Do you think it's OK for a religion to influence laws?

Throughout history, we've seen that religions have influenced laws of some nations/cities/towns at one time or another. In some cases, they continue to do so. As far as I know, many states in the middle east derive some of their laws from Islam (such as Sharia Law). While you could say that beheadings, whippings and hangings are purely detrimental, I think it would be unfair to say that religion(s) is incapable of providing beneficial laws and/or outlooks.

An ancient chinese teacher named Confucius [who founded Confucianism] developed a system of ethics that has had a tremendous effect on chinese culture; which probably includes laws. In his teachings, Confucius stressed the importance of honesty, justice and loyalty.

So what do you guys think; is it OK for a religion to influence laws?

Unchecked? No.

Just influencing it if it has any constructive ideas and suggestions? Why not.

Throughout history, we've seen that religions have influenced laws of some nations/cities/towns at one time or another. In some cases, they continue to do so. As far as I know, many states in the middle east derive some of their laws from Islam (such as Sharia Law). While you could say that beheadings, whippings and hangings are purely detrimental, I think it would be unfair to say that religion(s) is incapable of providing beneficial laws and/or outlooks.

An ancient chinese teacher named Confucius [who founded Confucianism] developed a system of ethics that has had a tremendous effect on chinese culture; which probably includes laws. In his teachings, Confucius stressed the importance of honesty, justice and loyalty.

So what do you guys think; is it OK for a religion to influence laws?

dracula_16

I think relgions mirror human desires, morals and fears, so they inherit such doctrine from social common-law. For example,. people believed in honesty, justice and loyalty well before Confucious. These values represented socially successful culture.

Confucious was also a philosipher, rather than a religious apologist, so there is some debate (especially from me) as to if Conficianism is a religion.

In the UK, as in Europe, the influence of the church on law has diminished rapidly as rational arguments gained more ground and moral social wefare issues forced the church out of power centuries ago. But, as Pat Condell points out, religious consideration is still worryingly high in some spots on the Western political agenda.

I wouldn't really call Confucianism a religion as it is far more like a philosophy.

Anyway, my beef with religion influencing laws is that religions tend to have a lot of harsh stances on trivial matters. For example, homosexuality. Is there any benefit to us as a society to ban homosexual marriages or even homosexuality? No. Yet there are many who would have us do this simply because their religion says it's wrong. As another example you've got the blue laws in some US states which make selling alcohol on Sunday illegal. To anyone but a Christian these laws seem absolutely absurd (the reason why I single out Christians is because Muslims and Jews do not view Sunday as the sabbath).

I personally can't think of a law influenced by religion that has any objective logic behind it. I know that theists love to point to their religions' stances against crimes like murder and theft as proof that all law systems owe their existence to religion, but laws against violent crime and theft are laws that you would expect to see in any society for the obvious reason that without them your society is going to crumble apart. Furthermore, most laws don't have any basis in religion (traffic laws, government regulations, trade laws, etc). All you get when you involve religion with legal decision making is a bunch of laws that enforce an incredibly arbitrary moral viewpoint that would only be agreed to have validity by followers of that particular religion.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I personally can't think of a law influenced by religion that has any objective logic behind it

Android339

This is because the only laws influenced by religion, in your point of view, are those laws which are influenced by religion alone. I can understand your point when you say that laws such as the prohibition of murder would be found in any rational society, but that is not to say that the source of them is rationality alone and to say that religion plays no part on it would unfairly diminish the role of religion in society. Yes, some laws are both rational and religious. My point is that the social stigma in some circles that all religious laws are arbitrary restrictions on subjects such as homosexual marriage is unfair and misleading.

Why do you say the role of religion is "unfairly" diminished in society. Isn't that the result of a rational response to them all?

The point you make about the arbitrary nature of religious law (i.e. homosexual marriage) being unfair and misleading doesn't seem to be supported by anything. For example, why should homosexual partnership be frowned upon, as suggested by some Christian faiths? For that matter, why is it welcomed by others (i.e. Church of England)?

I say it is unfairly diminished because many important laws (i.e. the prohibition of murder) are both religious and rational in nature, and yet those who are generally secular look at these laws as purely secular. I would agree that those who are generally religious look at these laws as purely religious, but that is not the case, either.

