed to most, if not all laws.


Look at it this way. Should people be allowed to walk around in public naked? Should people be able to have sex in public? Should people be able to prostitute themselves in front of your house? Should they be able to sell drugs in front of your house?

These are "moral laws", as well as a thousand other laws. In fact, the majority of our current laws, are fundamentally laws base on morality/ethics. A society CANNOT function without moral laws.

[Icy Tea]

And let's never make one groups political beliefs the law of the land.

[usayit]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Look at it this way. Should people be allowed to walk around in public naked? Should people be able to have sex in public? Should people be able to prostitute themselves in front of your house? Should they be able to sell drugs in front of your house?

These are "moral laws", as well as a thousand other laws. In fact, the majority of our current laws, are fundamentally laws base on morality/ethics. A society CANNOT function without moral laws.

From my view, none of the questions asked are rooted in religious law. Many atheists or non-believers would also deeply believe in those laws without citing religion or a belief system to justify them.

It also seems to be a certain tone that creeps into these discussions that moral laws are guided by religion... and thus outside of that premise is "immoral" or the false assumption that "moral" law can only come from religious sources. The beginning of the post starts with the terms "religious law" and "secular law" but then switches to "moral laws" terminology at the end. Seemingly linking moral laws (or morality) with only religious views.

I don't believe that is accurate nor honest.

I am ok with using religion (any/all of them) as a guide or direction but our laws should hold higher criteria than simply existing in religious scripture.

[sanspeur]

Religion has nothing to do with morality.....

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.
Bertrand Russell

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by usayit

From my view, none of the questions asked are rooted in religious law. Many atheists or non-believers would also deeply believe in those laws without citing religion or a belief system to justify them.

The OP said, "How exactly does forcing people to be morally good and holy through a secular government actually cultivate morality and holiness in people's hearts?"


He was saying that the state shouldn't force people to be "morally good" through "the law". Basically, that the people should want to do good because they believe it to be good, not because they are forced to do it against their will.


Which reminds me of the quote by Mikhail Bakunin.

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it."

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this;... - Mikhail Bakunin at BrainyQuote


What the OP fails to understand, is that almost all laws are "moral laws". Whether they are based on secular morality or religious morality, doesn't change the fact that they intend to "force" people to be "morally good" through "the law".


A man who disagrees with secular law, is in no better shape than the man who disagrees with religious law. Thus, the debate between religious and secular law is a pointless debate. And it is only done by obnoxious atheists who hate religion, and use the separation of church and state as a justification for objecting to laws that they don't like, declaring them oppressive(even if they are created fairly through democratic choice).

While at the same time, they support all kinds of laws which are oppressive to those who oppose them, but they merely label them "secular", or "by the will of the people", thus making them perfectly legitimate.


The truth is, there is nothing that makes a secular law more-legitimate than a religious law.


The real elephant-in-the-room, is whether a group of people, whether they represent the majority or not, should have the power to enforce their version of morality on the minority, through the establishment, and enforcement of law.


My argument is two things. First, I do not believe any moral laws, whether they are secular, or whether they are supported by a majority, are legitimate. And secondly, I do not believe a society can exist without moral laws.

Which obviously leaves us in quite the conundrum. How can this situation be rectified?

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.
Bertrand Russell

He is wrong.

The opposition to war, and slavery for that matter, found most of its roots in Christianity. And the biggest anti-war organizations, were, and still are, Christian.

Even the Civil-Rights movement, was fundamentally a Christian movement, and its leaders were Christian preachers.


Bertrand Russell was British, so we can assume that the actual church he is complaining about, is the "Church of England". The Church of England, was fundamentally just an arm of the state. And it basically rubber-stamped almost everything the government wanted to do, because its leaders were largely appointed by the government.


"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." - Thomas Jefferson


Which should explain why, in America, where slavery was supported, was mainly in the mid-Atlantic and southern United States. Those were the states where members of the Church of England(In America, its called the "Episcopal Church") were most-prevalent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episco...)#Colonial_era


"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and in-grafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." - Thomas Jefferson


I have absolutely no love for the Church of England(and its off-shoots), or the Catholic Church for that matter. But to blame Christianity for the evils of the world, is plain ignorant. The real evil in this world, is always, at its core, secular. It is merely the desire for power.


If you think a secular government can protect us from the desire for power, you're fooling yourself. A secular government is far more dangerous than any religious government, because it is completely uninhibited by anything.


The only thing which could save us from the unlimited authority of the secular state(and thus, its lust for power), is god.


You don't even have to believe in god, to know that to be true. In fact, I'm not even a religious person. But I often curse god, because I can see where this world is heading. I can foresee its inevitable destination. And he is the only one who can stop it. Yet, he does nothing. And I can do nothing.


I gave up a long time ago.

[VA Yankee]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

He is wrong.

The opposition to war, and slavery for that matter, found most of its roots in Christianity. And the biggest anti-war organizations, were, and still are, Christian.

Even the Civil-Rights movement, was fundamentally a Christian movement, and its leaders were Christian preachers.


Bertrand Russell was British, so we can assume that the actual church he is complaining about, is the "Church of England". The Church of England, was fundamentally just an arm of the state. And it basically rubber-stamped almost everything the government wanted to do, because its leaders were largely appointed by the government.


"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." - Thomas Jefferson


Which should explain why, in America, where slavery was supported, was mainly in the mid-Atlantic and southern United States. Those were the states where members of the Church of England(In America, its called the "Episcopal Church") were most-prevalent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episco...)#Colonial_era


"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and in-grafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." - Thomas Jefferson


I have absolutely no love for the Church of England(and its off-shoots), or the Catholic Church for that matter. But to blame Christianity for the evils of the world, is plain ignorant. The real evil in this world, is always, at its core, secular. It is merely the desire for power.


If you think a secular government can protect us from the desire for power, you're fooling yourself. A secular government is far more dangerous than any religious government, because it is completely uninhibited by anything.


The only thing which could save us from the unlimited authority of the secular state(and thus, its lust for power), is god.


You don't even have to believe in god, to know that to be true. In fact, I'm not even a religious person. But I often curse god, because I can see where this world is heading. I can foresee its inevitable destination. And he is the only one who can stop it. Yet, he does nothing. And I can do nothing.


I gave up a long time ago.

Its very nice to say that Christianity was a driving force in eliminating these ills from the world but just as part of them helped drive them out another part of the religion was supporting/endorsing them. Churches supported and reinforced slavery as the way of the land for a long time and fueled the bigotry that followed after. You also don't get to play the "well it was that faith not ours that was doing it" game because all churches were guilty.

The only thing that can save you from "unlimited authority" of not just the secular state as you mentioned or the religious one is an ability to think for yourself. Because when you blindly follow without question then you will find yourself on a path that you don't like.

[florida.bob]

All religions take great care in being the image of those who created the religion ..