Why the obsession with religiously-derived laws?

[Ethel mermania]

Although marriages are, in their most basic form, promises through and through, it is probably more accurate to call marriage a contract; which has legal ramifications for obvious reasons.

Hence, divorce, which frequently occurs when a partner is unfaithful.

no not really

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango ... 86312.html

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Some people think secular laws need to follow divine ones. That's, IMO, why we see some people demanding to have religiously driven laws. I think the secular and the religious need to stay completely separate from each other. History has shown us that when state and church combine, bad shit happens. However, in the interest of providing equal protections to all citizens, regardless of creed, I can see why some laws are tailored made for those who believe in X or Y form.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Yes. Because unless a man in the sky hands you a book, how would you know right from wrong, Vass?

Look, if you're going to attack Christian beliefs, you should at least describe them correctly.

It would be nice.

[Oil exporting People]

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.

Lol, what? Leviticus 20:13 directly states:

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

That's pretty clear on Homosexuality. But, you might say, that's the Old Testament! Here's 1 Corinthians 6:9:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts

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).

Specifically Congress in terms of establishing a religion, but the Founders were pretty okay with just about everything else; Washington used the Inaugural Bible in 1789 just fine, and the various States had established religions for decades after the Constitution was written.

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?

For the first question, does the Constitution not contain the ability to add new Amendments? Such is the ultimate purpose of those seeking to restore religion into shaping public policy here in the States. As to the second question, why would a Christian want to enact Muslim law, or vice versa? Why would a Communist wish to implement Fascist social policy? The answer to this question is rather obvious.

[Holy Tedalonia]

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.

Lol, what? Leviticus 20:13 directly states:

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

That's pretty clear on Homosexuality. But, you might say, that's the Old Testament! Here's 1 Corinthians 6:9:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts

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).

Specifically Congress in terms of establishing a religion, but the Founders were pretty okay with just about everything else; Washington used the Inaugural Bible in 1789 just fine, and the various States had established religions for decades after the Constitution was written.

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?

For the first question, does the Constitution not contain the ability to add new Amendments? Such is the ultimate purpose of those seeking to restore religion into shaping public policy here in the States. As to the second question, why would a Christian want to enact Muslim law, or vice versa? Why would a Communist wish to implement Fascist social policy? The answer to this question is rather obvious.

Don't start saying the Bible says this or that. It's very metaphorical and crap like that. That's why there's so many versions of it. Some churches support gays but few and far between. Really as I said before people cite the Bible to support their morality (what they consider to be right). Take the "because the Bible says so" with a grain of salt. Other than that I agree with all you said pretty much.

[Telconi]

Because most people think that their religion is more important than the laws of the State, but they don't want to break laws. Therefore they want these two sets of laws to be the same. My religion doesn't really have a legal code though, so I wouldn't know

So, given that your religious faith lacks an inherent code of conduct, what is your outlook on the politics of the rule of lae, and it's place in our society?

[Oil exporting People]

Don't start saying the Bible says this or that. It's very metaphorical and crap like that. That's why there's so many versions of it.

That the Bible condemns Homosexuality is beyond a doubt, and to claim otherwise is baseless.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Don't start saying the Bible says this or that. It's very metaphorical and crap like that. That's why there's so many versions of it.

That the Bible condemns Homosexuality is beyond a doubt, and to claim otherwise is baseless.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34

Something like this is suggesting the Bible supports aggressive action. Yet many christians believe god comes in peace. As I said there is much metaphorical stuff within the Bible, something's are to be taken with a different outlook then the literal one. It continues on into supporting the murder of some dudes father or something like that. I don't remember much.

Also here's a quote from the Bible supporting dividing families due to difference in belief!

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)

As I said if this was taken literally then we would have radical Christianity.

[Oil exporting People]

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34
Something like this is suggesting the Bible supports aggressive action. Yet many christians believe god comes in peace. As I said there is much metaphorical stuff within the Bible, something's are to be taken with a different outlook then the literal one. It continues on into supporting the murder of some dudes father or something like that. I don't remember much.

Also here's a quote from the Bible supporting dividing families due to difference in belief!

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)

The entire point of both verses is that people must stick to the Faith, and that this will inevitably result in broke families, simple enough. As is the verses I cited, as there is literally no other way to interpret them.

As I said if this was taken literally then we would have radical Christianity.

We have had that, at many points. You might want to look up the Donatists of North Africa, for example, or the Masculine Christianity movement of the 19th Century.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34
Something like this is suggesting the Bible supports aggressive action. Yet many christians believe god comes in peace. As I said there is much metaphorical stuff within the Bible, something's are to be taken with a different outlook then the literal one. It continues on into supporting the murder of some dudes father or something like that. I don't remember much.

Also here's a quote from the Bible supporting dividing families due to difference in belief!

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)

The entire point of both verses is that people must stick to the Faith, and that this will inevitably result in broke families, simple enough. As is the verses I cited, as there is literally no other way to interpret them.

As I said if this was taken literally then we would have radical Christianity.

We have had that, at many points. You might want to look up the Donatists of North Africa, for example, or the Masculine Christianity movement of the 19th Century.

My point is people interpret the Bible differently and just because you can't interpret it in that way doesn't mean that does not exist. There are American churches that support gays, and whether or not it's the right way or the true way, they interpret the Bible in that way. That's why there is a schism in Christianity, because there are many ways to interpret it as.

