When I hear that people should not impose their 'religious' beliefs on others, I always wonder what qualifies as a religious belief as opposed to just a belief, Period.

For instance, take something as simple as the Ten Commandments





stealing is a crime
killing is a crime
perjury is a crime
and adultery is grounds for divorce

were these 'religious' beliefs that were 'imposed' upon others?


where do people draw the line to determine when a value or standard is 'religious' ?

why are some standards accepted culturally and others seperated as merely 'religious'?

my questions is: do we have respect for all religions ? of course not, for me I think it's a principle of what one tends to believe.
as for me what I can say is that I believe in what I was thought by my parents. I still love and read the Bible. One more point of reference I would I like to mention, I do not judge nor do I have any resentment of those who believe in what they choose to believe.
Are we pure? No! I try to respect the Bible as much as I can and of course I have my own faults, just like anybody else on this planet.

Imposing or forcing someone to believe in another, cult, sect, etcetera is again an option, choice, etcetera, etcetera. the history of religions has a very strong background anywhere and everywhere in this world.

Ms. Harmony, thank you for posting this.

I think you have some things mixed up here.

First off, because many religions did start out as attempts at government, there are lots of items which are laws in secular societies, which are also laws in religious societies. That isn't because religious ideas were imposed on others, it is because governing a society of any kind, is likely to include lots of similar basic rules (also, if you read enough history of government, you will find that SOME governments evolved from being nominally entirely religious, first to being both secular and religious, and then to being entirely secular). Simply, it is considered a "bad thing" to commit murder, according to the ten commandments, and it is ALSO considered a "bad thing" by our secular government.

Next, the big problem with having laws passed BECAUSE they are dictated by religious beliefs, or even have the APPEARANCE that they are dictated by religious belief, is that that act puts that religion into competitive authority with the rest of the government.

What's the difference between a religious belief and a non-religious belief? That can seem subtle, but not because it actually is, rather because a fair number of people don't think things through. There's not much difference between "I just KNOW it," and "I know what God wants," and "I read it in an official religious text." But there is a HUGE difference between those, and "I believe it is necessary to an orderly and peaceful society to declare certain actions to be illegal." Translation: lots of people use the word "believe" interchangeably with the idea "logically reasoned through." And others who are a bit on the sneaky end of things, will purposely pretend that there IS no difference between those definitions.

Now. One area where things get VERY difficult to sort out, is where we try to figure out how to have FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, without that meaning that people who are religious are allowed to do things their religions dictate, which involve altering the course of other peoples' lives who may not have the same beliefs. We've had fights over whether SOME religious people should be allowed to discriminate against people who didn't believe as they do. Some Christians think that's great, when it's Christians who are doing the discriminating, but some Christians think the same idea is terrible if they are the ones BEING discriminated against.

Basically, when you're on the receiving end of a privilege, it can seem to be a very good idea; but when you are on the other end of things, not so much.

still not very clear

What IS the difference between I know it and I know what God wants, if what God wants and what an individual 'knows' are in sync?

for example, my faith is strong BECAUSE I have always 'known' the very things that I eventually read in the Bible,, regarding right and wrong, because they made logical sense

so

who determines (and 'how) which 'society' originated this knowledge enough to determine that a belief is simply 'religious'?

The difference is in the reasoning, or the lack of it, to be more precise.

In pure secular reasoning, we make murder against the law for practical reasons. Because it is disruptive and severely limiting on society and on national progress, if people are allowed to kill each other for any old reason. In religious reasoning, we outlaw murder because an authority we don't physically see, just says so. What you choose to CALL that invisible authority doesn't change the fact that you don't take personal responsibility for making your rules.

who is to say what someones reasons for believing something are though Igor when it comes to merely reading or seeing a law?

who is to say when something is 'pure' secular or 'someone said so', particularly if that someone is trusted to be logical or that something someone said is logical?

if my base value system is reinforced by a book , regardless of the book, of peoples experiences, how does that make it any less logical or practical than anyone elses?


I feel we are too closely intertwined to decipher values and standards by whether they are 'purely' someone said so or not,,,,,

all our values are learned culturally by what we are exposed to , its unlikely that someone somewhere didn't 'say so' before we were taught


and our own experiences and environment either reinforce the integrity or practicality of whats passed down by 'someone' or they don't

It's actually rare in the real world to find any kind of purity. Lots of people who talk about wanting to be entirely secular about things, still secretly have things that they "just know," and plenty of people who claim to be pure adherents to religious ideals, quietly make decisions and take actions for the sake of selfish interests.

I was just pointing out that magic is magic. Whether someone says they "just know," or that they think that God directs them to believe something, it still comes down to the fact that they are going to act with certainty, they don't really know why they are doing so, other than they think someone or something other than them, has directed the decision. I intend no offense of any kind, nor am I even remotely suggesting that anyone is being dishonest, or anything like that.

It's just logic. If you think something is inherently wrong, and you stick with that without thinking any further, you are functionally just as religious, from a logical point of view, as someone who says the same thing because they think a god told them so.

