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
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Aiel
    Registered Users Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Aiel


    Ah,so this is this weeks anti-religious topic on the After Hours thread.


  • Options
    #33
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    philologos wrote: »
    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.

    Well, if it was only about different types of slavery, they would have campaigned to simply change the tems of slavery.
    Instead they campaigned for its abolishion, which does not have biblical grounds.


  • Options
    #34
    Anyone
    Registered Users Posts: 3,376 ✭✭✭Anyone


    Shenshen wrote: »
    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

    Interesing, and that state and people had no religon at all?


  • Options
    #35
    Leftist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    Aiel wrote: »
    Ah,so this is this weeks anti-religious topic on the After Hours thread.



    What is anti-religious about this discussion?

    please don't try to derail a rational conversation with turgid sensationalism.


  • Options
    #36
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Anyone wrote: »
    Interesing, and that state and people had no religon at all?

    I expect they did. but these laws were given to them and cast in stone by their ruler, not by their god.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Aiel wrote: »
    Ah,so this is this weeks anti-religious topic on the After Hours thread.

    And contested within 5min of the thread opening by a religious poster. Is there a running for Pope competition on to see who can be the fastest anti-secular religious poster?


  • Options
    #38
    flutterflye
    Registered Users Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭flutterflye


    Confab wrote: »
    Actually they can't. Nobody can be committed anymore without a VERY good cause.

    You can be committed if you have an axis 1 mental illness and are perceived to be a danger to yourself or others.


  • Options
    #39
    Anyone
    Registered Users Posts: 3,376 ✭✭✭Anyone


    Leftist wrote: »
    What is anti-religious about this discussion?

    please don't try to derail a rational conversation with turgid sensationalism.


    I'd call it an anti religous thread, its cleverly worded, but its definatley anti religon. I'm not religous at all, but these threads are all too common these days.


  • Options
    #40
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Anyone wrote: »
    I'd call it an anti religous thread, its cleverly worded, but its definatley anti religon. I'm not religous at all, but these threads are all too common these days.

    You could turn the original question on it's head :

    Should a proposal for legislation be considered if it is based on nothing more than the rejection of religion?
    I would expect just as many people would argue against this point as argue for not considering laws based on nothing but religion.


  • Options
    #41
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    I think you misread me. Because single adoption is legal there's no good reason to prohibit same-sex adoption because it doesn't work logically. I still believe a married man and wife are best for child. But if a single person can freely adopt then there's no ground for saying a same-sex couple can't even if I disagree.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    gurramok wrote: »

    And contested within 5min of the thread opening by a religious poster. Is there a running for Pope competition on to see who can be the fastest anti-secular religious poster?
    I'm a Christian who is pro-secularism. My problem is when atheists add stuff to it. Separation of church and state was to allow freedom of religion in America between churches. It wasn't to say that people with faith should shutup.


  • Options
    #43
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,704 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    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.
    So what happened next?


  • Options
    #44
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    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?

    What religious rule bans drink on good friday?. Italians, I think, don;t ban drink on Good Friday. It is a National Policy, based on the wish to respect religious holidays. If the Irish were capable of controlling themselves while on beer, then there might not have been a need for the ban (not complete by the war, hotels, railway stations)


    Alot of idiots automatically assume that if you don't agree with a modern "consenus", such as gay marriage or abortion, it automatically means that you are influenced by religion. That is horse manure. I know a few people who oppose both, and they have no spirtual or religious faith


  • Options
    #45
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    philologos wrote: »
    I think you misread me. Because single adoption is legal there's no good reason to prohibit same-sex adoption because it doesn't work logically. I still believe a married man and wife are best for child. But if a single person can freely adopt then there's no ground for saying a same-sex couple can't even if I disagree.

    Adoption wasn't what I was referring to, I highlighted the marriage part.

    However adopting as if one is single, is no more than a "work around" and only goes to press the idea that marriage has to be between a man and woman as the state does not accept or recognise such between man/man or woman/woman.

