Should Religous Dogmas Be Implemented On Non-Believers
- Yes
- No
- Who Cares?
0
voters
What really pisses me off is when people of religion try to force their ideas on me in laws. Do you like doing this?
Can you give me an example of what you mean? I might be in favor of it, I might not.
Parents teaching young children their religion is the truth.
Making stem cell research illegal.
That’s a law now? Can I see the statute?
As much as I very much dislike having rules imposed upon me by members of a religion to which I do not belong, I cannot say that I think that they shouldn’t be able to do it.
Laws are by-and-large normative expressions and the population of America is majority-Christian. I think that them imposing their morals is a natural conclusion from that statement.
After all, the alternative is some sort of asocietal method of law that I really can’t imagine. Let’s say that you have a neighbor who happens to like eating babies. Now, he doesn’t kidnap children or anything, he just gets his wife pregnant, waits a year-or-so (gotta plump 'em up a little after they are born) and then gobbles them down Chronos-style.
I think that everybody here (well, most everybody) would agree that such an action is a moral abomination and that we, as a society, have to intercede on the behalf of these children and stop this man from eating them.
The problem, is that Christians think just that is going on with things like stem cell and abortion. While I certainly disagree with their position (quite strongly, actually), I can’t say that they don’t have a right to impose those laws.
I certainly dislike it, but the alternative is to end our democratic institution (which I am also fine with, but isn’t a realistic situation for the US as it stands right now).
Sorry, I was going more on the topic than the post.
No.
What’s wrong with eating babies? Dead serious.
There are plenty of other moral systems that rely on more universal principles. Utilitarianism is an oft demonized example, but some form of consequentialism is a natural choice: pick something that should be maximized in society and figure out how to make that happen: happiness, freedom/personal-power, what-have-you. It must be remembered that the US is not a strict democracy. It is a constitutional democracy, and the values espoused in the constitution supercede those of the people.
And as well they should. Religion isn’t a great place to found laws.
If you are willing to accept such a situation, then you are at least consistant, but how would you then go about making such a system livable?
As for the Constitutional Democracy, I agree. However, our legal system is not dead, agreed? Laws are added and removed from the books all the time due to various social pressures, new situations arising, ect. And likewise, laws are enforced differently in different areas in accordance with local pressures. Some of them good, some of them sinister.
But to base your argument off of ‘why is eating babies wrong’ isn’t the place to start if you want to convince anyone why they system ought be changed to accomodate your view.
Additionally, though I hate to admit it, this is also a major freedom of speech issue. You cannot gag religious people without violating that tenent. There is no equivalent tenent for things like ESC research, indeed, depending on how one defines ‘human’, one could use a document like the Declaration of Independence to argue (rather convincingly, I’m afraid) against ESC research.
So, in a system where 1) laws are capable of change and 2) the people have a voice in their government, religiously motivated policies will always be in the mix.
Frankly, I think that trying to ban such things is going about it the wrong way. Look at the trouble France is having because of its (rather radical) interpretation of seperation of Church and State. Likewise, both America and Turkey have the seperation of Church and State codified in their laws, yet to have any degree of political success in either country one needs the support of the majority religion, and one’s policies must reflect those of the majority religion. Compare that to Germany, which is a Christian Country . . . yet, Christianity rarely plays a major role in their politics outside of Bavaria. England is not merely a Christian nation, but a Protestant nation. Look at most of their political rhetoric and actions – the clergy seems to hold much less sway there than it does here.
So, is trying to further force the religious outside of the political dialogue going to help or hurt more? The more they are pushed out, the louder they shout.
Additionally, how do you even propose to impliment such a system?
eating babies lets see from the biological sense it sounds and looks wrong. Espically if its; its own species eating it. The spieces must survive with there offspring. Morally to kill something as innocent as such is WRONG!
So in the absence of religious instruction, we end up debating the morality of eating our young. I’m convinced.
And in answer to the original question, yes I like forcing my ideas on others in laws.
On a more serious note, it’s this all just a matter of gamesmanship?
I mean hell, I get pissed off when people who don't agree with me are allowed to vote too. The country is divided on a lot of things. Isn't all this talk about 'legislating one's faith' just a tactic that one side gets to use, in the never-ended quest for the triumph of one's own agenda?
Here, let's put it to the test. It seems to be mostly liberals who want to get religious people out of politics. As a sign of good faith on their parts, let them start with the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and then we'll talk.
OK we’ll take out Jackson and Sharpton if you’ll take out Falwell and Robertson. Deal? 
Ab-so-lutely.
But that's really besides the point, isn't it? I mean those two sets of political voices are like night and day on most issues. I mean case in point, we're already drawing the "we" and "you" line somewhere other than 'religious' and 'non-religious'. So why don't we drop the pretense about not wanting 'the religious' to 'force their beliefs into law', and admit that what this is really about is being for/against whatever issue is on our minds?