I don't think there is a single simple way to draw the line between a religious belief and a logical one, since most logical decisions still include a basis in your personal values. I value life and freedom of choice, so I will draw the line differently than someone who doesn't hold those in as high regard. Some people's version of freedom of choice is different than mine. Which of us should get to say what EVERYONE'S rules are? I'm not sure in advance, but I tend to be cautious about letting someone else dictate such to me. So I go one instance at a time.

I agree with that.

I believe right and wrong are issues that laws are not meant to cover.

I believe when it comes to LAWS, the main consideration is the unity of society at large, or the preservation of the community.

where such an interest (the community well being) coincides with values of right and wrong

I believe the term 'religious belief' gets overused as insult by those who uphold personal freedom REGARDLESS of community affect

and the term 'secular belief' gets overused as insult by those who uphold community affect REGARDLESS of personal freedom

I would not mind if I never saw either term used again

values and beliefs just ARE ,, through experiences and lessons and things passed down,,, their source or origin are very difficult to pin down in most cases,,,

Religion is not good but God is

God is just always

religion: a particular system of faith and worship

any religion with faith in and worship of God is just and good....

I keep faith in God and religion separate...when a book is titled "the King James Version"... I call it mans version..taken from ancient writings and interpreted to the Kings liking... I think that people are either good or bad and no book or claim of faith can change that..God knows us all...I think that Goverments have warped faith in ways that are solely for their greed of power and money... I know so many people that have no faith in God because of the pain the governments have inflicted on people claiming its Gods will..God has a special place in his heart for those who have suffered under the hands of man..how he will judge us bears on how we treat others and our reasoning behind it..God is very real..how we think, speak and act is how he will judge us...and no book out there can change who you are..your either a good egg or a bad egg..God knows the difference..

I find that living in the haze helps me keep my thirst for knowledge alive. My moral compass is influenced by what I feel is right. We are all just walking talking contradictions. I will admit that science cant be ignored though whether its a path to find god or disprove god will be decided after I am gone. For now I will continue to educate myself to better understand the world around me. There is more than one path to becoming rich. With different ways of saying you're wealthy.

A possible method to try, when you're trying to figure out what laws to pass or change, is what I call "genericization." That just means you take out the words that immediately trigger emotions in you that might prejudice your decision, and substitute more generic terms. You can also try substituting names of people and groups that you have the opposite feelings about (positive for negative and vice versa), and then see if you come to the same conclusion.

Take the recent hullabaloo about wedding cakes out west, or wherever it was. If you are Christian, or at least Christian sympathetic, you might think "people SHOULD be allowed to conduct their own personally owned, but publicly operated businesses according to their religious tenets." But then if you substitute some opposites, and ask instead, should an Islamic business owner of a publicly operated business be allowed to refuse service to anyone who refused to subit to Sharia law?" Or perhaps, ask "should an owner of a publicly operated business in your area be allowed to declare that YOU and everyone who looks like you, wont be served by them?"

The thing is, if you draw the line where you think it's okay when you LIKE the business' choice, the same law WILL apply the same way when you DON'T like the business.

Imagine either the restriction you want, or the freedom you want, being handed to the people who you don't like you, or who you don't like, as the case may be. If you still like the idea, then maybe it's not a problem. But if you reject the same idea when the opposite kind of people are applying it, then you know it's a line-crosser.

People have non-religious reasons for declaring that theft, murder and perjury are crimes.

One does not have to respect another person's religion in order to respect that person's freedom of religion.

I never saw the wedding cake issue one of allowing service to specific people, but an issue of choosing specific services they will provide, regardless of the customer

I felt they should be able to not sell SSM cakes, I would feel the same about an atheist cakemaker not selling cakes depicting God,

if the cakemaker was willing to sell the SAME (SSM) cake to a hetero but not a homosexual, that would be an issue

likewise if he was not willing to sell the same (traditional) cake to a homosexual that he sold to a heterosexual,, that would be a problem too


I do not believe in discriminating against customers, I do believe in personal discrimination of what services or products will be provided.

they read, felt, or were told at some point somewhere, what is 'acceptable' or what is 'right and wrong'

so

people have non religious AND religious reasons for declaring things to be crimes


, someone elses reasons are never truly known unless they share them

..if you take the commandments..said to be Gods laws..these were designed to keep us from hurting eachother...mans laws are made for lining pockets...Gods law has been tossed to the curb..mans law is warped and protects those who have money...Gods law can't be bought..mans can..so man has put mans law above Gods...and before the King James Version ..it was written that mans law is an abomination to God... I kinda stuck to do unto others as you want done to you...and if what you're doing gives you a bad feeling..chances are it's bad..

Wickenstien said it best. If a person believes that when a black bird dies someone else is going to die. That is their belief. All your arguments are are not going to change his belief. If you wish to add the word religious being defined as a supernatural being to the above then you would have a religious belief.