Android339

Many religions have condoned murder in their name, as have secular regimes. I'm not sure how your explaination related to the unfair diminishing of religion in law, aside from the global rise of rationalism.

I was making a point to be general about the nature of religious law. I agree that there are some aspects of religious law that really have no place in a secular society, including homosexual marriage. It is misleading, however, to say that the only aspects covered by religious law are homosexual marriage, prayer in schools, and subjects of like nature. Yet religious law does cover issues such as murder, rape, and theft. Instead, however, both religious and secular citizens have a problem with claiming these laws for themselves instead of seeing them for what they are: common ground.

Android339

These laws are not common ground - since they are inherited from societal ideals. Most religions have similar social laws. If they are all right, then there are many Gods -all denying each other. If they are wrong, its because their doctrines are all constructed from common social ideals. Religions change too - no-one believed in "Mormonism" as such, before Joseph Smith.

There is a big difference between common sense and divine inspiration.

I don't buy into the idea at all that prohibitions against murder are even partially influenced by religion. A society needs rules against damaging crimes like murder, theft, and rape or else it will not be able to function since everyone will be more concerned with their own self-defense and safety than doing anything productive. I highly doubt that there was ever a point in human history where a society existed in which it was perfectly acceptable to randomly kill other people at your leisure. Indeed, the fact that even in chimpanzee groups you see chimps punish individual members of a group for transgressions that harm the rest of the group suggests that laws arise simply due to the need to keep social order.

I would argue that when it comes to things like murder, rape, and theft that religion did not influence law at all but rather such rules come about as a result of a human predisposition against those crimes and the obvious need to prevent them in order to maintain social order. The fact that religions preach against these same things can be traced back to said predispositions as well.

So laws which are inherited from the same societal ideals are opposed to each other? That makes no sense. By your very confession that they are inherited by the same societal ideals, you admit that they come from the same source, and because they are considered doctrine by a religion and also set as law in secular courts, they are in common ground.Android339

It makes no sense - I didn't say it. I think religions grew as a way for societies to express their ideals.

Your "common ground" comment seems to suggest that two (or more if you include all the other religions) independent rule making authorities happily happen to co-incide. I'm saying I think there is only one way rules get created, but many ways of hijacking and claiming ownership of them.

I'm going to need your definition of religious law, because if your definition is "whatever makes the liberals mad", then we're already not on the same page.Android339

I have no idea of what your talking about. Isn't it you who's involving religion with law?

So laws which are inherited from the same societal ideals are opposed to each other? That makes no sense. By your very confession that they are inherited by the same societal ideals, you admit that they come from the same source, and because they are considered doctrine by a religion and also set as law in secular courts, they are in common ground.Android339

Common ground =/= influence

This topic is talking about when religion influences law, not when they manage to come to the same conclusion. My point was that laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. are not inherited from religion like you were saying earlier but rather are inherited from societal ideals like you are saying now.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

It makes no sense - I didn't say it. I think religions grew as a way for societies to express their ideals.

Your "common ground" comment seems to suggest that two (or more if you include all the other religions) independent rule making authorities happily happen to co-incide. I'm saying I think there is only one way rules get created, but many ways of hijacking them.

Android339

I'm sure the rules of one society did not influence the rules of another on a completely different continent. I am not talking aobut how rules are made, in any case. I am talking about the present. I am talking about clearing up this rift between religoius and secular citizens that has become so annoying.

If you are not talking about how the laws are made, aren't you missing the point?

Perhaps your annoying "rift" between secular and religious citizens doesn't exist. There's none where I live. I think the rift is with rationalism and all the competing religions.

Can we not agree that the Law of Moses prohibits murder, and so does the United States government? Is the Law of Moses a religious text? Yes. In order to be a Jew, must one believe that murder is wrong? Yes. What makes this text not religious? If it is not religious, then it is a religious text supporting a secular ideal, which means religion must not always be opposed to secularism. There are aspects of religious law, however, which are also included in religious texts, that support laws which have no place in a secular society. I acknowledge this.

