Why the obsession with religiously-derived laws?

[Hakons]

Those Italians would like the honor of being named, and would certainly criticize you for what you attribute to be fantasy.

I have yet to see any compelling evidence for the existence of a god or other such divine being.

Christianity, as with all religions and many other aspects of humanity, is dependent on faith. There are Christian Apologetics that use logical analysis, with C.S. Lewis being one of the more famous ones. You can ask this question on the Christian Discussion Thread if you want, because this thread should focus on the relationship between religious and secular laws, and not on the nature of reality.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

You mean like you keep hiding behind imaginary calls for sharia to be implemented?

So Pew Research Center's findings are imaginary. Scroll down to see the percentages of Muslims in Muslim-dominated countries that want to implement Sharia. In many of those countries they are the majority.

I've seen this before, AlHamdulillah.

[Luminesa]

So Pew Research Center's findings are imaginary. Scroll down to see the percentages of Muslims in Muslim-dominated countries that want to implement Sharia. In many of those countries they are the majority.

I've seen this before, AlHamdulillah.

...Translation, please? Apologies, don't know Arabic.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I have yet to see any compelling evidence for the existence of a god or other such divine being.

Christianity, as with all religions and many other aspects of humanity, is dependent on faith. There are Christian Apologetics that use logical analysis, with C.S. Lewis being one of the more famous ones. You can ask this question on the Christian Discussion Thread if you want, because this thread should focus on the relationship between religious and secular laws, and not on the nature of reality.

If you wanna know about Al-Islam, go the Islamic Discussion Thread.

[Khasinkonia]

As I'm sure others have said, it's a matter of some people believing a country founded by a demographic mostly following a particular religion should use religion as a substratum. I'm using linguistic terms because I'm a linguistics nerd, not a religious one, so I'm just using what I've got.

As far as I can tell, in the minds of people who want more theocratic government systems want it because they believe [insert religion and/or moral system here] is the best moral guide, so, as far as they're concerned, it should be treated as such(e.g. More theocratic government elements, greater religious presence in everyday life, etc)

[Vassenor]

You mean like you keep hiding behind imaginary calls for sharia to be implemented?

So Pew Research Center's findings are imaginary. Scroll down to see the percentages of Muslims in Muslim-dominated countries that want to implement Sharia. In many of those countries they are the majority.

I meant when you started claiming that I want shariah implemented. Or are we pretending that never happened?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I've seen this before, AlHamdulillah.

...Translation, please? Apologies, don't know Arabic.

Oh yeah, you just reminded me, I can't speak Arabic! It might offend somebody! >nod<
AlHamdulillah = Praise be to Allah (SWT)
SWT = Subhanahu wa ta'ala = Glory to Him most high.

[UKCS]

I have yet to see any compelling evidence for the existence of a god or other such divine being.

Christianity, as with all religions and many other aspects of humanity, is dependent on faith. There are Christian Apologetics that use logical analysis, with C.S. Lewis being one of the more famous ones. You can ask this question on the Christian Discussion Thread if you want, because this thread should focus on the relationship between religious and secular laws, and not on the nature of reality. :p

Reality being secular, I assume?

[Minzerland II]

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"?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I've always taken that, '[...]laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another[...]', to mean special treatment, protection, or state-sponsored proselytisation of a certain religion, among other things.

[Luminesa]

...Translation, please? Apologies, don't know Arabic.

Oh yeah, you just reminded me, I can't speak Arabic! It might offend somebody! >nod<
AlHamdulillah = Praise be to Allah (SWT)
SWT = Subhanahu wa ta'ala = Glory to Him most high.

...I'm not offended by Arabic. I just happen to not know the language.

[New Luckyland]

You mean like you keep hiding behind imaginary calls for sharia to be implemented?

So Pew Research Center's findings are imaginary. Scroll down to see the percentages of Muslims in Muslim-dominated countries that want to implement Sharia. In many of those countries they are the majority.

Was this research peer-reviewed? How are Pew Research Center funded? (No criticism, just the usual questions.)

[Luminesa]

So Pew Research Center's findings are imaginary. Scroll down to see the percentages of Muslims in Muslim-dominated countries that want to implement Sharia. In many of those countries they are the majority.

I meant when you started claiming that I want shariah implemented. Or are we pretending that never happened?

You want them to be treated equally? That would mean that you want Shariah law to be implemented. Otherwise, that would be Islamophobic, wouldn't it?

[Telconi]

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"?

Failing to write exemptions would be.

[Ethel mermania]

So Pew Research Center's findings are imaginary. Scroll down to see the percentages of Muslims in Muslim-dominated countries that want to implement Sharia. In many of those countries they are the majority.

