Why the obsession with religiously-derived laws?

[Farnhamia]

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?

Because it's evil when brown people do it, but great when white Christians do -- even though Christ was not white and was in fact(whispers) (((Christ))).
please don't hit me....

*uses your full name* Kat Gan Istan! You take those echo parens down this instant!

[Katganistan]

Because it's evil when brown people do it, but great when white Christians do -- even though Christ was not white and was in fact(whispers) (((Christ))).
please don't hit me....

*uses your full name* Kat Gan Istan! You take those echo parens down this instant!

Sorry

[Luminesa]

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?

Because it's evil when brown people do it, but great when white Christians do -- even though Christ was not white and was in fact(whispers) (((Christ))).
please don't hit me....

> Implying all Christians are white.
> Implying all Muslims are brown or follow shariah law via OP's suggestion.

I mean, good shot, but you can only throw straw so far.

[Sovaal]

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?

Because it's evil when brown people do it, but great when white Christians do -- even though Christ was not white and was in fact(whispers) (((Christ))).
please don't hit me....

Dammit, you reminded me of that one Fox News clip.

[Herskerstad]

Because it's evil when brown people do it, but great when white Christians do -- even though Christ was not white and was in fact(whispers) (((Christ))).
please don't hit me....

> Implying all Christians are white.
> Implying all Muslims are brown or follow shariah law via OP's suggestion.

I mean, good shot, but you can only throw straw so far.

Perhaps the moderation has opened up to Bantz, in which case good for them.

That being said, while religiously-derived laws and cultural overtones within the legal framework is a debate as old as time itself, there should be an understandable distinction between enforcing regulation that on pain of certificate or job would force a person either to violate their conscience. IE, forcing nuns at hospices to either promote or perform abortions, or enforcing anyone to write down messages they cannot agree with, such as the typical wedding cake controversies, and laws that inscribe theocratic standards. Such as the fairly recently removed Norwegian law that was removed that mandated 50% of the representatives had to be protestants or say Brunei's sharia. Within reasonable limits conscience should be protected, if not depending on where the pendulum swings it may come to hit religious and nonreligious people alike with measures that damage the economy and social fabric of the nation. Enforced speech in particular is a fugly trend.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Perhaps the moderation has opened up to Bantz, in which case good for them. [...]

>mods
>bantz

That would be surprising.

[Ostroeuropa]

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?

Honestly I think Satanism and Marx have it exactly right.
Religion adds poetry to the soulless void, it allows the willing suspension of disbelief, the wearing of our masks and flourishes and the drama and all that.
Without it, there is nihilism, the play is over, and we are forced to confront the void and recognize the futility of it all.

We would do better to add more soulful rhetoric and flourishes to secular and humanitarian efforts, rather than merely being against religious rule. When you attack religiously derived laws and offer no alternative structure, my suspicion is that the religious panic because it smacks of nihilism.

Gathering our supporters around a particular story, a particular narrative, about human destiny and history, could alleviate a lot of this. Transhumanism could serve this purpose, as could space exploration, but it needs to be the lynchpin, the guiding principle and goal, the promised land kind of thing.

I think anti-secularists want society to serve a purpose, not merely be an orgy of excess, and I sympathize with them on that. the civil rights movement had a lot of this, and the breakthroughs of MLK weren't "Anti-racist", so much as "Pro-equality."
His I have a dream speech is the most well known for a reason.

When we oppose religious laws, it should be with a goal in mind beyond just "We oppose this" and that goal should dominate our discussion of it.

[Telconi]

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?

Honestly I think Satanism and Marx have it exactly right.
Religion adds poetry to the soulless void, it allows the willing suspension of disbelief, the wearing of our masks and flourishes and the drama and all that.
Without it, there is nihilism, the play is over, and we are forced to confront the void and recognize the futility of it all.

We would do better to add more soulful rhetoric and flourishes to secular and humanitarian efforts, rather than merely being against religious rule. When you attack religiously derived laws and offer no alternative structure, my suspicion is that the religious panic because it smacks of nihilism.

Gathering our supporters around a particular story, a particular narrative, about human destiny and history, could alleviate a lot of this. Transhumanism could serve this purpose, as could space exploration, but it needs to be the lynchpin, the guiding principle and goal, the promised land kind of thing.

