Why the obsession with religiously-derived laws?

[Vassenor]

So in today's round of shower thoughts, something hit me that I figured I might as well try and get everyone's views on.

What is with the current obsession with demanding laws be written to fit within religious edict? Since it just seems like every time the topic of abortion or LGBT rights comes up it's met with a flurry of "it needs to be banned because the bible says so".

Even leaving aside the whole cherry-picking aspect (like why only the bits of Leviticus that talk about homosexuality are valid but the rest isn't), this strikes me as kind of bad logic.

For starters, at least in the US the Constitution is very explicit that you can't actually do that ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which despite what everyone seems to think doesn't only mean that they can't stop you starting a religion).

There's also the element of hypocrisy involved, given that a lot of the people pushing that angle will also turn around and talk about the evils of religious law, at least when it comes from other religions.

So here's my open questions to the floor: Why are people so adamant about forcing biblical law into a system where it's not actually permitted, and what makes biblical law OK but Shariah and others the work of true evil?

[Alvecia]

Simple answer really. They think God's law > civil law, so any attempt to make the two the same is to be lauded.

[Herador]

If you believed the being that created the universe hand delivered laws for living in a book you could get anywhere and were of a suitable fundamentalist persuasion, I'd think you'd be pretty inclined to try and get others to follow those laws.

Christians don't want Sharia law because it's not Christian. It's really that simple. Same goes for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. etc.

[Bakery Hill]

All laws are religiously derived. It's impossible to draw the line in any real sense. It's just the rhetoric that changes.

[Saiwania]

Social conservatism in the US, arguably is all about trying to get a Christian theocracy. Presumably- it would consist of rich, White, male Protestants in government and they'd do such things like have prayer and the Bible in public schools, ban abortion and contraception, ban Harry Potter and Halloween, have all text books in education use a Christian narrative, and tout a revisionist history and so on.

It depends on how far they want to go with it, if only they were able to crush all obstacles and opposition.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So in today's round of shower thoughts, something hit me that I figured I might as well try and get everyone's views on.

What is with the current obsession with demanding laws be written to fit within religious edict? Since it just seems like every time the topic of abortion or LGBT rights comes up it's met with a flurry of "it needs to be banned because the bible says so".

Even leaving aside the whole cherry-picking aspect (like why only the bits of Leviticus that talk about homosexuality are valid but the rest isn't), this strikes me as kind of bad logic.

For starters, at least in the US the Constitution is very explicit that you can't actually do that ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which despite what everyone seems to think doesn't only mean that they can't stop you starting a religion).

There's also the element of hypocrisy involved, given that a lot of the people pushing that angle will also turn around and talk about the evils of religious law, at least when it comes from other religions.

So here's my open questions to the floor: Why are people so adamant about forcing biblical law into a system where it's not actually permitted, and what makes biblical law OK but Shariah and others the work of true evil?

The same reason many in the Middle East want Shariah: if you think God Himself told us how we should live our lives, you would have to be quite a hypocrite to place civil law above that.

[Sovaal]

What makes Sharia law not ok for fundy Christians is the same thing that makes fundy Christian law not ok for Muslims = it's not of their religion. Kinda obvious.

Of course all religiously deprived laws are often bullshit anyway.

[Land Without Shrimp]

Social conservatism in the US, arguably is all about trying to get a Christian theocracy. Presumably- it would consist of rich, White, male Protestants in government and they'd do such things like have prayer and the Bible in public schools, ban abortion and contraception, ban Harry Potter and Halloween, have all text books in education use a Christian narrative, and tout a revisionist history and so on.

It depends on how far they want to go with it, if only they were able to crush all obstacles and opposition.

Really? Source for this? I'm somewhat socially conservative and I don't want any of those things(except for the ban of abortion). Having all rich, white male protestants in gov't? That sounds terrifying and not at all representative of the US.

To answer the original question - I would argue that because for many people, religious principles are the foundation of their moral beliefs, I'm not surprised that some people would like laws that would match their morals. We all have some type of "moral code", believing certain things are right and wrong. For those that are religiously inclined, of course they will want laws that uphold said beliefs.