Android339

I thought the US government did condone murder in certain situations (death row). Perhaps you should have used the UK (where I live) as a better example. Not killing people does not make you religious, as I think you are implying. Also, secularism is not opposed to religion, since by definition, it is tolerant towards it. This can not be said of many religious views towards secularism.

Perhaps I'm just making a different point than you think.

Android339

Perhaps. What was it?

Perhaps you're just splitting hairs about things that don't matter. It doesn't matter where the rift is, or what it is, my point was that there is one, as is evident from this discussion. I also don't think religions have to be without rationalism.

Android339

Of course it matters. The rift is not about people - its about ideas. Sure religions can have rationalism in them, but they are not rational, in and of themselves.

You're splitting hairs here, too. Religious groups have also condoned capital punishment, but it is not murder in the sense that murder is portrayed in the laws against murder. And no, I never said that not killing someone makes you religious. I don't know where you're getting that. My point throughout this entire discussion is that there is a group of texts, and doctrines, and beliefs, and whatever that make a religious law. There are also laws as set forth by governments in countries such as the United States and United Kingdom which make up a secular law. And a lot of them abide by the same societal ideals which make a common ground. This is simply to show that religious law does not solely include arbitrary commandments against homosexual marriage, but includes prohibitions against murder as well. These are examples.

Android339

Murder is murder. You are the one splitting hairs.

But saying that is totally missing my argument that the religous laws are only "normal" laws used by religious people. If these laws do seem similar, then there's no surprise why. My evidence based argument about how normative social laws evolved independantly globally, whereas no one religion can claim a global reach for their laws, is being entirely ignored.

And there is no definition of tolerance in secularism. People who are secular can hate those who are religious just as much as those who are religious can hate those who are secular.Android339

So why are secular societies tolerant of religion, then?

Whether it was about people, or ideas, it does not change the meaning of what I said in any important way. I disagree with you on that, but I suppose that's a topic for another time.

Android339

Well I think it did. Your subjective evaluation of importance is obviously different to mine.

Killing someone as punishment for bombing a building which ends up killing several people is different than killing someone because you got mad about losing a poker game.

Android339

Are you trying to justify murder now? I thought the good book was quite clear on that one.

Maybe you should pay attention to what I'm saying first before you go off about how I'm ignoring you. I have said nothing that is contradictory to your idea that social laws are based on societal ideals, or whatever, and that no one religion can claim a global reach for their laws. Unless you can point to me where I've said such a thing, I'm simply going to assume you haven't read a single thing I've written.

Android339

How conceited! I'm assuming you've made no sense of what I've said either, based on your above paragraph. I know you've said nothing to contradict what I've said, yet you still disagree with me. Perhaps if you did outline your case and provided some sort of justification for it, I'd have a better understanding of what you are trying to say.

Because they want to be? It's still not in the definition. A society of vegans can be tolerant of people who use road maps (I know they're not related in any way), but that doesn't mean a definition of vegan is "one who tolerates people who use road maps".

Android339

Are you saying secular societies do want to be tolerant of religion, but that secularism doesn't? I love the way you bring red herrings into your arguments. Wouldn't your vegan argument be better with meat-eaters? Or smoked kippers? Try them instead.

Here's a Wikipedia quote about Secularism that proves you wrong in a definition of secularism:

" ...in the view of soft secularism, "the attainment of absolute truth was impossible and therefore skepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion."

I would hate to live in a world that is as black and white as yours. You have no room for grey. 'Murder is murder'. Rather, 'child killing is just as bad as sentencing a serial killer to death'. Yeah, makes rational sense, doesn't it? (answer: no).

Android339

There you go again, "knowing" how I think again. I'd much rather you wrote about what you think instead - you'd have a much greater chance of being correct.

In the UK, and in Europe, we dont sentence people to death, since there is no reasonable justification for state controlled murder. I didn't make that rule up either!

Says the one who wears his intellectualism like a badge on his sleeve.

Android339

This is getting rather insulting. Please stop this tone.

Yet I'm not disagreeing with you. There seems to be something that we are in opposition to, but it seems like neither of us know exactly what the other person is trying to say.

