Consider that a religious community, such as the local Church, Mosque, Synagogue, or Temple has all created certain doctrine. This doctrine is reflected in the teachings of each of these secular belief systems and they become the morals by which the members are asked to conduct themselves. In almost every single case, this doctrine is a guide to living a life in which one will be assured – something, (i.e. – eternal life, heavenly bliss, and reunion with loved ones – whatever!)

NOW:

Consider a nation populated by people so diverse that they stretch across the boundaries of all belief systems. Obviously, this would have to be a nation whose laws allowed for such diversity to exist in harmony, or that nation could never survive. It would seem logical that such a nation would have to depend on laws that promoted, protected and enforced the concepts of individuality. In other words, that every individual must be considered equal in every way under every law in order that all who live in that country maintain the freedom to be and act in accordance to their individual beliefs.

THE QUESTION THEN IS THIS

When confronted with a new law/legislation or with correction or modification of an old law, would you as a ‘member of that society’ voice your choice based on your belief system and ITS’ moral directives, or would you consider what the best options was, in order to maintain the freedom FOR YOURSELF, to act in accordance with your own moral values, without the need to have that individual moral value reflected back into society?

Basically, would your ‘political actions’ reflect your religious moral code, or would they reflect your support of a nation of free and equal individualism?

Its that way right now in the town i live. Just horrible. I believe you know what i am saying here redy!!!!!

and then again i insist, the biggest mistake of a society is to mix religion with politics.
there is a natural law that provides for freedom, and any society should be based on this law. in the moment anybody whether for his/her religion or lifestyle is being discriminated, or his/her freedom is being jeopardized, then that society is not working

I beleve that the lawmakers should leave people alone when it comes 2 religious belifes,it is bad enough they have 2 screw the lil person.

What does religion say?

Don't kill other people - good idea

Don't steal other people's stuff - good idea

Don't wear yourself out wanting what the other person has - good advise

Don't cheat on your spouse, or with someone else's spouse - good F**KING idea (sorry, just a little bitter)

Love other people - good idea

Help one another - good idea

Live for something bigger than you - a great idea

“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” - Albert Einstein

Assuming all organized religious codes involved included prohibitions against harm AND if all people followed their religious laws we would have no need for secular/civic laws...

Unfortunately, people do not follow their religious prohibitions so we much have laws to protect ourselves... but I believe these laws should be as minimal and simple as possible. Additional prohibitions can indeed come from religious teachings or individual codes, etc.

So I would choose to :

"consider what the best option was, in order to maintain the freedom FOR YOURSELF, to act in accordance with your own moral values, without the need to have that individual moral value reflected back into society?"

I also think simpler legal codes that are strictly enforced are much better than complicated, convoluted and lengthy legal codes that are laxly enforced... "KISS" .

Religion and law may have similar roots but IMHO if the country's large enough to be considered a melting pot, it's large enough to be secular.

my religious beliefs include complete religious tolerance so there is not a contradiction. individual religious choice and observance is paramount.

bobson brougt up a very good point.

It seems that many don't even understand the difference in religious doctrine as compared to the laws a country.

For example - If the majority of the society were Orthedox Jews, and they demanded that "their" laws pertaining to the Sabboth be inclusive to ALL of society - could that infringe on the rights of others?

Or what if the society included a vast majority of muslems who demanded that ALL the women of the society cover their face in public. Would anyone feel their individual freedoms imposed upon to follw such a law?

SO HERE'S A QUESTION FOR YOU? What proposed legislations, Acts, or Bills, would affect you or appaul you enough to make you take some action in opposition of the passing of those laws? And explain why?

.. church doctrine... no way.
...Bible law.... only way to go.

Rambill,

Does that mean a return the the way of the Pharisees?!?!?

They were big on the litteral foolowing of the letter of the the religious law.

But in doing so, completely missed in communion with the spirit.

Jesus on the hand other hand, did violence to the letter of the law, and was all 'spirit' through his unconditional love of and for others.

With all due respect, I hope this is not going to be too tough a choice for you Rmabill!

religon and law making should always be seperate.what if a person worshiped a potatoe.french fries would be banned.Can't have that.
I think a lot of the stuff bobson said is common sense and most people have an inate sense of right and wrong.Base the laws on common sense.Religion has no place there.

Ram - "church doctrine... no way.
...Bible law.... only way to go. "

In a discussion where nothing is at stake sentiment such as yours is all well and good. But even a blind man can see enough to know that as a global communtiy there is not place on earth that could peacefully conduct a nation on Biblical law.

The diversity of this world is seen in every single culture and the globalisation that is taking place only increases those diversities.

It's important that nations develop governments that encompass, by extending equality in their laws, all diversity. Without this, countries, nations will continue to fight religious battles.

So consider what freedoms and rights you have under the laws of this country. Now consider which are so valuable to you that you would take action if that right was threatened?

law should reflect human rights

and if human rights coincide with a religion

oh well

but religion should not be a basis of law

red.. therin lies the problem. we think we know better than God how to run our lives... my point is that we have always been proven wrong historically on that one. There is no place on earth that bible law would work? as Christians we are no part of this world, heres a reason.
When i look at jesus;s life i see someone who threw away doctrine of man and instead drew us a pic of what we should be doing... again.....
How deep is your faith? I know better than to second guess the Lord.

again it is constitutional

for the united states

to adopt a religions reason to make law

if you wanna make law it must be for the rights of mankind

not religion

but the fact that a right of mankind may coincide with a religon
should not be just cause to remove the law

murder is illegal and rightly so

but tho shall not kill

is no reason to abolish the law

But Rambil, you are ignoring the fact that I (and many others) do not believe that the Bible is from God. I believe it is from man.

Based on the New Testament of the Bible, I believe Jesus was a good man with many very, very good things to say, but they are still from a man (to me)... and there are parts of this book that I do not agree with, or at least I don't agree with how they are interpreted...

I have to agree with DD.

For me the Bible is clearly not from God. I have many reasons why I firmly believe this, reasons that I feel are absolute proof as far as I’m concerned. The God of the Old Testament would necessarily have been less compassionate and less intelligent than myself and many other people I know. But it would not possible for the creator of this universe to be such an uncompassionate bumbling idiot. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, the Bible can’t possibly be from God.

So why should I stand by and let someone put into legislation male-chauvinistic bigoted superstitious laws that I believe were clearly created by ignorant uninformed men.

Rambill talks about second-guessing “God”, but he’s just making a blanket assumption that the Bible actually has something to do with a supreme being. An assumption that I vehemently disagree with.

your obviously more compassinate and intelligent than God? Wouldent want to be you on the big day. Thats the same speech satan gave God. You cant plead ignorance..... youve been told.