This is always the struggle in a (somewhat) democratic, non-homogeneous population. Whose moral code will "win out"? I would argue that one of the biggest issues in the past few years has been the discussion of free speech and its sometimes harmful effects on others. Should we regulate speech to preserve the mental and emotional well-being of those who are often oppressed and made to feel as other? This is a "moral" issue that may at some point lead to laws being passed one way or the other. We all like and support laws that mirror our own beliefs, religious or otherwise. Of course, some are more irrational about this than others!!

[The Empire of Pretantia]

All laws are religiously derived. It's impossible to draw the line in any real sense. It's just the rhetoric that changes.

What about a law that bans religion?

[The of Japan]

Just wholesale using religious law can often be a bad thing, like with Sharia law.

[Alvecia]

All laws are religiously derived. It's impossible to draw the line in any real sense. It's just the rhetoric that changes.

What about a law that bans religion?

No need to even go that far to be honest. Laws that separate religion from state.

[Sovaal]

All laws are religiously derived. It's impossible to draw the line in any real sense. It's just the rhetoric that changes.

What about a law that bans religion?

Would depend om the religion.

A inndawoods cult that controls the governments of the world from the shadows? Doubt they would mind.

[Ifreann]

People think God is a pretty cool dude who should be in charge of everything.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

Religion shouldn't have a place in politics. If you enforce a law that is based off of a religious belief, then you are going to be opposed by people of another religious belief. It's just too feeble to openly discuss in politics.

As for the OP's question, it's because people want religious freedom. The New England colonies are the best example of this that you're going to get.

[Vassenor]

Religion shouldn't have a place in politics. If you enforce a law that is based off of a religious belief, then you are going to be opposed by people of another religious belief. It's just too feeble to openly discuss in politics.

As for the OP's question, it's because people want religious freedom. The New England colonies are the best example of this that you're going to get.

Weren't those started because people thought that England at the time was too religiously tolerant?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Because people believe that they have a duty to their god(s) as members of *insert religion* to try to minimise the amount of "immoral" actions going on and either

a) failing to do so threatens their relationship with their god(s) and their own access to the post-death perks of religious compliance (self-centred version).

b) failing to do so will result in more of the wider populace being damned, as self-identified good people they have a duty to increase restrictions to try to save them (community-centred version).

It's different to other people's religions because these people believe they've had direct experience of their god(s) and their religion teaches that the other god(s) don't exist and alternate sects are heresy.

It's more important than what the system says is allowed in terms of intervention in politics because these people often literally believe people's souls and afterlives/reincarnations/whatever are on the line.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Religion shouldn't have a place in politics. If you enforce a law that is based off of a religious belief, then you are going to be opposed by people of another religious belief. It's just too feeble to openly discuss in politics.

As for the OP's question, it's because people want religious freedom. The New England colonies are the best example of this that you're going to get.

Weren't those started because people thought that England at the time was too religiously tolerant?

It was more that they thought that the English government was corrupting religion, and so they wanted to not be affiliated with that government in their religion. I wouldn't say the English government of the 1600's was religiously tolerant at all. This was a time when being a Catholic priest could be punishable by death.

[The of Japan]

Religion shouldn't have a place in politics. If you enforce a law that is based off of a religious belief, then you are going to be opposed by people of another religious belief. It's just too feeble to openly discuss in politics.

As for the OP's question, it's because people want religious freedom. The New England colonies are the best example of this that you're going to get.

Weren't those started because people thought that England at the time was too religiously tolerant?

Intolerant, at least for the pilgrims and puritans.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

Religion shouldn't have a place in politics. If you enforce a law that is based off of a religious belief, then you are going to be opposed by people of another religious belief. It's just too feeble to openly discuss in politics.

As for the OP's question, it's because people want religious freedom. The New England colonies are the best example of this that you're going to get.

Weren't those started because people thought that England at the time was too religiously tolerant?

More like religiously intolerant. There was a constant shifting from the public executions of Catholic worshippers and Protestants, which continued to persist for centuries. People who moved to America wanted to be able to freely practice whatever religion they wanted without fear of being killed.

[Albrenia]

People should spend more time tending to their own souls and leave other people's souls alone, unless asked for help.

