Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think people set aside their religious instincts when deciding whether to support a particular issue, vote a certain way, or write legislation. An example is when a Democrat who is personally against abortion decides to vote pro choice because he or she doesn't feel they can legislate their spiritual concern and compelling others through the law to conform to it. If we take that example as an honest position and are not cynical when politicians claim this, it is clear that such a proposition is possible. Some Republicans have voted for gay rights issues even thought they oppose homosexuality. I know Christians who did not support Prop 8 in California because of this reason.
It's a tricky question...
As an atheist, I answered "No", but I'll clarify my answer...
1st amendment case law would dictate that acts of government must pass the "Lemon Test", which is in reference to this case:
Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia
...a law/act/etc can be perhaps rooted in a religious view of the one making it, however, it must serve a compelling secular purpose.
For instance, laws against stealing/murder/rape/etc may have been rooted in the legislator's religious values, but those laws do serve a secular purpose.
Laws that serve no other compelling secular purpose (which can be summarized as laws protecting life, liberty, property), and only serve a religious ideal, should not be injected into public policy.
As you can likely imagine I'm not overly concerned with what people deem correct in a 'democratic,' mob rule style society.I agree with this, and much of Bahsen's quotes--although I come to a different conclusion. Secular law is based on ethics and morality--it just doesn't come from the Bible. Secular Humanism is a moral foundation without religion; so is a system based on well-being.
I don't think religious concepts of morality are objective at all. People often refer to the Bible as containing a moral foundation for ethics and morality--but that is not actually possible. Such a claim may be compelling if everyone read the Bible and came away with the same answers to what is morally good, but even a quick survey of this thread will demonstrate that not all who consider the Bible as authoritative agree on important moral issues.
Biblical passages dealing with morality and laws must be interpreted through human reasoning (even if you think the Bible is inerrant). Because of this, all morals must be reasoned by "men," as Bahsen puts it. When the Hebrew Bible says you shall not murder, it is not providing any real sense of morality that is absent anywhere in the world. Everyone know this because we a social species who has a strong distaste for anti social behavior.
Bahsen writes, “If no divine law is recognized above the law of the State, then the law of man has become absolute in men's eyes--there is then no logical barrier to totalitarianism.”
Here Bahsen makes a significant oversight; divine law is not democratic and has no criteria for buttressing against totalitarianism. He is also incorrect about the law being absolute in men's eyes. In what democratic society today do people argue this? His quotes are merely assertions as presented here. Maybe he provided evidence for them in the larger scope of the text the were sourced from, but they are ineffective here.
You already presuppose divine law, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)"If you could show me this divine law, then yeah, I could see how it might restrain men.
But as it stands, there's nothing to distinguish it from secular morality in terms of authority. Its all just what people say law should be.
Even our ideas about liberty are not uninfluenced by religion. The unique American focus on libertarian freedom, for instance, only makes sense in a Christian (and especially Calvinist) context focused on the individual's separate, distinct destiny (under the sovereignty of God, of course).
And the concept of "life" is even worse, since religious and secular worldviews don't have a great deal of common ground defining the concept.
That's the believer's perspective on how it works.You already presuppose divine law, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)"
Democracy is not mob rule. I thought this was settled in 1776. We are a Democratic Republic.As you can likely imagine I'm not overly concerned with what people deem correct in a 'democratic,' mob rule style society.
Christianity has a legacy, but never a monopoly on morality. There are many moral systems completely unaware or Christianity--many Eastern. They understand murder and theft are wrong because we are a social species, not because the Christian god initiated a mandate. I know you believe your claim, I just don't see any evidence for it.I don't think it's so simple. I don't think that neutral ground exists as firmly as you seem to think.
Once you step outside a Christian or even western context, you realize that secularism itself as it is manifest is as much a legacy of Christian assumptions as the religion itself is.
Christianity has a legacy, but never a monopoly on morality. There are many moral systems completely unaware or Christianity--many Eastern. They understand murder and theft are wrong because we are a social species,
Isn't law an attempt to control the lives of people in a society? I always struggle between libertarian and a more expansive politic that focuses on building and shaping public life. Legislation related to red lights and USDA restrictions are attempts to shape lives through controlling behavior.