Was this research peer-reviewed? How are Pew Research Center funded? (No criticism, just the usual questions.)

pew is supurb

http://www.pewresearch.org/

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Oh yeah, you just reminded me, I can't speak Arabic! It might offend somebody! >nod<
AlHamdulillah = Praise be to Allah (SWT)
SWT = Subhanahu wa ta'ala = Glory to Him most high.

...I'm not offended by Arabic. I just happen to not know the language.

No lol, I wasn't referring to you. I got warned for using an Arabic word (kafir, to be precise) because some person precious feels would get hurt cuz he/she might get triggered by anything remotely related to Al-Islam or Arabs, or even MENA people. So I just use that line because apparently, a language or part of a language can be banned now.

[The of Japan]

...I'm not offended by Arabic. I just happen to not know the language.

No lol, I wasn't referring to you. I got warned for using an Arabic word (kafir, to be precise) because some person precious feels would get hurt cuz he/she might get triggered by anything remotely related to Al-Islam or Arabs, or even MENA people. So I just use that line because apparently, a language or part of a language can be banned now.

some forum users used it wrongly, it got banned. that is unfortunately how life often works.

[Soyouso]

...I'm not offended by Arabic. I just happen to not know the language.

No lol, I wasn't referring to you. I got warned for using an Arabic word (kafir, to be precise) because some person precious feels would get hurt cuz he/she might get triggered by anything remotely related to Al-Islam or Arabs, or even MENA people. So I just use that line because apparently, a language or part of a language can be banned now.

I don't think they were offended by the fact that you spoke Arabic, it's because kafir is a derogatory term for nonbelievers of Islam. It would be like a Christian calling people heathens for not being Christian.

[The of Japan]

No lol, I wasn't referring to you. I got warned for using an Arabic word (kafir, to be precise) because some person precious feels would get hurt cuz he/she might get triggered by anything remotely related to Al-Islam or Arabs, or even MENA people. So I just use that line because apparently, a language or part of a language can be banned now.

I don't think they were offended by the fact that you spoke Arabic, it's because kafir is a derogatory term for nonbelievers of Islam. It would be like a Christian calling people heathens for not being Christian.

heathen literally means a non-Christian, same with kafir and unbeliever (in a bible and quranic sense, of course.

[Vassenor]

I don't think they were offended by the fact that you spoke Arabic, it's because kafir is a derogatory term for nonbelievers of Islam. It would be like a Christian calling people heathens for not being Christian.

heathen literally means a non-Christian, same with kafir and unbeliever (in a bible and quranic sense, of course.

And Barbarian literally means "does not speak ancient Greek".

[Columbiana]

Because Jesus needs laws too, apparently.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

heathen literally means a non-Christian, same with kafir and unbeliever (in a bible and quranic sense, of course.

And Barbarian literally means "does not speak ancient Greek".

Your point being?

[Holy Tedalonia]

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?

My arguement would be if it's unethical or not which brings in philosophy. Rather then bring in a pain load of philosophy just consider this. To them abortion is unethical, since their ethics are surrounded by their religion. In all honesty their arguement cause the Bible says so is not exactly wrong, since their ethics revolve around it. Many consider it is unethical to mistreat gays, while others consider it unethical to be gay. So who is right the morals surrounding the Bible or the morals surrounding the culture? When it comes down to it morals is the most simple form. It's not hypocritical at the least, since ethics often oppose one another. The issue is they need to say it's against their morals rather then against their religion, so people don't make assumptions like this.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

No lol, I wasn't referring to you. I got warned for using an Arabic word (kafir, to be precise) because some person precious feels would get hurt cuz he/she might get triggered by anything remotely related to Al-Islam or Arabs, or even MENA people. So I just use that line because apparently, a language or part of a language can be banned now.

I don't think they were offended by the fact that you spoke Arabic

I know, I just use it for any Arabic religious term I use

it's because kafir is a derogatory term for nonbelievers of Islam.

No it's not

It would be like a Christian calling people heathens for not being Christian.

https://www.google.com/search?q=heathen ... ve&ssui=on But still, heathen is used in a derogatory way. Kafir isn't, and just because some do doesn't mean you ban its use.

[Farnhamia]

I don't think they were offended by the fact that you spoke Arabic

I know, I just use it for any Arabic religious term I use

it's because kafir is a derogatory term for nonbelievers of Islam.

No it's not

It would be like a Christian calling people heathens for not being Christian.

https://www.google.com/search?q=heathen ... ve&ssui=on But still, heathen is used in a derogatory way. Kafir isn't, and just because some do doesn't mean you ban its use.

A word of advice from your friendly neighborhood Mod, be careful how you use "kafir." It's derogatory meanings can get you in trouble unless you are very careful in setting the context for it's use.

[Stormwrath]

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.

Okay, I guess we shouldn't enforce laws against murder, theft, and adultery, aye? After all, not all of us are Jews and Christians.