[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.....

[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.

[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.

[Paleo Conservative]

You mean like laws against murder?

[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.

[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.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Morality is legislated anyway. Arguing otherwise is absurd, morality is legislated every day. It is WHOSE morality that is important. Slander, libel, theft, murder, and any number of U.S. crimes were pulled directly from British common law which got it's foundation in the Magna Carta which in turn can be traced back to the bible.

The position you have been given is IMO indefensible.

[DannyTN]

#2 What is the definition of "religious morality".

If the intent is to regulate behavior in society, that's one thing. But if the intent is to make man's heart pure, that can't be legislated.

All the laws in the world won't change man's heart.
The 10 commandments were given to man to increase man's knowledge of sin. Nobody was ever saved by following the 10 commandments because nobody ever did.

[DannyTN]

#3 It conflicts with freedom.
#4 Whose morality? Whose religion?

[DannyTN]

If a person does good because he is required to. He may not realize is spirtual condition is evil. Failing to recognize that, that man may never seek salvation.

Therefore, in order that man may be saved, he needs to be allowed to fall enough so that he can recognize that he has fallen.

[Quix]

I'm of the opinion that to determine a matter--we need to know:

(1) WHAT IS THE RELEVANT GOAL?

(2) WHAT IS THE CRITERIA, STANDARD USED TO MEASURE WHETHER ONE HAS REACHED THAT GOAL OR NOT?

(3) WHAT IS THE RELEVANT CONTEXT?

One might assume that the goal was to have an orderly, stable society.

Then the issue becomes--does one want the policeman inside each person or outside walking the beat?

If the policeman is to be outside walking the beat--there will never be enough policemen. And if there are, who polices the policemen?

If the policeman is to be inside each person--then it is impossible to legislate this. Legislating such only tend to make people RELIGIOUS. And as Christ illustrated in His outrage at the pharisees--the super religious can be the most terrible and destructive forces in the culture.

Honorable behavior comes only from an honorable heart. And typically, we cannot change our own hearts. But God is able and willing to change our hearts AS WE CONFESS our flaws, inabilities, imperfections and willful sins and CHOOSE to follow Him day by day as best we can, with His help--in a LOVE RELATIONSHIP with Him.

The MOST honorable and orderly society will arise out of sufficient numbers of its citizens having a LOVE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD wherein they seek to do God's Will selflessly with God's help, walking moment by moment hand-in-hand with Him.

Otherwise, RELIGION whether legislated by church authorities or laws legislated by civil authorities very easily end up clubs to beat one another about the head and shoulders and particularly to coerce and steal from one another with ever more elaborate and clever manipulations of the law.

Our founding fathers said for good reason that only our society could only survive if it had a moral, spiritual citizenry.

[RAT Patrol]

We cannot legislate religion. We can legislate morality. In general, however, we protect freedom, we protect religious rights -- which in turn supports morality -- and we rely on the general social structure of society to support moral values. Legislation does not need to force morality if the structure of government protects the bill of rights, especially religious freedom.

[hoot2]

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

"render unto caesar what is caesar's"
"render unto GOD what is GOD's"...
politicians n governments don't have "morals"

[AKA Elena]

I think of this in two ways ... I cannot obey any law which infringes on my religious belief ... but in the first place LAWS were based on the societal mores that make society liveable and protect each person ... this truth evolved from the first establishment of LAW in society.

Since the ten commandments were a coverage of all basic aspects of the interaction of Society ... and other tenets of earlier religions were basically the same thing ... unless that society was an amoral one, history shows that those societies which flaunted aberrant behavior and licentiousness were quickly vanquished or lost their power to keep a place in the world and each of these were lost in the pages of history, many times through the degradation of the people themselves.

I cannot imagine how ANYONE can betray one's own integral sense of right and wrong ... nor can I see any justification of basic morals changing from the beginning.

Laws evolved following natural law itself and time cannot warp that basic and intrinsic Natural law. Sorry I could not make this a more clearly stated response, but ...