[Dushan]

It's both ultimatively the same stuff, possibly and likely from the same or similar sauces. Geographically its from the same area anyways.

They are motivated to change the Law to please and adhere the Law supposedly given by assorted deities acting in bad faith with possibly ulterior motifs. It's evident that the adherents and worshippers of said deities want to subject Earth and Mankind under their rule. Bad intentions are to be assumed. That shitshow is going on since thousends of years in many forms and fashions. It's not black and white either.

Of course, this is not what is being told to the average and indifferentiated man as he wouldn understand this. So a thousend distractions and smokescreens are necessary to be deployed as for they wouldn understand the truth behind the curtain. Sometimes a few steps forward, or back. And yes the 3rd abrahamism is currently the more aggressive one, so they need to be dealt with first and foremost. For purely pragmatic reasons, not ideological ones even.

[Community Values]

All laws are religiously derived. It's impossible to draw the line in any real sense. It's just the rhetoric that changes.

Basically this, I'm pretty sure most of the first laws in the US were based on biblical principles.

[Minzerland II]

So in today's round of shower thoughts, something hit me that I figured I might as well try and get everyone's views on.

What is with the current obsession with demanding laws be written to fit within religious edict? Since it just seems like every time the topic of abortion or LGBT rights comes up it's met with a flurry of "it needs to be banned because the bible says so".

Even leaving aside the whole cherry-picking aspect (like why only the bits of Leviticus that talk about homosexuality are valid but the rest isn't), this strikes me as kind of bad logic.

For starters, at least in the US the Constitution is very explicit that you can't actually do that ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which despite what everyone seems to think doesn't only mean that they can't stop you starting a religion).

There's also the element of hypocrisy involved, given that a lot of the people pushing that angle will also turn around and talk about the evils of religious law, at least when it comes from other religions.

So here's my open questions to the floor: Why are people so adamant about forcing biblical law into a system where it's not actually permitted, and what makes biblical law OK but Shariah and others the work of true evil?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'Religiously-derived' laws, such as those in regards to abortion or LGBT rights, are not contrary to the US Constitution, as far as I am aware. Furthermore, in 'Everson v. Board of Education', through Justice Hugo Black, it clearly defines the 'establishment of religion' clause, which does not prohibit 'religiously-derived' laws unless it breaks the US Constitution.

'The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.'

[Vassenor]

So in today's round of shower thoughts, something hit me that I figured I might as well try and get everyone's views on.

What is with the current obsession with demanding laws be written to fit within religious edict? Since it just seems like every time the topic of abortion or LGBT rights comes up it's met with a flurry of "it needs to be banned because the bible says so".

Even leaving aside the whole cherry-picking aspect (like why only the bits of Leviticus that talk about homosexuality are valid but the rest isn't), this strikes me as kind of bad logic.

For starters, at least in the US the Constitution is very explicit that you can't actually do that ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which despite what everyone seems to think doesn't only mean that they can't stop you starting a religion).

There's also the element of hypocrisy involved, given that a lot of the people pushing that angle will also turn around and talk about the evils of religious law, at least when it comes from other religions.

So here's my open questions to the floor: Why are people so adamant about forcing biblical law into a system where it's not actually permitted, and what makes biblical law OK but Shariah and others the work of true evil?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'Religiously-derived' laws, such as those in regards to abortion or LGBT rights, are not contrary to the US Constitution, as far as I am aware. Furthermore, in 'Everson v. Board of Education', through Justice Hugo Black, it clearly defines the 'establishment of religion' clause, which does not prohibit 'religiously-derived' laws unless it breaks the US Constitution.

'The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.'

So you're saying that writing religious exemptions into discrimination law isn't "[passing] laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another"?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'Religiously-derived' laws, such as those in regards to abortion or LGBT rights, are not contrary to the US Constitution, as far as I am aware. Furthermore, in 'Everson v. Board of Education', through Justice Hugo Black, it clearly defines the 'establishment of religion' clause, which does not prohibit 'religiously-derived' laws unless it breaks the US Constitution.

'The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.'

So you're saying that writing religious exemptions into discrimination law isn't "[passing] laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another"?

You could simply replace "religious" with "Ethical" and it would bypass that whole debate.