Why the obsession with religiously-derived laws?

[Aellex]

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

I did tho I have tampered my vision slightly since then. I still advocate strongly for it insofar as it's an useful tool to strengthen the nation, use against atheists who can not stop themselves from shilling for a certain group and avoid corruption in the clergy however I can't help but see the merits and strength of Religion in the well-being of the State.

[Napkiraly]

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.

No, it also promotes morality. It promotes certain value and principles for individuals to live by and believe even if the rest of their society does not and even hostile to said set up principles, behaviors, etc.

[Aellex]

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.

Moral is God-bestowed. Ethic is man-made. You cannot have Moral without believing in God however you can have ethic closely resembling moral (tho never actually totally reaching it).

[Napkiraly]

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

I did tho I have tampered my vision slightly since then. I still advocate strongly for it insofar as it's an useful tool to strengthen the nation, use against atheists who can not stop themselves from shilling for a certain group and avoid corruption in the clergy however I can't help but see the merits and strength of Religion in the well-being of the State.

Then you don't really believe in it. If you just use secularism to shit on two groups you hate (atheists and Muslims) and to slightly prop up Catholicism, then you aren't an adherent of Laïcité, your just using the language of it to justify your upholding of Catholicism as the de facto national religion.

[Holy Tedalonia]

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.

Moral is God-bestowed. Ethic is man-made. You cannot have Moral without believing in God however you can have ethic closely resembling moral (tho never actually totally reaching it).

Yeah no. Any philosophical person would tell you you're wrong. Morals is what's right and what's wrong. Ethics, is concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action.

[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.

Moral is God-bestowed.

No it isn't. As I stated earlier, the most common line drawn between ethics and morality by actual philosophers, legal scholars, etc are between the community and the individual. Sometimes the ethics of a community line up with the morality of an individual, sometimes they do not.

[Telconi]

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?

How would Sharia law violate my ideal? I don't think I'm catching the point.

[Aellex]

Yeah no. Any philosophical person would tell you you're wrong. Morals is what's right and what's wrong. Ethics, is concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action.

To quote your own words, "Yeah no.". Your definition is just your definition and doesn't hold any more weight than my own.

No it isn't.

It is, tho. :^)

[Napkiraly]

No it isn't.

It is, tho. :^)

No it isn't. They can derive from religious sources, but is not a requirement. My own set of morals are not derived from religion and most importantly they do no sync with the ethics and values of my wider community in many key instances (such as abortion, adultery, assimilation, etc).

[Holy Tedalonia]

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?

How would Sharia law violate my ideal? I don't think I'm catching the point.

Ideally you want societal good, but if any action that does inherent harm wouldn't that mean that Sharia Law is a no go, since it does harm countless times?

[Holy Tedalonia]

Yeah no. Any philosophical person would tell you you're wrong. Morals is what's right and what's wrong. Ethics, is concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action.

To quote your own words, "Yeah no.". Your definition is just your definition and doesn't hold any more weight than my own.

No it isn't.

It is, tho. :^)

There's an issue. The Ethical definition was from a dictionary. So to up my case here's the moral definition.

Morality
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

[Freederickia]

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

Do you like Sharia law? Do you think that it is possible that Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists could share your reasoning? If so, why?
I am not religious but I completely understand why non-Islamist would not want to be subject to death, slavery or living as an animal for not believing. When I say non-Islamist I mean anyone regardless of religion or even those that don't believe in religion.
Religion in most cases sees life as invaluable. Modern Christian dominated nations tend to value freedom. People like Freedom and they like it when laws are focused on the value of their own life so they support nations with religious laws. Sometimes, like in the case of Islam or in cases where a ruler is considered a kind of God the obsession with religious-derived laws exists because of brainwashed peoples in an authoritarian nation without freedom of speech or press.
The reason why people do not support laws based solely on the lack of God and thus no inalienable rights is that without some morality their life has no innate value and thus may be discarded without consequence.

[Telconi]

How would Sharia law violate my ideal? I don't think I'm catching the point.

Ideally you want societal good, but if any action that does inherent harm wouldn't that mean that Sharia Law is a no go, since it does harm countless times?

Well, yeah, I don't see the problem here...