    These are both lifestyle choices which have no impact on society and shouldn't be prevented by law/legislation.


  • Options
    #46
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Yes, and they are all ridiculous.

    Now you can say sensible normal laws like do not kill are influenced by religion but they really aren't, they are more influenced by biology and the human condition if anything.


  • Options
    #47
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dravokivich wrote: »

    Adoption wasn't what I was referring to, I highlighted the marriage part.

    However adopting as if one is single, is no more than a "work around" and only goes to press the idea that marriage has to be between a man and woman as the state does not accept or recognise such between man/man or woman/woman.

    These are both lifestyle choices which have no impact on society and shouldn't be prevented by law/legislation.

    Again you're misreading me. I think same-sex adoption should be allowed, but a married man and woman are better for kids.


  • Options
    #48
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    flutterflye wrote: »
    You can be committed if you have an axis 1 mental illness and are perceived to be a danger to yourself or others.

    Eh yes, VERY good cause, as pointed out by the other poster.


  • Options
    #49
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Yes, and they are all ridiculous.

    Now you can say sensible normal laws like do not kill are influenced by religion but they really aren't, they are more influenced by biology and the human condition if anything.

    explain how religion / morals are not influential and explain how laws are more influenced by biology and the human condition. Where is the source for this opinion.


  • Options
    #50
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    philologos wrote: »
    Again you're misreading me. I think same-sex adoption should be allowed, but a married man and woman are better for kids.

    hmmm, re-reading my earlier response now, maybe it would of been better of me to use "Christians." I didn't mean to target you singularly. It was intended on a wider scope.


  • Options
    #51
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    What religious rule bans drink on good friday?. Italians, I think, don;t ban drink on Good Friday. It is a National Policy, based on the wish to respect religious holidays. If the Irish were capable of controlling themselves while on beer, then there might not have been a need for the ban (not complete by the war, hotels, railway stations)

    Since laws affecting individuals are almost all national, yes of course it's a national law.
    But as per the OP, it's a law that is not only influenced by religious opinion, religious opinion is the only reason for its very existence. Outside of the Christian religion, what other reason could you think of for not selling drink on two Christian holidays?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Drakares
    Registered Users Posts: 904 ✭✭✭Drakares


    Religion should never be used to govern a Country or influence laws. Thankfully the Western countries are becoming more and more separated from these silly laws. Though Good Friday still going well and strong with a ban on buying alcohol.


  • Options
    #53
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    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.

    REgardless, you did not have to swear on the bible, so move on.


  • Options
    #54
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    explain how religion / morals are not influential and explain how laws are more influenced by biology and the human condition. Where is the source for this opinion.

    Morals are not conditional on religion, people have and do hold high morals without holding any religion.

    Humans are by biology a tribal animal. To allow the existence and continuation of a tribe, certain social rules need to be in place. These rules are adhered to in laws and social conventions the world over, irrespective of what religion (if any) the society on the whole clings to.

    As I pointed out already, laws regarding steaing, killing, perjury, endangering others, etc. have been written in stone by the Babylonians a long time before the first priest came up with the idea to claim that without religion, you cannot have a basis for laws, and you cannot live a moral life.


  • Options
    #55
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    You really haven't a clue really, do you, as to the source of most of the laws and traditions of Western Countries that are still practiced.

    Such as the law against making any images of god or the world?
    Or would you be referring to the law requiring everyone to belief in the Abrahamic god?
    Surely you cannot be talking about the law against cursing and swearing?
    Oh, I know, it's the law against having sex with anyone but your spouse, right?

    I don't mind repeating myself : If you read the decalogue, you will find that only 3 of the 10 commandments are actually reflected in current Western law. Since these 3 - murder, theft and perjury - also tend to be outlawed in societies with no history of Christian, Muslim or Jewish influence (take for example China or Japan), it's fair to assume that it was not Christian religion that made sure these laws exist.

    So, no, while some of our laws certainly are based in religious backgrounds, such as the law against selling alcohol on Good Friday and Christmas, most of our laws are not.


