Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Laws influenced by religious opinion

Options
  • 19-10-2012 9:16am
    #1
    Leftist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭


    Are there any current laws in irish society that are influenced specifically by a religious group?

    for instance we all know about the former ban on contraception and divorce, the former was obviously a religious law.

    And should religious groups be banned from lobbying the government on law making decisions?

    for instance gay marraige?

    Imo, I can't really see how person A can expect person B to live by their religious rules? surely you can see that it's a belief? it's your right to have that belief but how can anyone expect others to live by that doctrine?

    Discuss.


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    The blasphemy law springs to mind...


  • Options
    #3
    iDave
    Registered Users Posts: 3,750 ✭✭✭iDave


    Getting a drink on Good Friday


  • Options
    #4
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nobody should be banned from lobbying for anything they like. That's not even what state secularism means. One of the best definitions I've read is from the former PM of Australia Kevin Rudd:
    A [truly] Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity. A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed.


  • Options
    #5
    Leftist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    philologos wrote: »
    Nobody should be banned from lobbying for anything they like. That's not even what state secularism means. One of the best definitions I've read is from the former PM of Australia Kevin Rudd:
    A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians

    Does this right include religious perspectives that are not christian?

    and imo, they should be immediatly rejected. Why should a non-Christian ever have to live by the rules in which they have zero faith? a rule based on a story that can never be proved?


  • Options
    #6
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Leftist wrote: »
    Does this right include religious perspectives that are not christian?

    and imo, they should be immediatly rejected. Why should a non-Christian ever have to live by the rules in which they have zero faith? a rule based on a story that can never be proved?

    Read the whole quote. He was referring to Christian positions in politics. He says that a Christian position shouldn't expect to be received, but it should be argued along with other perspectives in a secular polity.

    If you read the quote, you'd realise that it wasn't saying that non-Christians should live by Christian standards. That's something that I wouldn't encourage, but Christians should have a right to speak about the law and lobby on that basis if they so choose, like anyone else, including atheists do.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    A weird quirk in the law is if 1 person claimed to hear voices telling them how to behave, see things that arent there and have delusions of grandeour regarding their position within the world they could be legally committed. If many do so......:D


  • Options
    #8
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Except here it's the other way around, the Christians don't have to lobby, the idealogy is considered to be default and holds as it's also registered as the majority. The constitution has been amended to say something along the lines of "no one religion has precedence" but this is also followed by a comment referencing favouritism towards Christianity/Catholicism. Laws around lifestyle choices which don't interfere with other people are tied up by it.

    Liquor Licensing
    Civil Partnerships

    Are 2 I can think of, which are mentioned earlier. But I'm sure there's more others can add to that.


  • Options
    #9
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Would it not be that almost all laws in Ireland, and indeed the West are guided and influenced by a Christian sense of morality?


  • Options
    #10
    Leftist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    philologos wrote: »
    Read the whole quote. He was referring to Christian positions in politics. He says that a Christian position shouldn't expect to be received, but it should be argued along with other perspectives in a secular polity.

    If you read the quote, you'd realise that it wasn't saying that non-Christians should live by Christian standards. That's something that I wouldn't encourage, but Christians should have a right to speak about the law and lobby on that basis if they so choose, like anyone else, including atheists do.

    that's not really what I meant. Christians like any other group, are entitled to their opinion, but if they are arguing for or against a general law based on a religious rule, i.e. Drink on good friday for example, then it should be rejected.

    I was listening to a debate on newtalk about gay couples adopting. There was a representitive arguing that straight couples should be prioritised when it comes to adoption. And he gave a reason that wasn't based in religious doctrine. And of course that's fine, he's entitled to that.

    But what non religious reason is there for the ban of sale of alcohol on good friday?


  • Options
    #11
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Leftist wrote: »
    that's not really what I meant. Christians like any other group, are entitled to their opinion, but if they are arguing for or against a general law based on a religious rule, i.e. Drink on good friday for example, then it should be rejected.

    I was listening to a debate on newtalk about gay couples adopting. There was a representitive arguing that straight couples should be prioritised when it comes to adoption. And he gave a reason that wasn't based in religious doctrine. And of course that's fine, he's entitled to that.

    But what non religious reason is there for the ban of sale of alcohol on good friday?