[Albrenia]

Is adultery illegal in the US? Because if it is, that's really weird. I didn't think many civilized nations actually had laws against it.

[The of Japan]

Is adultery illegal in the US? Because if it is, that's really weird. I didn't think many civilized nations actually had laws against it.

No

[ThePeacekeepers]

That the Bible condemns Homosexuality is beyond a doubt, and to claim otherwise is baseless.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34

Something like this is suggesting the Bible supports aggressive action. Yet many christians believe god comes in peace. As I said there is much metaphorical stuff within the Bible, something's are to be taken with a different outlook then the literal one. It continues on into supporting the murder of some dudes father or something like that. I don't remember much.

Also here's a quote from the Bible supporting dividing families due to difference in belief!

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)

As I said if this was taken literally then we would have radical Christianity.

Hebrews 4:12
Ephesians 6:17
The sword matt is talking about is clarified as being the word of God. And the verses after that are saying that your family members will be at odds with you and hate you for the Lords word. The same goes for you passage in Luke since many of your family members will hate you for the Lord's sake. Just wanted to point that out to you.

[The Serbian Empire]

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

If one considers Gilgamesh as a god instead of a Mesopotamian king.

[Kenmoria]

Something like this is suggesting the Bible supports aggressive action. Yet many christians believe god comes in peace. As I said there is much metaphorical stuff within the Bible, something's are to be taken with a different outlook then the literal one. It continues on into supporting the murder of some dudes father or something like that. I don't remember much.

Also here's a quote from the Bible supporting dividing families due to difference in belief!

As I said if this was taken literally then we would have radical Christianity.

Hebrews 4:12
Ephesians 6:17
The sword matt is talking about is clarified as being the word of God. And the verses after that are saying that your family members will be at odds with you and hate you for the Lords word. The same goes for you passage in Luke since many of your family members will hate you for the Lord's sake. Just wanted to point that out to you.

Let's not forget Deuteronomy 22:11 and Leviticus 19:19 which state it is immoral to make clothes made of more than one fabric.

[The Serbian Empire]

Hebrews 4:12
Ephesians 6:17
The sword matt is talking about is clarified as being the word of God. And the verses after that are saying that your family members will be at odds with you and hate you for the Lords word. The same goes for you passage in Luke since many of your family members will hate you for the Lord's sake. Just wanted to point that out to you.

Let's not forget Deuteronomy 22:11 and Leviticus 19:19 which state it is immoral to make clothes made of more than one fabric.

It'd be hilarious if that led to all politicians being forced to wear sacks of burlap because wool blend suits are forbidden.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I wouldn't trust a two thousand-year old history book to yield the fairest of laws.

To me, the Bible is little more than a collection of ancient thoughts and practices, a history book...not a bloody legal code.

[Austrasien]

Let's not forget Deuteronomy 22:11 and Leviticus 19:19 which state it is immoral to make clothes made of more than one fabric.

It'd be hilarious if that led to all politicians being forced to wear sacks of burlap because wool blend suits are forbidden.

Or, you know, polyester.

[Austrasien]

Hence, divorce, which frequently occurs when a partner is unfaithful.

no not really

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango ... 86312.html

Shockingly huffpo is wrong.

[Ethel mermania]

no not really

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango ... 86312.html

Shockingly huffpo is wrong.

Heh, it would not be surprising that huff is wrong, but the sample size in that study is tiny, When n=10,000, I will believe it.

[Purpelia]

It's all really simple when you think about it.
Imagine you have a book that you believe in utterly. That book tells you that there is an all knowing all powerful being that is always looking down on you judging you. The being has given you a set of rules to follow and the moment you slip up it'll condemn you to an eternity of torture in hell.

And than you live in a society whose rules are pretty much opposite from gods.

[Vassenor]

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.

Lol, what? Leviticus 20:13 directly states:

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

That's pretty clear on Homosexuality. But, you might say, that's the Old Testament!

So if you're saying Leviticus is valid, when are you going to start petitioning the government to outlaw pork products in accordance with Leviticus 11:7?

And this is before we get to how blatantly the American conservative Christian groups tend to disregard 19:33-34.

This is what I mean by cherry-picking. Taking bits out of the book that support one's own prejudices and disregarding the rest. Surely religious law is an all-or-nothing proposition?

[Holy Tedalonia]

Lol, what? Leviticus 20:13 directly states:



That's pretty clear on Homosexuality. But, you might say, that's the Old Testament!

So if you're saying Leviticus is valid, when are you going to start petitioning the government to outlaw pork products in accordance with Leviticus 11:7?

And this is before we get to how blatantly the American conservative Christian groups tend to disregard 19:33-34.

This is what I mean by cherry-picking. Taking bits out of the book that support one's own prejudices and disregarding the rest. Surely religious law is an all-or-nothing proposition?

Not really, the Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox interpret the Bible differently if it was all or nothing, then they're more likely to agree to the basic ideals to Christianity, and not oppose one another.

[Katganistan]

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....

[Senkaku]

Hence, divorce, which frequently occurs when a partner is unfaithful.

no not really

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango ... 86312.html

...an opinion piece from HuffPo is being used a source, despite not really even mentioning it, for your claim that when people are unfaithful to their partners, divorce does not frequently occur.

:thinking:

Alrighty