I agree. Both sides (actually there are more than two) are busy trying to legislate their beliefs. It’s the job of the opposition to bring to light the negative consequences of the other party’s ideas. But I think we could go a long way toward respect and civility toward the other side. The nature of the commercial media is to ramp up conflict. That’s what produces the sensationalism that gains viewers and results in profits. Even bloggers and on-line forum contributers are getting into the act. There is wide-spread dissatifaction with this process among rank and file citizens but not enough to radically change it. 
Well, as the United States was founded by “Christians” it stands to reason that the constitution and laws of the country would be based around Christian morality. But as stated, the constitution is a living document subject to amendment and change as society evolves and requires those changes.
Lets look at it another way.
I am a woman. I am not a Muslim. Lets say I travel to the middle east where women are required, because of something having to do with Islam (not going to go into detail XD) to cover most of their bodies and wear veils. And if I choose to be in their country, I am going to obey their law, whether it is my religious duty to do so or not. Its the law. Here in the US, we have laws that are ‘christian’ in nature - most of these things ( don’t kill people, don’t steal things, etc.) are of a certain agreeable morality even to non-christians. I find that anything that was SPECIFICALLY religious in nature has been removed at this point. Separation of church and state and all that Jazz. Thats fine too.
As long as the law doesn’t say “You must worship ___________”
Then I’m cool with it.
If I find that the laws in place in the country in which I am living violate my own set of religious ethics, then I have the choice, just as the pilgrims, just as countless other people in history have done, to leave and go elsewhere where my beliefs will not be challenged. But if I choose to live in a country where the majority are a certain way, then I have to live with their laws. Thats completely fair, I think.
Lets say Congress passes a law that says “It is illegal to sacrifice goats in your front yard.” Then some religion for whom the front yard sacrifice of goats is a key ritual is going to say the law persecutes their beliefs. But it doesn’t. Believe what you want, but if you choose to live in THIS country, there will be no goat sacrificing. At which point the people have the choice to deal with it or move somewhere else where a law like this doesn’t exist. If you’re moving TO a country without educating yourself on its laws, you have only yourself to blame. If you’re born in a country and raised with a different belief system that chafes against the laws of the society, you’ve always got the option to leave, especially in this day and age.
…
Prior to reading everyone else’s posts I thought this argument was more about the door to door people trying to shove religion on you, or parents dragging you kicking and screaming to church, but it isn’t really.
Telling someone “It is the law, you must believe in god.” Is unreasonable and unconstitutional in the US.
However, telling someone “You shall not draw naked pentagram clad satanic penises in chalk in front of city hall” is not violating someone’s lawful right to be in and worship some sort of satanic sex cult, rather it is a law to protect the MAJORITY of citizens from exposure to something that ‘most’ people consider vile.
Yours is an admirably moderate postion IMHO. I think you were just using animal sacrifice as a hypothetical, but are you aware of the case of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520? It was a 1993 United States Supreme Court case. The case invloved an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida. Wikipedia goes on to say that the ordinance "…forbade the “unnecessar[y]” killing of “an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption.” The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced SanterÃa, was planning on locating in the city. Santeria is a religion practiced in the Americas by the descendants of Africans; many of its rituals involve animal sacrifice. The Church filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking for the Hialeah ordinance to be declared unconstitutional.
Following Employment Division v. Smith, the lower courts deemed the law to have a legitimate and rational government purpose and therefore upheld the enactment. The Supreme Court, however, held that because the law was targeted at this religion it is not subject to an undemanding rational basis test: rather, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Because the ordinance did not meet this standard, it was unconstitutional."
Sadly irrational religious practices like this and Kosher killing practices usually trump animal rights in the U.S.A.
Actually, America was founded by noted secularists. So, much of your argument is invalid. Likewise, I would argue that drawing pentagram-penses is well protected by the First Amendement. Not of municipal property, of course, that would be defacement, but otherwise it is perfectly acceptable.
Likewise, there have been court rulings in favour of ritualistic animal sacrifices in the US. It is a protected act.
I’m not really sure where you get the idea that the main corpus of our laws come from Christian doctrines – they don’t. The Founding Fathers were Enlightenment thinkers and were very, very secular (especially for their time).
That aside, I think you have also set-up a false dichotomy. Even the stauchest advocate of the re-secularization of the American body politic (such as myself) wouldn’t dream to compare religion’s influence on American law to Shira law. That’s apples-to-orangery of the highest degree!! So, I think the issue of Christianity’s influence on American law is distinct from people’s willingness to follow laws (which people should do, when in Iran, cover that hair! Don’t spraypaint in Singapore, ect.).
Also, I think the idea of people ‘choosing’ where they live is incredibly naive. Aside from the luxury-class, very few people have a ‘choice’ in where they live, rather they follow their occupations. Furthermore, even if their occupation is transferable to other locations, there are other considerations (language, cost of the move, ect.) which are prohibative to say the very least.