    Laws should be evaluated on merit. If a Muslim politician brought a proposal to the table that was based on the Qur'an, but it was actually beneficial to society, I'd give him a hearing. Likewise if a Hindu brought a proposal to the table that was based on the Vedas but abounded in merit, then I would give them a hearing. Ideas should be considered and discussed by merit, and just because a view has an ideological underpinning doesn't necessarily mean it is negative.

    I think the Good Friday rule doesn't have a sound basis. The objection to same-sex parent adoption (although I believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is best for kids) is null in the Irish case because a single person can adopt which is also not really what is ideal. Insofar as a single person can adopt, then there's no good objection to it in law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Leftist wrote: »
    Are there any current laws in irish society that are influenced specifically by a religious group?

    Well in court, why should someone have to swear on a book they might not believe in?


  • Options
    #13
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Would it not be that almost all laws in Ireland, and indeed the West are guided and influenced by a Christian sense of morality?

    I somehow doubt that, although many people seem to think it.

    If it were influenced that much by Christian laws, we wouldn't be allowed to have sex before marriage, or outside marriage. There would be laws against working on Sundays, against swearing, against idolatry, but none against slavery. There would probably even be a law stating that everyone has to belief in the Abrahamic god, based on the first commandement, so all other religions as well as atheism would be outlawed.
    We'd still have capital punishment, especially for witches.

    The way I see it, legal history went through a long phase when the European legislatives were trying to implement one or all of the rules listed above and stated in the bible, more or less successfully.
    But for the past several hundred years, most Western countries have made a conscious effort to base their laws on the idea of allowing a peaceful social coexistence for all, rather than ancient scripture.


  • Options
    #14
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Would it not be that almost all laws in Ireland, and indeed the West are guided and influenced by a Christian sense of morality?

    No, many are driven by secular values. If we were influenced completely by Christianity, then slavery would still be legal, as would punishment for those who work the sabbath, capital punishment for children who curse their parents, and an array of other idiotic things in the bible.


  • Options
    #15
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    philologos wrote: »
    Laws should be evaluated on merit. If a Muslim politician brought a proposal to the table that was based on the Qur'an, but it was actually beneficial to society, I'd give him a hearing. Likewise if a Hindu brought a proposal to the table that was based on the Vedas but abounded in merit, then I would give them a hearing. Ideas should be considered and discussed by merit, and just because a view has an ideological underpinning doesn't necessarily mean it is negative.

    I think the Good Friday rule doesn't have a sound basis. The objection to same-sex parent adoption (although I believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is best for kids) is null in the Irish case because a single person can adopt which is also not really what is ideal. Insofar as a single person can adopt, then there's no good objection to it in law.

    I think what you're trying to avoid saying here is that if a person of faith puts forward a proposal based on sound reasoning, evidence or fact or any combination of these, he or she should be heard and the argument should be considered on par with that of a non-religious person.
    I don't think anyone here would contradict that.

    What people do have an issue with, however, are proposals put forth based on nothing else but faith and/or scripture. If there is nothing else supporting this kind of a position, it ought not to be considered, in my view.


  • Options
    #16
    Anyone
    Registered Users Posts: 3,376 ✭✭✭Anyone


    Murder and Stealing.


  • Options
    #17
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Shenshen wrote: »
    If it were influenced that much by Christian laws, we wouldn't be allowed to have sex before marriage, or outside marriage.

    But like most things to do with religion, people pick and choose what they will obey. This happened in law that came from religious beliefs too.


  • Options
    #18
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    smash wrote: »
    Well in court, why should someone have to swear on a book they might not believe in?

    Indeed. I live in small town Ireland and ended up as a witness one day. When presented with the bible to swear on I informed the judge that as i dont believe in such I would prefer to take what ever alternative they could offer (genuinely). There were audible tuts from the jury (the usual elderly great and good of small town Ireland) and the judge noticably bristled and rolled his eyes.


  • Options
    #19
    Leftist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    Anyone wrote: »
    Murder and Stealing.

    Again I'm not talking about laws originating through religious moral guidance.

    It's plain and simple to anyone to know that murder and stealing is wrong and it's not specifically adhering to a religious opinion.


  • Options
    #20
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Anyone wrote: »
    Murder and Stealing.

