[AnAmericanMother]

But that begs the question.

If there IS an ultimate truth, then society is obligated to enforce it by encouragement and, if necessary, by law.

If there is NOT an ultimate truth, then what standard do you propose to enforce anything upon society? Because all law is based upon morality, and morality is based upon the ultimate truth.

I also would suggest that the First Amendment is not what you think it is. It has to do with the establishment of religion as state-supported - and look at all the havoc that has wreaked in German, corrupting all the bishops in their lust for the Church Tax.

Sectarianism is probably not going to be supported by any legislative body, but something along the lines of C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" is not only permissible but a very good idea. It's interesting and informative that in the back of the book he has listed examples from all over the world of what he calls "the Tao": the agreed-upon moral rules that come to their fruition in Christianity.

Sharia law doesn't enter into this not because religious belief should not inform legislation, but because sharia and the religion that espouses it is WRONG. Objectively wrong.

[nathanbedford]

If there IS an ultimate truth, then society is obligated to enforce it by encouragement and, if necessary, by law.

I am confused and I do not understand how you can square that statement with this statement:

I also would suggest that the First Amendment is not what you think it is. It has to do with the establishment of religion as state-supported

I would suggest that the history of the 30 Years War and the subsequent wars and persecutions which succeeded it tell us that when we codify "ultimate truth" we better be damn sure that everybody agrees that it is ultimate truth. We might have a Bullshit detector on FreeRepublic but we have no Ultimate Truth Detector.

Those who would impose sharia think they have ultimate truth. They simply will not keep their religion within the walls of their mosque. I quite agree with you, they are wrong. But the problem is they will chop off both our heads to prove their point. But if there is an ultimate truth and they have it right and we have it wrong, they would be justified chopping off our heads for denying ultimate truth. But, you say, the First Amendment would prohibit that because it is an "establishment" of religion. The problem is not just the establishment of a religion but the enforcement of its morality.

The idea of the First Amendment and the Enlightenment and the exhaustion of the 30 Years War led to the modus vivendi that you keep your ultimate truth in your church and I will keep my ultimate truth in my church and we will make laws somewhere in between by compromise. When compromise goes out the window in the name of ultimate truth we burned witches and Muslims still chop off heads.

The next problem is using religion outside the four walls of the church to impose behavior in conformity with doctrine. It is not as easy as it sounds when one says that morality comes from religion. If our religion proscribes adultery and prescribes death by stoning as ours did in the Old Testament and Muslims do even today, have we drawn morality from religion? Only in the sense that morality is a reflection of culture without ethics.

And that is the problem with trying to find modern morality from ancient religions. Do you still want to gouge out an eye for an eye? I don't think so, I think you would revert to a modern ethics. I know I would.

So in a decent Western world with the experience of the Enlightenment and educated by the 30 Years War, we operate under the compromise of ultimate truth tempered by politics or ethics-whatever label you choose. We go into the marketplace of ideas to sell our version of ultimate truth and to impose our doctrine on behavior. But we recognize limits, we recognize the need to compromise. We accept that others do not accept our ultimate truth. We even accept that we do not have the moral or ethical right to impose our ultimate truth on nonbelievers. To some degree we accept that we do not have the moral or ethical right to impose our doctrines of behavior on nonbelievers. We limit those restrictions to a realm which we can justify, not by religion, but by ethics. Then we go to our churches and pray that the benighted will be brought to accept our ultimate truth.