Replies

breakem, you need to be fair. I said that it's reasonable for our religious views to inform our beliefs about what laws should be, but that it must be balanced by our belief in freedom as well.

I am not calling for a theocracy. I am only saying that it's reasonable for some of our laws to be motivated by moral principles that have religious origins.

It is reasonable for some of our laws to be motivated by moral principles that have religious origins.

Definitely. But I think you ran into the same problem that panther33 did when he quoted scripture in a debate. A non-religious person. who is otherwise open to being convinced to the wisdom of a particular law, will most likely tune you out when you go religious on them.

I am only saying that it's reasonable for some of our laws to be motivated by moral principles that have religious origins.

Actually, as evidenced by the 10 Commandments continuing controversy, most basic laws are based originally on some kind of scriptural reference, if one looks back in time. There are only two foundations for deciding what is legal and what is illegal - i.e., what is right, and what is wrong:

1. Moral absolutes as coming from the basic religions of the world (and they pretty much agree on the basics).

2. Peoples' minds and desires - and they disgree wildly on every point, so majority rules - EXCEPT when a handful of judges rule by fiat, as in the United States of America (and many other countries).

So when moral absolutes as informed by the religions of the world are rejected by the secularists, everything gets boiled down to one edict:

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

In other words, totalitarianism. For example, Communism kicked out religion, and erected the State as the absolute instead.