    Funnily enough, these haven't been allowed even before religion tried to claim it invented law.


  • Options
    #21
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Shenshen wrote: »
    I think what you're trying to avoid saying here is that if a person of faith puts forward a proposal based on sound reasoning, evidence or fact or any combination of these, he or she should be heard and the argument should be considered on par with that of a non-religious person.
    I don't think anyone here would contrdict that.

    What people do have an issue with, however, are proposals put forth based on nothing else but faith and/or scripture. If there is nothing else supporting this kind of a position, it ought not to be considered, in my view.

    If there's no merit, there's no merit, but by and large in a lot of cases that's very debatable.

    I look at history. I see that evangelical Christians abolished slavery in Britain by lobbying in Parliament, I see that through lobbying in parliament the Factories Act of 1847 was passed again by Christian lobbying of Lord Shaftesbury and others. I see others such as Sir Thomas Buxton carrying on the work of William Wilberforce in abolition, reducing the numbers of crimes punishable by death, and campaigning for the improvement of the rights of prisoners again due to his Christian belief.

    I think people have a biased perspective on this issue. Scripture and faith nonetheless have brought about many progressive changes for good within our society and within our world irrespective of what detractors might say about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    smash wrote: »
    But like most things to do with religion, people pick and choose what they will obey. This happened in law that came from religious beliefs too.

    That's what I mean, in a way.
    A lot of people think that most of our laws are derived from the decalogue, when there actually only are 3 - murder, stealing and perjury. All of the other things so clearly forbidden by the bible are perfectly legal, and thankfully most people would think it very odd indeed if anyone suggested putting them into law.


  • Options
    #23
    Anyone
    Registered Users Posts: 3,376 ✭✭✭Anyone


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Funnily enough, these haven't been allowed even before religion tried to claim it invented law.

    Can you show me any written laws proving that?


  • Options
    #24
    Leftist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    philologos wrote: »
    If there's no merit, there's no merit, but by and large in a lot of cases that's very debatable.

    I look at history. I see that evangelical Christians abolished slavery in Britain by lobbying in Parliament, I see that through lobbying in parliament the Factories Act of 1847 was passed again by Christian lobbying of Lord Shaftesbury and others. I see others such as Sir Thomas Buxton carrying on the work of William Wilberforce in abolition, reducing the numbers of crimes punishable by death, and campaigning for the improvement of the rights of prisoners again due to his Christian belief.

    I think people have a biased perspective on this issue. Scripture and faith nonetheless have brought about many progressive changes for good within our society and within our world irrespective of what detractors might say about it.

    Indeed. And it's not about condemning the history of religion. It's about current laws in our societies and the influence of conservative influence on social laws, such as gay marraige.


  • Options
    #25
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    philologos wrote: »
    If there's no merit, there's no merit, but by and large in a lot of cases that's very debatable.

    I look at history. I see that evangelical Christians abolished slavery in Britain by lobbying in Parliament, I see that through lobbying in parliament the Factories Act of 1847 was passed again by Christian lobbying of Lord Shaftesbury and others. I see others such as Sir Thomas Buxton carrying on the work of William Wilberforce in abolition, reducing the numbers of crimes punishable by death, and campaigning for the improvement of the rights of prisoners again due to his Christian belief.

    I think people have a biased perspective on this issue. Scripture and faith nonetheless have brought about many progressive changes for good within our society and within our world irrespective of what detractors might say about it.

    I do admire these people for the work they did in Britain and indeed in the US, where as far as I know the abolishion movement was started of by Quakers.
    That does little to alter the fact that the book they base their faith on is in itself more of a promotion for slavery than a pamphlet against.

    They must have come to the conclusion that slavery is inhumane by other ways, and they were able to base their cause on promotion of the common good and the strife for a more equal and fair society. Not on the teachings of their faith.


  • Options
    #26
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Leftist wrote: »
    Indeed. And it's not about condemning the history of religion. It's about current laws in our societies and the influence of conservative influence on social laws, such as gay marraige.

    There's an argument and a discussion to be had about same-sex marriage, and both sides should be listened to. It's the same in every political issue, unless you're saying that there should be a state policy against freedom of speech / expression, and freedom of religion?