Android339

I thought I did know what you were tying to say. Wasn't it initially that laws like murder were "religious in nature". You went on to say that seculars forget the religious dimension in their laws and that religious law and national law "are common ground". I've evidenced my reasoning to think that religions inherited laws from man and provided you with a logical argument from a global perspective that precludes any one religion as owning the murder law. What's your impression? Are you saying you don't know what you're arguing about now?

I'm saying that the basic definition of secularism is 'without religion'.

Android339

Yes, but the original point was about secularism being tolerant to religion - in its very definition.

I was simply showing how your argument didn't hold up.

Android339

But it does though.

Soft secularism, then what's hard secularism? Varying degrees mean various definitions that don't hold up for all of them. The basic definition of secularism is, again, 'without religion', whether or not one is tolerant.

Android339

Stop wriggling! Tolerance is still part of a definition of secularism. Remember saying that is wasn't?

I merely responded to what you said. "Murder is murder" is a statement made by one who does not recognize the varying degrees of murder. Or perhaps one who recognizes them, but chooses not to acknowledge them.

Android339

Well, I do happen to recognise and acknowledge the varying degrees of murder. They are all still murder though, which is a moral no-no.

Of course there's reasonable justification for state-controlled "murder", as you would say. It's so we don't pay to keep ridiculously evil men alive. I mean the likes of serial rapists, murderers, and the like.

Android339

So life has a financial value, does it? And all convictions are safe, are they? Our impressions of "reasonable" must differ.

No, it wasn't. I said that there were religious laws, like secular laws, that prohibit murder, and that's where common ground can be found. I did not make a claim that the law stemmed from either religious or secular grounds, but that at least both types of law share such a thing in common.

Android339

I quoted you actually, But anyway, you fail to recognise that they are effectively the same law, based on human morality. Other religious laws have no moral basis at all and consequently seem quite absurd.

I simply said that many seculars view religious law as pertaining to only subjects like homosexual marriage, when contained in the religious law in various religious texts is also a prohibition against murder, and so religious law and secular law do agree on certain societal ideals.

Android339

Well the agreement is implicit in the singular human laws being documented in most all religions, including those far older than Judaism.

Okay. So various religious groups inherited laws from humans. I may not agree with the history of it, but that is beside the point. In any case, no matter how they inherited it, they stil share that common societal ideal. I know what I'm arguing about, and it seems like you have a misunderstanding of what I am arguing about.

Android339

Maybe far more so in Mormonism than in other religions, since Mormon rules of the faith have changed drastically during its own brief history. Mormans do have a history of compliance with government law and societal ideals. But where does this end though? Would you side with the reformist Mormons, or the fundamentalists, or keep with the LDS group? Which societal ideals are we talking about?

And it isn't. It's an auxiliary aspect. An optional one, at that.

How am I wriggling? Tolerance is not part of a definition of secularism. Just because a movement of secularists want to promote tolerance along with secularism, doesn't mean that it is true to the core. One can be secular without being tolerant. Just as one can be religious while being tolerant. Secularism, to be secularism, only has to meet one criteria: without religion.

Android339

Optional? Auxiliary? What are you saying? I'm not talking about "movements of secularists", I am talking actual definitions. Secularism is not being without religion, but being seperate from it:

"Secularity (adjective form secular) is the state of being separate from religion." (from Wikipedia)

If my earlier link and quote from the Wiki definition doesn't help you, here's another one - a definition of a "secular state":

"A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion."

I don't think a secular society can be intolerant of religion by its nature. If there was intolerance to religion, the society would hardly be a secular society, would it?

Well it seems to me that it's basically impossible for religion not to influence laws in at least some way if the one making the laws is religious - if one takes one's religious seriously at all, one will certainly not ignore the moral code that one believes it pronounces.  And that's fine, in my view - everyone has their own set of values, and I can't see why one taken from a holy book is objectively inferior than one a person invents on his own.

That said, I would also certainly support the existence of a constitution that would affirm basic human rights that a person's given moral code could not violate, in order to avoid tyranny of the religious majority.

Which still shows that you have a black and white mindset. Even though there are varying degrees, you apply only one consequence to it. Although I do not know what that is. It's kind of like the concept of Heaven and Hell in the mainstream Christian world.