While I pointed out in post #38 a view that I think is also the majority view among American believers, and though there are Christians of many varieties here, still there is also a flavor CF has according to the people it attracted that gather at it, a flavor which is particular to CF, and I wonder if many in the thread suggested they would want a religious laws enforced by the secular government, in your view? If so, let me encourage you to know that isn't what most Christians think (precisely, exactly), but it can be unclear what many are thinking, because of ambiguity in what is meant.*This is inherently a political issue and I think belongs in the Politics section of the forum.
Ever since Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, Americas have used the term, a "wall of separation between church and state.” This phrase is sometimes used in support of protecting churches from the state and also to ensure state policy is separate from religious influence. Opposing groups tend to emphasize one of these positions. How do you think it applies to public policy?
Of course law are an attempt to control behavior. That doesn't mean they are always effective. When cars were becoming more popular and wealth began spreading to the middle class, the increasing number of cars on the road caused a lot of accidents. There were no dividing lines down the middle of the street and no stop signs. In order to control (you could use another word: direct, ameliorate, fix) for the negative behavior of auto accidents, laws were passed and enforced to ensure people followed certain behaviors. When I use the word control, I am not doing so in some seedy dictatorial way, but in a way which shapes the behavior of people to get a particular result. The state does control for behavior. Thats the whole point of the state. We would need the state or laws if people all instinctively knew to stop at a four way intersection without a light or a sign. The law is the control mechanism on unwanted behavior.It is up to the individual to control their own behavior not the state. Law enforcement doesn't control behavior or there would be no unlawful behavior.
That secular law often follows biblical law in the case, for instance, of murder, thievery, false witness, etc. is generally taken for granted. What you have to do is examine the reasons that 23% want the Bible to have more influence on secular law than it does. Consider their position on "hot button" issues, all of which they claim to be justified by the Bible:"23%" of Americans think the Bible should have a "great deal of influence" on national laws, which is somewhat of an ambiguous thing in that of course about 99.5% or more of Americans do indeed want murder to be against the law, as it is in the Bible.
This is an interesting finding from Pew. Thanks for posting this. But, I find the results rather horrifying. That is a lot of people who want to dictate the way I live according to their personal belief. A quarter of the population is not a small number--that's approximately 82 million people in the U.S.
Of course law are an attempt to control behavior. That doesn't mean they are always effective. When cars were becoming more popular and wealth began spreading to the middle class, the increasing number of cars on the road caused a lot of accidents. There were no dividing lines down the middle of the street and no stop signs. In order to control (you could use another word: direct, ameliorate, fix) for the negative behavior of auto accidents, laws were passed and enforced to ensure people followed certain behaviors. When I use the word control, I am not doing so in some seedy dictatorial way, but in a way which shapes the behavior of people to get a particular result. The state does control for behavior. Thats the whole point of the state. We would need the state or laws if people all instinctively knew to stop at a four way intersection without a light or a sign. The law is the control mechanism on unwanted behavior.
No, I already told you that isn't how I'm using the term. You can continue making a straw man out of my argument, but I will just dismiss it.When you control someone you take away that person's ability to resist you or to act independently and make their own decisions. That kind of dominance by the state is the dream of every totalitarian.
Even our ideas about liberty are not uninfluenced by religion. The unique American focus on libertarian freedom, for instance, only makes sense in a Christian (and especially Calvinist) context focused on the individual's separate, distinct destiny (under the sovereignty of God, of course).
And the concept of "life" is even worse, since religious and secular worldviews don't have a great deal of common ground defining the concept.
Ideas are never truly removed; but they can evolve into insignificance. The idea that Odin is God has not been removed, it just morphed into the mythical. Almost every recorded religion has experienced this; there are a handful now that haven't yet.Indeed. If one made an attempt to remove all religious ideas from society it would be both impossible and tragic.
IMO there should be no public policy except to maximize personal freedoms & peace between all individuals. This gives space for all private beliefs without infringinging on any.*This is inherently a political issue and I think belongs in the Politics section of the forum.
Ever since Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, Americas have used the term, a "wall of separation between church and state.” This phrase is sometimes used in support of protecting churches from the state and also to ensure state policy is separate from religious influence. Opposing groups tend to emphasize one of these positions. How do you think it applies to public policy?
What if someone private belief is racist and they claim they should have personal freedom to operate a business that will not cater to minorities? You would probable not support that--but why?IMO there should be no public policy except to maximize personal freedoms & peace between all individuals. This gives space for all private beliefs without infringinging on any.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?