Religeon

[Mr-Fluffykins]

Should laws be based off religeon? I think not i am an atheist and i do not like the church, i am apalled that alot of laws are based off the church and alot of things on dumb laws revolve around sunday, why should people ho don't belive in this bullshit have to put up with it

[mrpopenfresh]

F.Y.I, its spelled religion, with an i.

[GooieGreen]

At 5/19/04 08:04 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: F.Y.I, its spelled religion, with an i.

shh, don't tell him, it was funnier before he knew =P

Umm, they really shouldn't, in a nation that is said to have seperation of church and state, however, seldom does that occur.

[nemoibi]

At 5/19/04 08:06 PM, MasterGooie wrote:

At 5/19/04 08:04 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: F.Y.I, its spelled religion, with an i.

shh, don't tell him, it was funnier before he knew =P

Umm, they really shouldn't, in a nation that is said to have seperation of church and state, however, seldom does that occur.

that is so true...many politicians promise to keep their religious belifs seperate from decisions that will be made in office but very few follow through with this promise...prohibition laws were passed by congress who was persuaded by a group of christian women...sodomy laws were influenced entirely by religious morals and vague allusions made in the bible (i am pagan and believe the bible was written purely by man with no heavenly influenes...its basicly one huge contradiction and a load of crap)...now with the fight for gay marriage, many of the supporters of "traditional" marriages are conservative, close-minded, and christian...Jews have no problem with the gay population because i know many pratitioners of judiasm and they have no problem hanging around a lesbian (me). someone please explain to me why this country is slowly starting to resemble George Orwell's 1984 ... maybe i should move to europe....

[GooieGreen]

uh huh, anyway, our president doesn't. There is a clear example of a lack of seperation of church and state.

[RandomFreak]

Well I certainly don't think that our laws should be taken directly from religious ideals or that the religious beliefs of anybody (the population majority or the leaders) should dictate laws and behavior. The problem is that religious people tend to believe that the rules of behavior of their religion are absolute truths that should apply to all, really they're just being over-zealous.

[Mr-Fluffykins]

they need an atheiest ruler, and don't mocked I spelling plz, i knew a spoked it rong Oh kay?

[zaedus]

Should laws be based off of religion? Well, the law of Gravity, Thermodynamics, and many other laws are not based on religion. Many governmental and state laws are not based on religion. They do, however have to be based on something. Now, what better alternative would you suggest. If you want to strike 'religion' from that roster, then you must omit every possible belief in something other-worldly or not backed up by pure scientific fact. Consider this, if there were no religion, good or bad, then there would be no morals, no ethics. In fact, there could be no belief. You could believe that killing is wrong, but how could you believe that without first believing some set of morals that some religion holds? You could believe that stealing is right, but on what do you found your belief, if it be not religion? You cannot possibly say that something is wrong or right without first having your belief founded in some religion, even if it is your own made-up religion. And if it is your own religion, then you are being a hypocrite in and of yourself. You obviously want YOUR beliefs to steer this country, if not the world. What you really mean to say, is that you do not want "Christian" values to integrate themselves into the legislative processes, not that you want to give up religion entirely.

[Reform]

Seperation of State cannot be held (ideally) unless every person of power held objective atheist beliefs, as their decisions are based on their beliefs and standings, of which are influenced by their religion.

[RedSkunk]

I believe in secular government.

[FatherVenom]

Hey, it's worked for this long. So it can't be that bad to separate church and state. The biggest problem is deciding which church to pick. I can see how it works in the Vatican, but that's just a city.

[zaedus]

At 5/19/04 11:31 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: I believe in secular government.

That's half your problem there, bud. You "believe." Religion is a set of beliefs. It doesn't have to be Christian, Muslim, Hindi, or Wiccan to be a religion. Evolution is just as much a religion as the former.

[RedSkunk]

At 5/19/04 11:56 PM, zaedus wrote: That's half your problem there, bud. You "believe." Religion is a set of beliefs. It doesn't have to be Christian, Muslim, Hindi, or Wiccan to be a religion. Evolution is just as much a religion as the former.

re·li·gion
n.
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

Excuse me for the dictionary pull, but my belief in secular government is not grounded in supernatural powers, spiritual leaders, or a specific worship of any kind.

[Disgruntled-Postman]

well like it or not, the original basis for our laws was based off the bible. We can amend the constitution, but our core basis of government is from religious principles.

[zaedus]

re·li·gion
n.
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

You hang yourself, friend. Number 4: A secular government is a principle, and you are obviously conscientious about it by replying.

[RedSkunk]

At 5/20/04 01:17 AM, zaedus wrote: You hang yourself, friend. Number 4: A secular government is a principle, and you are obviously conscientious about it by replying.

I don't pursue it with conscientious devotion.

[RedSkunk]

Religion is a set of beliefs, but all beliefs aren't religions.

[zaedus]

I don't pursue it with conscientious devotion.

Maybe, maybe not. But there are those who do. You think that we should have a secular government, a goverment in absence of God, a worldly government. The only people that fit that score are atheists. There ARE conscientiously devoted atheists, even if you are not one. Forgive me if i go to bed now.