Android339

Do I? I don't remember talking about consequences, just definitions of murder. I think you said the US government didn't murder. But I said they have the death penalty, which is a form of murder. Then you started telling me I thought in black and white.

It's not so much that life has a financial value is that I don't want to take any part in keeping a man who killed someone I know alive in prison. That hasn't happened, but it's an example. Someone who has killed several people no longer has the right to live, as he has taken away that right from others. And you haven't even asked me to what degree I would consider the varying levels of evidences against any possible convict. If it's shaky, then they should probably suspend permanent judgement like that.

Android339

Aren't you being black and white now. Suppose the murderer had some valid reasons? What is worse than murder about prison? Shouldn't you be wanting to reform prisons instead of wishing death on murderers?

What do you mean I haven't asked you about degrees of evidence. We are talking about if the USA puts murderers to death. I'm supposing we are using the standards of evidence used by US law and not your head, which has been wrong in many "definite" cases.

Yes. They are the same law. And that's exactly my point. In any case, quotations out of context surely do no good. I have also pointed out that I do acknowledge that there are religious laws that have no place in a secular society. Yet there are also laws, found in religious texts, that are found in secular society, taken from the same societal ideals, and thus, the two groups of laws, religious and secular, have a law in common. The fact that you cannot comprehend that astonishes me.

Android339

I'm astonished at how the one law divides into two (no - hundreds - one for each religion there's ever been) of different laws that are all the same and therefore have a commonality. Let's drop this. I'm bored with your steadfast refusal to accept the human moral basis for law and your need to tip your hat to all religions for coming up with the same laws we'd have had anyway.

There is still that agreement, though, and that's what I'm trying to apply in my argument concerning the present day. It doesn't matter how it starts. Say I start a completely new group of people. The Dews, or whatever. And the Dews make a religious law based on the societal ideals of their time. There is now a Dew-ish law that is in harmony with the societal ideals of their time, and in consequence, is also in harmony with the secular laws of the nation. They share that common ground.

Android339

Why doesn't it matter how it starts? The justification for action is vital. Why would secular people become Dewish, if they followed the same laws? I see what you are saying, but in effect, the Dews have hijacked secular laws and are using them as their own. The interesting feature will be where Dewism and secularism divererge,

This isn't a discussion about Mormonism. And I would disagree that the Mormon rules of faith have changed drastically.

Android339

Wait, what? I know this is leakage from the other thread, but what about polygomy? That is a faundamental change in the way people live their lives.

Seriously, dude? We're arguing about the differences between "without" and "separate"? Okay, fine. It's "separate". There's still no implication that they have to be tolerant.

And the Wiki quote you gave me wasn't a core definition. It was an opinion espoused by a particular type of secularism. And a secular society can indeed be intolerant of religion. By being intolerant of all religion. It would still be a secular society, because it would be separate of religion.

Android339

Sure there is "dude" - Without implies religion is not there. Seperate implies that it is. Sorry, but I've given two published definitions of secularism that involve tolerance to religions that are there. They are only opinions - published and moderated ones, reached in objective agreement and subject to editorial process, but since they differ from your view, how can they be valid?

So capital punishment isn't a consequence? You did mention that capital punishment wasn't a justifiable consequence. Which leads me to believe that jail time is the only other one available, along with probably a reforming of the criminals. That's going to be the same across the board.

Android339

Not for the innocent it isn't.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I think you said the US government didn't murder.

Android339

They don't. They convict, and sentence.

Aren't executions a type of murder?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

But I said they have the death penalty, which is a form of murder.

Android339

A justifiable form, if you must refer to it as murder.

To call it anything else would not be clear.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheism"]

Then you started telling me I thought in black and white.

Android339

You do. "Murder is murder."

This is all quite out of context. My Username is RationalAtheist too. I can differentiate between the various horrors of murder, but its all horrific to me.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Aren't you being black and white now.

Android339

Nope.

Please - full sentances, explanations and full paragraph quotes only, from now on. You were saying how all murderers should be executed...

Yet you said that there were no valid reasons for murder. So it doesn't matter what their reasons were. Well, of course it does, because we recognize the intent and purpose of various murders. Murder in self defense is treated much more lightly than murdering someone because they didn't like how he was wearing his jacket.