Good points, and I do not mean to sound condescending in the least. I wasn’t aware that ritual animal sacrifice was currently a protected act - in fact, I’m struggling to think of an example of a current law that does infringe on religious beliefs that does so with that intention. As you said, the drawing of satanic obsceneties on the munincipal wall is “defacement.” Still illegal, but not illegal because it chooses to persecute people of a certain group. I think that most laws that prohibit one thing or another do not do so with the express purpose of intentionally restricting people of a certain religion, however if there is an example of a law like this I would love to hear it.
Regarding relocation - while yes I agree that many people do not have the means to just ‘up and move’ if they find that their cherished beliefs are being violated by the laws of the country in which they live - there are many people who DO have these means, especially in this day and age, but do not take advantage of it. Likewise, many people who are the ones complaining about the laws of the US, for example, infringing on their rights - are people who CHOSE to move to this country in the first place rather than those born here. In these cases, I will stand by what I say in that if you don’t like it, you should leave, and if you didn’t investigate the laws before immigrating here and subsequently find that you disagree with them, then thats your problem.
And thats what I mean when I say if I were to move to the middle east, and then realize after the fact that women have to keep their heads covered, I’m not going to whine and cry about it, I’m just going to comply. Yes, the law is religious in nature, and no, it isn’t MY religion, but guess what, I chose to come here, so I have to deal with it or leave.
I completely understand that a large % of people do not have this option, however I feel you are neglecting the fact that a large % of people DO have the option, and also that a large % of the people who feel their religious rights are being persecuted are people who knowingly executed a choice to move to a country not of their religion.
As for the founding fathers, I realize that they were secularist for their time, but the fact remains that we have “In God We Trust” on our currency and a general christian morality pretty widespread at the founding of the US. Look at the pledge of allegiance, the declaration of independence, etc. I’m not suggesting that they were devout, but there was a definite christian influence here that can’t be denied. I am not by any means suggesting that our laws are a rewritten 10 commandments or that they largely mirror the christian bible, however admittedly some of the same tendences are there. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and so on and so forth. I realize that there are hundreds of laws - both biblical ones and non-biblical ones, and that they don’t all match. But my point is that christianity and the laws of the United States don’t appear to be at odds with each other, at least not in a way that would warrant this sort of discussion.
Xunzian and others
Isn't calling the founders of America 'secularists' a bit of a misnomer? I mean, I realize they weren't Christian, but they certainly weren't secular by modern standards, either. It seems to me that their notion of 'religious pluralism' was to make room for both the Presbyterians AND the Pentecostals- if they saw themselves as beyond religion, then they saw themselves as beyond the [i]Christian[/i] religion, and it seems to me that any non Christian [i]culture[/i] was still considered a barbarism.
And isn't Christian culture really what we're talking about? Did these secularists still celebrate Christmas? Did they object to public displays of nativity scenes? How many of them were against the reading of the King James Bible in school (a big part of how kids of the day learned English)? Did they extol the virtues of pagan faiths, saying that all paths (that is to say, ALL PATHS, not other Christian denominations) lead to the same truth and were equally respectable? I don't see where the acts of these secularists are anything like the acts of the modern ones, but by the same token, they were dealing with a religious authority that isn't anything like religious authority we have to deal with today.
Secularism and diversity are not the same thing, in other words. A person can be accepting of Christian culture and only Christian culture, while claiming to be non or even anti-religious.
Now, as to what we should do today- if the Constitution was really a 'living' document, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. I agree with most of what Anzha had to say, except for that one thing. The Constitution is only 'living' for me if I don't like what it says, and as soon as it's amended in a way I like, it's not 'living' anymore. Abortion is a prime example of this- it was decided by a false interpretation of the Constitution, but now that it's decided, people on the left (who are all about the 'living' side of the Constitution when it comes to gays and guns) are suddenly all about [i]precedent [/i]. It's [i]settled[/i].
Far be it from me to stir up another debate about any of these things in my precious religious forum. My point was only to say that the whole 'living document' line is just like the 'religious people shouldn't force their views' line. It's not truth, it's a tool- it's a thing we say to make our side win.
I also have to take issue with this:
Xunzian
To the contrary, I have to deal with this exact attitude on perhaps a bi-weekly basis. The "Christian conservatives are really no different than Muslim fanatics" is so often repeated I can't even hear it anymore, it's just part of the background radiation. From war protestors proclaiming Bush to be a 'terrorist', to this very website, the comparisons between American Conservatism and everything evil in the Middle East are constant. I agree with you that it's foolish, and that people who are actually educated enough to be affecting policy probably aren't doing this, so if that's all you meant, I agree. But culturally, this attitude is an influence.
As far as active religious persecution is concerned- I think everybody living in the United States should be allowed to have whatever religious beliefs and texts and so on that they want. Religious ritual is almost always a public act, and so needs to be held to the same standards as every other public act- [i]that said[/i], I do think people have a right to define the nature of their culture, and that religion expression is a big part of that culture. So if a society wants to endorse some sorts of public religious expression but restrict others, I don't have a problem with that- so long as the 'society' in this case is sufficiently small. In other words, that should be a state-by-state affair.