  • Options
    #27
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Shenshen wrote: »
    That's what I mean, in a way.
    A lot of people think that most of our laws are derived from the decalogue, when there actually only are 3 - murder, stealing and perjury. All of the other things so clearly forbidden by the bible are perfectly legal, and thankfully most people would think it very odd indeed if anyone suggested putting them into law.

    I don't know, there's still laws around marriage which come from religious beliefs.


  • Options
    #28
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Shenshen wrote: »
    I do admire these people for the work they did in Britain and indeed in the US, where as far as I know the abolishion movement was started of by Quakers.
    That does little to alter the fact that the book they base their faith on is in itself more of a promotion for slavery than a pamphlet against.

    They must have come to the conclusion that slavery is inhumane by other ways, and they were able to base their cause on promotion of the common good and the strife for a more equal and fair society. Not on the teachings of their faith.

    I disagree entirely. I've posted about the subject of the Torah and slavery and have argued how it differed very much from colonial slavery. I won't rehash it again here. Colonial slavery is very clearly wrong, and was very clearly against God's standards for humanity.

    It was because of their Christian convictions that they argued for this, not in spite of them.


  • Options
    #29
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    philologos wrote: »
    I think the Good Friday rule doesn't have a sound basis. The objection to same-sex parent adoption (although I believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is best for kids) is null in the Irish case because a single person can adopt which is also not really what is ideal. Insofar as a single person can adopt, then there's no good objection to it in law.

    This is the basis of the discussion. It is a matter of lifestyle you do not agree with. I'm not looking to argue the reasoning behind you not agreeing with that particular item. And I don't think that is what this thread was intended for. The issue I feel that needs to be addressed is when it comes to matters such as this, which are lifestyle issues. There is no intention for harm/insult towards anyone who isn't interested in that lifestyle. Nor does it directly invoke a breakdown of society. It's just a lifestyle you don't agree with. It's one I don't intend to pursue myself. In saying that, I don't see why my choices that don't impact others, should limit other peoples choices who won't impact others.

    However, the underlined part above is impacting someone else. It prevents them from fulfilling a desire they may hold to do such. To you it's something you don't agree with. But what impact on you is there if they are able to?

    I'm in no way read up on Laws / Legislation and such. But I believe they are there to aide, protect and provide for society. This does not do that and with its basis from Christianity really makes it no different to the way Islamic states promotes Sharia Law in the middle east. Not as extreme, but the main problem is with how it limits society.
    philologos wrote: »
    If there's no merit, there's no merit, but by and large in a lot of cases that's very debatable.

    I look at history. I see that evangelical Christians abolished slavery in Britain by lobbying in Parliament, I see that through lobbying in parliament the Factories Act of 1847 was passed again by Christian lobbying of Lord Shaftesbury and others. I see others such as Sir Thomas Buxton carrying on the work of William Wilberforce in abolition, reducing the numbers of crimes punishable by death, and campaigning for the improvement of the rights of prisoners again due to his Christian belief.

    I think people have a biased perspective on this issue. Scripture and faith nonetheless have brought about many progressive changes for good within our society and within our world irrespective of what detractors might say about it.

    These examples benefit society as they appear to bring rights to the people. No one is arguing against society benefiting and the welfare of the public increasing with it. It's when it limits society, that it's a problem.


  • Options
    #30
    Mr Benevolent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭Mr Benevolent


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    A weird quirk in the law is if 1 person claimed to hear voices telling them how to behave, see things that arent there and have delusions of grandeour regarding their position within the world they could be legally committed.

    Actually they can't. Nobody can be committed anymore without a VERY good cause.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Anyone wrote: »
    Can you show me any written laws proving that?

    Code of Hammurabi:

    "A man who killed another in a quarrel must swear he did not do so intentionally, and was then only fined according to the rank of the deceased. The Code does not say what would be the penalty of murder, but death is so often awarded where death is caused that we can hardly doubt that the murderer was put to death. If the assault only led to injury and was unintentional, the assailant in a quarrel had to pay the doctor's fees. "

    "The death penalty was freely awarded for theft and other crimes regarded as coming under that head, for theft involving entrance of palace or temple treasury, for illegal purchase from minor or slave, for selling stolen goods or receiving the same, for common theft in the open (in default of multiple restoration) or receiving the same, for false claim to goods,..."
    http://www.justlawlinks.com/REGS/codeham.htm


Advertisement