I think anti-secularists want society to serve a purpose, not merely be an orgy of excess, and I sympathize with them on that. the civil rights movement had a lot of this, and the breakthroughs of MLK weren't "Anti-racist", so much as "Pro-equality."
His I have a dream speech is the most well known for a reason.

When we oppose religious laws, it should be with a goal in mind beyond just "We oppose this" and that goal should dominate our discussion of it.

But why oppose religious laws at all? What bearing does being a 'religious law' have on a law's validity?

[Sovaal]

Honestly I think Satanism and Marx have it exactly right.
Religion adds poetry to the soulless void, it allows the willing suspension of disbelief, the wearing of our masks and flourishes and the drama and all that.
Without it, there is nihilism, the play is over, and we are forced to confront the void and recognize the futility of it all.

We would do better to add more soulful rhetoric and flourishes to secular and humanitarian efforts, rather than merely being against religious rule. When you attack religiously derived laws and offer no alternative structure, my suspicion is that the religious panic because it smacks of nihilism.

Gathering our supporters around a particular story, a particular narrative, about human destiny and history, could alleviate a lot of this. Transhumanism could serve this purpose, as could space exploration, but it needs to be the lynchpin, the guiding principle and goal, the promised land kind of thing.

I think anti-secularists want society to serve a purpose, not merely be an orgy of excess, and I sympathize with them on that. the civil rights movement had a lot of this, and the breakthroughs of MLK weren't "Anti-racist", so much as "Pro-equality."
His I have a dream speech is the most well known for a reason.

When we oppose religious laws, it should be with a goal in mind beyond just "We oppose this" and that goal should dominate our discussion of it.

But why oppose religious laws at all? What bearing does being a 'religious law' have on a law's validity?

I second this, ban all pork and put the Quran back into schools!!/s

Because most modern day nations are home to more then one religious group.

[Napkiraly]

> Implying all Christians are white.
> Implying all Muslims are brown or follow shariah law via OP's suggestion.

I mean, good shot, but you can only throw straw so far.

Perhaps the moderation has opened up to Bantz, in which case good for them.

I highly doubt that.

[Telconi]

But why oppose religious laws at all? What bearing does being a 'religious law' have on a law's validity?

I second this, ban all pork and put the Quran back into schools!!/s

Because most modern day nations are home to more then one religious group.

I understand that, but what makes a religiously based law inherently different than any other? The Christian bible says "though shalt not kill" would you advocate for the legalization of homicide simply because the bible said not to? Or would you rather homicide remain illegal, because the law has value independent of it''s religious association?

[Holy Tedalonia]

But why oppose religious laws at all? What bearing does being a 'religious law' have on a law's validity?

I second this, ban all pork and put the Quran back into schools!!/s

Because most modern day nations are home to more then one religious group.

I'd rather them not say, "because the Bible says so!" And replace it with, "because it doesn't agree with my moral beliefs!" But then again, that basically what a religion is for upholding moral beliefs.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Myself being atheist-agnostic, I am strongly opposed to any religiously-derived laws. They simply go against basic scientific logic and only seem to lead to oppression. Here's some examples:

."Same-sex marriage should be illegal because it goes against the Bible and will destroy the traditional value of marriage" - I live in the UK, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2013. Has the traditional value of marriage been destroyed? F NO. If two people - I don't give a damn about the gender - love each other and want to marry, why ban it?

."Abortion should be illegal because fetuses have souls" - Go see my posts on the abortion thread, m8. At least Ireland is having a referendum next year on scrapping that stupid law.

."Women should not be allowed to drive because they were created to raise children" - 1 - I don't believe in God. 2 - That still doesn't say women can't drive.

[Telconi]

I second this, ban all pork and put the Quran back into schools!!/s

Because most modern day nations are home to more then one religious group.

I'd rather them not say, "because the Bible says so!" And replace it with, "because it doesn't agree with my moral beliefs!" But then again, that basically what a religion is for upholding moral beliefs.

