Common morality vs religious morality (legal, controversial, marijuana, abortion)

[bawac34618]

Since the other thread has pretty much turned into an abortion debate, I have decided to start this thread to discuss the difference between common morality and religious morality.

I don't believe all forms of morality are equal. There is a common morality shared among humans regardless of race, religion, etc. These include prohibition on things rape, theft, murder, pedophilia, etc. These are things that without dispute harm others and that almost everyone believes should be stopped and punished by the government.

The second form of morality is religious morality. These are morals that can vary quite significantly throughout different segments of our society depending on faith or worldview. In our society these are what were once called "blue laws" and today are quite controversial because we have been pluralistic. In this category are things like gay marriage, marijuana legalization, gambling, alcohol, pornography, etc. Unlike common morality, if these things are not inherently harmful and are definitely not on the level of something like murder which is a person taking the life of another person. Some of them, like alcohol, porn, and marijuana do have negative impacts if overindulged in, but those impacts are the consequence of a personal decision, not one person harming another.

I personally believe that it's in society and the government's best interest to impose the first type of morality as its necessary for a successful society. The second type however is up to individual conscience based on his or her own faith or worldview and in a free society, the government has no business getting involved there.

Do you agree? Why or why not? If you think the government should be regulating the second set, why and how is that compatible with a free society?

[froglipz]

Everyone wants government interference when it serves our own purposes, and oppose it when it doesn't, human nature is self-serving.