[Vassenor]

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

Do you like Sharia law? Do you think that it is possible that Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists could share your reasoning? If so, why?
I am not religious but I completely understand why non-Islamist would not want to be subject to death, slavery or living as an animal for not believing. When I say non-Islamist I mean anyone regardless of religion or even those that don't believe in religion.
Religion in most cases sees life as invaluable. Modern Christian dominated nations tend to value freedom. People like Freedom and they like it when laws are focused on the value of their own life so they support nations with religious laws. Sometimes, like in the case of Islam or in cases where a ruler is considered a kind of God the obsession with religious-derived laws exists because of brainwashed peoples in an authoritarian nation without freedom of speech or press.
The reason why people do not support laws based solely on the lack of God and thus no inalienable rights is that without some morality their life has no innate value and thus may be discarded without consequence.

So what is free about telling someone they cannot marry the person they love because of something arbitrary like gender?

[Aellex]

There's an issue. The Ethical definition was from a dictionary. So to up my case here's the moral definition.

Morality
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

What a shame Morality isn't what we're talking about. :^)

[Aellex]

No it isn't. They can derive from religious sources, but is not a requirement. My own set of morals are not derived from religion and most importantly they do no sync with the ethics and values of my wider community in many key instances (such as abortion, adultery, assimilation, etc).

You're talking about moral as a plural. There is no such thing, at least not someone who believes in it. Ethic can be plural for any man can make his own. Moral is God-granted and thus there can be no variation to it.

[Aellex]

So what is free about telling someone they cannot marry the person they love because of something arbitrary like gender?

Defining your sex as something "arbitrary" is kind of a fucking stretch, tbf.

[Napkiraly]

No it isn't. They can derive from religious sources, but is not a requirement. My own set of morals are not derived from religion and most importantly they do no sync with the ethics and values of my wider community in many key instances (such as abortion, adultery, assimilation, etc).

You're talking about moral as a plural. There is no such thing, at least not someone who believes in it. Ethic can be plural for any man can make his own. Moral is God-granted and thus there can be no variation to it.

I believe in my own morality and its superiority. That does not blind me from acknowledging that my own morality is not currently universal (as much as I would like it to be). And no it is not inherent to religion. You can have morals and still not believe in God.

[Aellex]

I believe in my own morality and its superiority. That does not blind me from acknowledging that my own morality is not currently universal (as much as I would like it to be). And no it is not inherent to religion. You can have morals and still not believe in God.

You can have ethics. Not Moral.

[Pilarcraft]

it's simply because of the ever eluding habit of many religious people. "my religion bans me from doing it, so you shouldn't either."
Muslims do it, Christians do it (Ok, not as much as Muslims), and so do others.

and of course a blatant refusal to realize almost every single theocracy in the history has ended up... not quite as utopian as its founders expected it to be (And that's the most gross understatement I've made thus far)

[Aellex]

and of course a blatant refusal to realize almost every single theocracy in the history has ended up... not quite as utopian as its founders expected it to be (And that's the most gross understatement I've made thus far)

tbf, the same can be said of literally every system of governance. Not all failures were as spectacular as the one of Socialism and Communism but all systems of governance from Republicanism to Monarchism passing by Fascism, all went to shit to some extent and definitely weren't as perfect as they were planned to be.

[Napkiraly]

I believe in my own morality and its superiority. That does not blind me from acknowledging that my own morality is not currently universal (as much as I would like it to be). And no it is not inherent to religion. You can have morals and still not believe in God.

You can have ethics. Not Moral.

No, I have both. The ethics of my current community do not line up perfectly with those of my morality. My views of what are right and wrong are considerably different than from most of my fellow Canadians. Both in terms of actions and values/principles.

[War Gears]

So what is free about telling someone they cannot marry the person they love because of something arbitrary like gender?

Defining your sex as something "arbitrary" is kind of a fucking stretch, tbf.

It's always kind of amused me just how much materialist non-believers will resort to Cartesian dualism among other things to make their arguments.

[Vassenor]

So what is free about telling someone they cannot marry the person they love because of something arbitrary like gender?

Defining your sex as something "arbitrary" is kind of a fucking stretch, tbf.

When it comes to things like marriage, it is pretty arbitrary to say "Group X can only marry Group Y".

[Nocturnalis]

Defining your sex as something "arbitrary" is kind of a fucking stretch, tbf.

When it comes to things like marriage, it is pretty arbitrary to say "Group X can only marry Group Y".

It isn't when when 'interaction ' between the two groups is the practical foundation for reproduction and healthy child-rearing.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than basing your entire concept of marriage around an emotion.