Android339

Where did I say that? You must have projected it! Still, according to what you said earlier, they'd have both been executed.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

What is worse than murder about prison?

Android339

Well, for one: prison life usually makes the person worse than he already is. A lot of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. The chance of escaping. Gang activity through prison cells. Just watching a few episodes of Lock Up will show you that prison does nothing for the prisoner or society.

Many offenders do change. Prisons are only buildings and life is not like on TV all the time. I do know that the USA has one of the highest prison population densities in the world, which does seem bizarre for such a religious and enlightened nation.

Wouldn't the innefectiveness of prisons be a good reason to change them, rather than executing people instead of sending them there as some sort of favour? That does not sound particularly Christian, I must say.

If people knew they could get away with murder only to be 'reformed' in prison, prisons would have a harder time with overpopulation than they do now. Certain actions necessitate certain consequences.

Android339

Prisons do serve a containment and punishment role too, you know. What actions and consequences are you talking about? I'm not certain!

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

What do you mean I haven't asked you about degrees of evidence. We are talking about if the USA puts murderers to death. I'm supposing we are using the standards of evidence used by US law and not your head, which has been wrong in many "definite" cases.

Android339

A negligible degree.

No sense made at all there. Perhaps verbs would be useful.

No, I only divided it into two. Secular and religious. Religious being compiled of the many religions, admittedly.

Android339

Only two then, which are many, admittedly. So no becomes yes, yet still remains nonsensical.

And I'm bored with your steadfast refusal to accept that I have not disagreed with you that the law is based on human moral grounds. That you still maintain that I disagree with you on this is astonishing, to say the least. What have you been reading?

Android339

Agreement! Hurrah! We both seem to agree that religious law is based on social moral human constructs. It would be good to extend this agreement into the deconstruction of all religion, based on social, moral, human constructs.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Why doesn't it matter how it starts?

Android339

Count how many times I've told you that I'm not talking about how it started. It was not relevant, in any case at all, to my argument.

You culd have reasoned as to why you think the origin of ideas isn't important to your argument, rather than serially dismissing it.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

The justification for action is vital.

Android339

Indeed.

If so, why be evasive over how it started?

The point still stands, though. The body of religious law of the Dews will be in harmony with secular law in the future. I am not saying these laws are religious. I am saying that they are included in a body of religious law, and that bodies of religious law include more than mandates against homosexual marriage. Again, your thick-headedness is scary.

Android339

Third and final warning. Why be personally insulting? Why not simply argue your case? Next time, I'll get your post edited.

What point? How do you know the Dews will have the same law in 100 years? Did the Mormons, from when they started? Are you going to let on about these other mandates yet? Else what value does religious law have over secular law?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Wait, what? I know this is leakage from the other thread, but what about polygomy? That is a faundamental change in the way people live their lives.

Android339

Except it was only ever practiced by less than 3% of the Mormon population.

Based on the total population of Mormons ever? What is the basis for these statistics? Does it include all the fundamentalist Mormons currently living polygomy?

And now you're trying to mock me. How cute. I'm sorry, but 'without' does not imply that it is not there. I am without a TV. There is a TV where I am, but it is not mine. I am separate from a TV. I'm obviously not the TV, but you get the point. I hope.

Android339

Mock you? How so? The dude was a back at you. Seperate from necessarily "includes" religion, whereas "without" does not. If you are seperate from your TV, you still have a TV by implication. But if you are without your TV, you don't necessarily have one.

Look up "secularism" in the dictionary. Tolerance is an optional auxiliary unit. The entire Wikipedia article is not a definition. Secularism, when read in the dictionary (where definitions are found), is shown to mean that it is something without religion.

Android339

I did and I showed you the definitions. Here's another one: "religious skepicism or indifference"

That one was from answers.com, but they probably don't know as much about my beliefs as you do either.

I'll step down, then. If that makes you more comfortable.Android339

I feel perfectly comfortable debating with you.

I would prefer that you'd drop the insults and quote only my entire paragraphs, please.

I'm going to quote article XVII of the Baptist Life and Thought 2000 being that I agree with it. :P

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others.

Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.

