Help: I Need Some Moral Reasons Why We Should Not Legislate Religious Morality

self ^ | 2-7-2003 | self

[Notwithstanding]

I got shafted and need to argue this side in a debate. HELP!

[Maigrey]

Well, you could bring in libertarian issues, or you could approach from the adult perspective (personal reponsibility). Mostly it depends on how you want to attack the issue.....

[Notwithstanding]

please help me

[ConservativeMan55]

I'll help you with this one.

[jlogajan]

Because a free society implies a diverse system of religious and philosophical beliefs. The only essential common core to allow such a society of diverse individuals to co-exist is protection against aggression.

None may assault, murder, rob, defraud. But all other mutually voluntary associations are permitted.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Whose Religious Morality should we legislate?

[aruanan]

First, you have to realize that you cannot argue for any type of morality without it being a feature of some kind of religious morality. You could argue that religious practices should not be required via law; but it would be absurd for anyone to argue that the state shouldn't legislate against murder because a prohibition against murder exists in almost every religion in almost all places and times.

[Notwithstanding]

Seemingly it is that of the Majority.

[Paleo Conservative]

You mean like laws against murder?

[jlogajan]

it would be absurd for anyone to argue that the state shouldn't legislate against murder because a prohibition against murder exists in almost every religion in almost all places and times.

It isn't "the state." Freedom loving individuals don't want to be murdered. They jointly agree to a system of self-protection. It has nothing to do with "religion." It is self-survival.

[nickcarraway]

Didn't Fr. Fagothey have something to say about this?

[Rocketman]

1) The Taliban

2) The Church of England

3)The Roman Catholic Church

4) Morality via religion comes from a change within not by reluglations and laws

[Cindy]

[coloradan]

Suppose that, due to a tragic set of circumstances, the Taliban Party candidates sweep Congress and the presidency. If the government is free to legislate morality, I think we can agree the resulting legislating would greatly suck. Only two things would keep such a government from enacting all sorts of bad laws: the Second Amendment, and a general prohibition against the government legislating morality. Only the latter option is nonviolent. (And, given that the Hildebeast was elected, can you be so sure the Taliban party can't possibly win?)

[Nateman]

No problem! here's a few reasons why its a bad idea: The Taliban, Iran, Syria,Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

[Notwithstanding]

I have to argue that the morals laws based upon the majority religion are NOT moral.

Opponents will argue the oppostie, of course.

The context we have been given are conscientious objector and religious use of illegal drugs Supreme Court cases.

[Jorge]

Because our form of Gov't is not a religious theocracy?

[keithtoo]

All laws are based on morality - from traffic laws to laws against murder.

Religion is just another name for a defining worldview and is no more or less relevent from a secular law point-of-view than something pulled out of Psychology Today.

Religious morality is a legitimate basis for laws.

[DannyTN]

#1 Reason, God gave man free will.