  • Options
    #56
    Leftist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    What religious rule bans drink on good friday?. Italians, I think, don;t ban drink on Good Friday. It is a National Policy, based on the wish to respect religious holidays. If the Irish were capable of controlling themselves while on beer, then there might not have been a need for the ban (not complete by the war, hotels, railway stations)


    Alot of idiots automatically assume that if you don't agree with a modern "consenus", such as gay marriage or abortion, it automatically means that you are influenced by religion. That is horse manure. I know a few people who oppose both, and they have no spirtual or religious faith

    I'm not really interested in what 'alot of idiots automatically assume'. Nobody (i can see) has associated anti-gay marriage or anti-abortion exlusively with religious groups. It's a straw man argument.

    And because italy do not close their bars on good friday does not have any relevance on how the irish percieve this religious decision. The vatican hasn't made the rule, the irish state made the rule based on it's perspective of catholic law. Wether this is entirely accurate can be debated.

    but blaming the rule on irish people not behaving well with drink is just completely ridiculous.


  • Options
    #57
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Drakares wrote: »
    Religion should never be used to govern a Country or influence laws. Thankfully the Western countries are becoming more and more separated from these silly laws. Though Good Friday still going well and strong with a ban on buying alcohol.

    In all honesty, I find this particular law and its effects highly amusing.
    The thursday before Good Friday, I regularly see people carting drink out of Off Licenses in wheelbarrows. I suspect that on Good Friday, Irish people consume more alcohol than they normally would in a week, or maybe even a month.
    So while it's illegal to sell on the day, I'm pretty sure the entire country is off its face despite the law.


  • Options
    #58
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    News item yesterday about a B&B owner in England who took a booking for a couple assuming they were man and wife but on discovering they were gay ,informed them that her due to her strong christian values she couldn't couldn't allow them the room and canceled the booking .They took her to court on grounds of discrimination and won ,with judge saying her own religious beliefs shouldn't allow for discrimination .
    A gay couple who were turned away from a bed and breakfast were discriminated against, it has been ruled.

    Michael Black and John Morgan were refused a double room at Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Berkshire by its owner.

    The pair from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, were awarded £1,800 each at Reading County Court for "injury to feelings".
    .

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266


  • Options
    #59
    saiint
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭saiint


    but why would a gay couple
    believe in a faith that is purely against gay marriage seeing a gay person as sinful? ive nothing against gays
    but theirs no point in them fighting for gay marrige if their catholic? because they cant change something that god only knows how long it is now. basicly the catholic church hates gays
    they see it as a sin, and they wont let you be married in a catholic church
    but if the catholic church hates gays so much why do gays still want to be a catholic? since tecnically the church is saying god hates you haha
    if i was gay id change my faith


  • Options
    #60
    Sofaspud
    Registered Users Posts: 3,625 ✭✭✭Sofaspud


    saiint wrote: »
    but why would a gay couple
    believe in a faith that is purely against gay marriage seeing a gay person as sinful? ive nothing against gays
    but theirs no point in them fighting for gay marrige if their catholic? because they cant change something that god only knows how long it is now. basicly the catholic church hates gays
    they see it as a sin, and they wont let you be married in a catholic church
    but if the catholic church hates gays so much why do gays still want to be a catholic? since tecnically the church is saying god hates you haha
    if i was gay id change my faith

    Why do a lot of "christians" eat pork or shellfish? Or wear garments made of more than one fabric? Or plant more than one type of crop in a single patch of land? Or read horoscopes / listen to 'psychics'? Or get tattoos or piercings, get haircuts / shave, do any form of labour on sunday, use contraceptives, divorce, have any kind of wealth, or any number of other banned things?

    And why do christian women braid their hair, wear gold or pearls or even trousers?

    You'd almost think christians don't pay attention to their own rules!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    JohnMarston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,881 ✭✭✭JohnMarston


    If only there was a religion forum to discuss this sort of thing..


Advertisement