The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power."

I'm going to quote article XVII of the Baptist Life and Thought 2000 being that I agree with it. :P

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others.

Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.

The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power."

mindstorm

That sounds fair from a Christian standpoint. The only problem I have with it is the phrase "Civil government being ordained of God". Government is made by men and regardless of whether you believe in God, it is not ordained by men.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Android339"]I'll step down, then. If that makes you more comfortable.Android339

I feel perfectly comfortable debating with you.

I would prefer that you'd drop the insults and quote only my entire paragraphs, please.

You had your share of insults.

I thought you were after "making me more confortable".

You should "step down" for your own reasons, rather than try pinning any on me.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I'm going to quote article XVII of the Baptist Life and Thought 2000 being that I agree with it. :P

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others.

Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.

The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power."

Genetic_Code

That sounds fair from a Christian standpoint. The only problem I have with it is the phrase "Civil government being ordained of God". Government is made by men and regardless of whether you believe in God, it is not ordained by men.

It's referencing Romans 13:1-7.  Verse 1b states, "For there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

...but I get your point.  In many ways, I think it's both.  Humanity creates the government but only as God allows.

I'm going to quote article XVII of the Baptist Life and Thought 2000 being that I agree with it. :P

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others.

Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.

The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power."

mindstorm

(RED) Thats vague at best and could entail god knows what...

It's referencing Romans 13:1-7.  Verse 1b states, "For there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

...but I get your point.  In many ways, I think it's both.  Humanity creates the government but only as God allows.

mindstorm

Good point. Government serves to protect the unalienable rights ordained from the Laws of Nature or Nature's God, whichever suits your fancy. :P

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I'm going to quote article XVII of the Baptist Life and Thought 2000 being that I agree with it. :P

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others.

Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.

The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power."

Teenaged

(RED) Thats vague at best and could entail god knows what...

I noticed the vagueness.  However, there are only extreme and rare examples that I can think of this being a problem (examples: child sacrifice, terrorism, etc.).  I can't say that this would be a problem for the general religious population. :P

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="Android339"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Android339"]I'll step down, then. If that makes you more comfortable.Android339

I feel perfectly comfortable debating with you.

I would prefer that you'd drop the insults and quote only my entire paragraphs, please.

You had your share of insults.

I thought you were after "making me more confortable".

You should "step down" for your own reasons, rather than try pinning any on me.

I didn't say that my reasons for stepping down were because of your insults. I'm merely allowing you to become aware of the fact that you, as well as me, had taken low blows.

No, you said you would step down, "if it makes you more comfortable". You didn't mention the reasons for your stopping this communication were your own, but implied they were mine instead. Don't you think your implication was somewhat disingenuous?

Perhaps you could innumerate the ad-hominem attacks I made, like I did. Then I'd know about these "low blows" you are trying (unsuccessfully) to allow me to become aware of.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

No, you said you would step down, "if it makes you more comfortable".

Android339

I was poking fun at you.

You didn't mention the reasons for your stopping this communication were your own, but implied they were mine instead. Don't you think your implication was somewhat disingenuous?

RationalAtheist

Again. I was poking fun at you. You need to lighten up. You were the one who said to drop it, so I let you drop it.

Perhaps you could innumerate the ad-hominem attacks I made, like I did. Then I'd know about these "low blows" you are trying (unsuccessfully) to allow me to become aware of.

RationalAtheist

How about calling me conceited? And after someone moderated me for calling you thick-headed days after it happened, and yet for some reason you calling me 'conceited' is okay, I'm not going to deal with your double standard. Now. As you suggested. Let's drop it.

Perhaps you need to lighten up and stop "poking fun" as you call it. I'm not sure how I can lighted up anyway, since you've admit to being off-hand with me, yet seem to feel insulted when others don't realise these "modes" you enter into.

What did I say to drop?

I made a comment about how conceited that paragraph you'd written was, since you told me to "pay attention to what I said", despite me responding repeatedly to what you were saying. You intimated that I was ignoring what you were writing, where I had clearly acknowledged it. I apologise if you took that as a personal insult.

I'm not sure what double standards I'm being accused of. I've made my feelings clear all along.

Who suggested to drop it?