Well, then that would inhibit all people who try to enforce their moral code on others. Can't have that happening.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I'd rather them not say, "because the Bible says so!" And replace it with, "because it doesn't agree with my moral beliefs!" But then again, that basically what a religion is for upholding moral beliefs.

Well, then that would inhibit all people who try to enforce their moral code on others. Can't have that happening.

Then what do you suggest. I mean what's your solution to the morality issue of abortion? Which side are you supposed to support? Moral issues pop up in practically everywhere.

[Aellex]

Building a legal system based solely on ethics can lead to be pretty serious fuckening as anyone who ever read a little about ancient China can tell.
There need to be actual Moral at its core for it to be truly stable and there is nor can be no such thing as moral outside of Religion.

[Telconi]

Well, then that would inhibit all people who try to enforce their moral code on others. Can't have that happening.

Then what do you suggest. I mean what's your solution to the morality issue of abortion? Which side are you supposed to support? Moral issues pop up in practically everywhere.

My solution, don't do it. As to moral issues popping up everywhere, we need to create a system where laws are scrutinized based upon actual societal good, not upon rather (.5X)+1 people agree with it.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Building a legal system based solely on ethics can lead to be pretty serious fuckening as anyone who ever read a little about ancient China can tell.
There need to be actual Moral at its core for it to be truly stable and there is nor can be no such thing as moral outside of Religion.

Seriously, morals can and do exist outside religion. Take humanism, for instance. It has its own morals based on maximising human happiness. And it shares many with existing religions, such as "Do not kill other people"

[Holy Tedalonia]

Then what do you suggest. I mean what's your solution to the morality issue of abortion? Which side are you supposed to support? Moral issues pop up in practically everywhere.

My solution, don't do it. As to moral issues popping up everywhere, we need to create a system where laws are scrutinized based upon actual societal good, not upon rather (.5X)+1 people agree with it.

What determines the actual societal good? Is it the majority? Or the minority? Is it the pious? Or the Impious? Or are you suggesting compromise?

[Aellex]

Seriously, morals can and do exist outside religion. Take humanism, for instance. It has its own morals based on maximising human happiness. And it shares many with existing religions, such as "Do not kill other people"

It has ethics, not moral. Those might seems the same to the untrained eye but they actually aren't.

[Telconi]

My solution, don't do it. As to moral issues popping up everywhere, we need to create a system where laws are scrutinized based upon actual societal good, not upon rather (.5X)+1 people agree with it.

What determines the actual societal good? Is it the majority? Or the minority? Is it the pious? Or the Impious? Or are you suggesting compromise?

Any action that inherently brings harm to other people is against the societal good. I think a law should have to demonstrate legitimate harm to be acceptable.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Seriously, morals can and do exist outside religion. Take humanism, for instance. It has its own morals based on maximising human happiness. And it shares many with existing religions, such as "Do not kill other people"

It has ethics, not moral. Those might seems the same to the untrained eye but they actually aren't.

Morality is the basis of right and wrong. I consider culture being the other side of the coin in morality, since our cultures dictate what's right and wrong sometimes. (Like being polite to a noble because he's superior for some reason)

[Vassenor]

Building a legal system based solely on ethics can lead to be pretty serious fuckening as anyone who ever read a little about ancient China can tell.
There need to be actual Moral at its core for it to be truly stable and there is nor can be no such thing as moral outside of Religion.

...Haven't you previously been pushing the idea of Laïcité on the world stage pretty hard?

[Napkiraly]

Ethics and morality are highly related, with most differences being between the accepted "good" principles, values, and behavior of a community set by some sort of code of conduct (ethics) and an individuals own ideas of what is "right" and what is "wrong" when it comes to principles, behavior, etc (morality).

If that is the line that is to be drawn, then saying that those without a religion cannot have morals is simply and utterly false.

[Holy Tedalonia]

What determines the actual societal good? Is it the majority? Or the minority? Is it the pious? Or the Impious? Or are you suggesting compromise?

Any action that inherently brings harm to other people is against the societal good. I think a law should have to demonstrate legitimate harm to be acceptable.

But how is that considered good? Sharia law for some Muslims In the world would be against your ideal. And if you let them get away unpunished (in their eyes) how is that good? Does that not make the society worse off? A man unpunished?