[D-R-P]

At 5/19/04 11:11 PM, zaedus wrote: Should laws be based off of religion? Well, the law of Gravity, Thermodynamics, and many other laws are not based on religion. Many governmental and state laws are not based on religion. They do, however have to be based on something.

True.

Now, what better alternative would you suggest. If you want to strike 'religion' from that roster, then you must omit every possible belief in something other-worldly or not backed up by pure scientific fact.

False. Believing in aliens is not a religion.

Consider this, if there were no religion, good or bad, then there would be no morals, no ethics. In fact, there could be no belief. You could believe that killing is wrong, but how could you believe that without first believing some set of morals that some religion holds? You could believe that stealing is right, but on what do you found your belief, if it be not religion? You cannot possibly say that something is wrong or right without first having your belief founded in some religion, even if it is your own made-up religion. And if it is your own religion, then you are being a hypocrite in and of yourself.

Wrong again. I'm an atheist, and I have morals and ethics. I think that killing or harming another human being physically or mentally is wrong, not because it is a sin or because there will be a punishment/lack of reward, but because we as humans need each other in order to survive. There would only be a benefit in harming another human if you managed to destroy every person that did not agree with your ideals and caused problems. This is impossible, unless you have access to nuclear weapons, but then you would also be killing yourself. I can come up with hundreds of other examples of my morality, and I think the notion of 'God' or a higher power is simply a way for other human beings to cope with day to day life and the things they cannot explain.

You obviously want YOUR beliefs to steer this country, if not the world. What you really mean to say, is that you do not want "Christian" values to integrate themselves into the legislative processes, not that you want to give up religion entirely.

Actually, I would like it if everyone in the entire world gave up religion, as long as they were able to function normally without it. Some people simply can't do that. But I accept that fact. I don't persecute others for what they believe in.

However, I would like to point out that I used the words 'I think' and not 'I believe.' I don't 'believe' in anything, I have ideas. I don't believe that if you drop a ball, it will hit the ground absolutely every time. I think it is very improbable, and I would be quite surprised if one time it did not, but I cannot believe that the same effect will happen every single time. You go ahead and start dropping a ball, and after you've dropped it an infinite number of times, you let me know if it did or did not hit the ground 100% of those infinite times. If I were to believe that the ball would hit the ground every time, and once it spontaneously combusted, it shake the very foundation of my being. My beliefs would be shattered. And that's when people start burning heretics for proving that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun.

[D-R-P]

At 5/19/04 11:56 PM, zaedus wrote:

At 5/19/04 11:31 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: I believe in secular government.

That's half your problem there, bud. You "believe." Religion is a set of beliefs. It doesn't have to be Christian, Muslim, Hindi, or Wiccan to be a religion. Evolution is just as much a religion as the former.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

Religion is not just a set of beliefs. You can believe in something without it being a religion.

[BeFell]

I don't think that our laws should be copied right out of the bible but I see nothing wrong with law makers basing thier decisions from their religous beliefs. Religion shapes how a person interacts with the world and gives them principles by which they live their lives. There is no danger to the seperation of church in state if a lawmaker supports a certain law because that is what his religous beliefs tell him is the right thing to do. Everybody has some form of guiding principles by which they base their beliefs this example just happens to involve a Deity.

[D-R-P]

At 5/20/04 03:01 AM, BeFell wrote: I don't think that our laws should be copied right out of the bible but I see nothing wrong with law makers basing thier decisions from their religous beliefs. Religion shapes how a person interacts with the world and gives them principles by which they live their lives. There is no danger to the seperation of church in state if a lawmaker supports a certain law because that is what his religous beliefs tell him is the right thing to do. Everybody has some form of guiding principles by which they base their beliefs this example just happens to involve a Deity.

I don't see how you can possibly say there isn't a danger. Some religions believe in killing other people for reasons that many of us would think horribly horribly wrong. I do agree, however, that basing laws on religion is okay, but only to a certain extent. If the morals of a religion match the morals of the populace, go right ahead and pass that law. It's the conflict between certain religious beliefs and the general population that's the problem.

[RedSkunk]

At 5/20/04 03:01 AM, BeFell wrote: I see nothing wrong with law makers basing thier decisions from their religous beliefs....Everybody has some form of guiding principles by which they base their beliefs this example just happens to involve a Deity.

I agree.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

It is possible to have an opinion without beliefs. Faith is pretty much assumed when you state you 'believe' something. Faith is pretty much defined as "a technique for coming to a conclusion that does not use the laws of reason" The laws of reason are defined as A=A, 'Either A or not A' (A or ~A), and 'Not A And Not A' (~ (A and ~A)).

These laws, in addition to several other axiomatic principles can be used to prove a logical system that explains existence. Assumptions are made along the way, mostly where if the opposite is true, there really isn't any reason to continue... a proof that uses that logic would be like "Life has a purpose because if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter anyway."

From these principles, Ethical values can be created... and this in my opinion is the way to make laws. Religions are just early attempts to find this objective truth, they aren't evil or anything, Newton has been proven wrong on his theories, that doesn't make him a moron, it just means that his explanation isn't adequate to explain our world anymore.

[Coop]

Since religion is the cause of most of the problems in the world today, I think that all this sunday opening hours for shops and so forth is totally mad. I mean, what do most people do on a sunday anyway. Personally, I just go to the pub with my friends and get drunk.