Discussion: Religion and Knowledge should be free

[The_vagabond7]

luinil said:

dtewi said:
A Religion is a set of morals that people stand by and is usually told through stories.

Sometimes, the morals in the religion can harm others, while things that aren't harmful are considered immoral.

Law is to protect the people. Religion is to protect yourself.

Well, lets start with this. Religion creates a set of morals through various beliefs and views of the world. Someone who doesn't believe in that religion probably doesn't agree with everything the religion holds as true, so I can see why you say they shouldn't co-exist.

Ponder this however: Does Religion condemn murder? Does the Law? Yes to both. Does Religion condemn stealing? Does the Law? Yes to both. Does Religion prohibit sexual relations with family members? Does the Law? Yes to both.

So, they can co-exist. What you are arguing is that everyone should have equal treatment under the law, if I am not mistaken. Also, you think that the Law should not be formed by a Religion. I can go with that, to a point. What I think you are arguing and struggling with are the differences between Religion and current Societal "Norms" we see around us. Things like gay marriage. I do not want to talk about that in my conversation here. I am simply using it as an example.

In old days, Religion was the law. In today's world Religion simply helps form Law. The Society is slowly (rather quickly of late) becoming secular in every aspect. You believe the Law should reflect this. What happens when the Law is based solely on secular ideas from the society? Well, nothing. At least at first. What if the society changes its view on something rather basic, say, Freedom of Religion? In a secular society this would be acceptable if the majority of people agreed with it.

While that will not happen, God willing, it goes to say that there is a place for Religion in a society, and therefore the Law. You cannot seperate Religion and the Law, because everyone is influenced by their own religious views, including those that make the laws. That influence, in turn, translates to Religion affecting the creation of Laws.

What about Atheism you ask? How about Agnosticism? They are both religions. Atheism is the theology of No Theology. Agnosticism is the theology of "I dunno". They influence the Law as well. They attack the foundation of our Law the Ten Commandments by removing any reference to it in a court or school.

BTW, if you are not using Religion as a base starting point for Laws, what are you using? Public opinion?

Also, Religion is intended to hold people to a higher standard, even higher than the Law.

PS. I dislike using the word Religion that much, as it is a only collection of rules and the like. I prefer referring to each religion by name, eg. Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Atheism, etc. In this way I can talk about each belief and not be restricted to talking about all religions generically.

There is much more I would like to expound upon and insert here, but I won't because it is a history lesson and not relavent to this topic.

A few things I disagree with here.
A. Athiesm and agnostism are not religions, they are viewpoints. For something to be a religion it has to carry dogma. If I say Icecream is cooler than jesus, that isn't a religion just because it's an opinion of a religious figure. If I say there is no god, then that is not a religion just because it has an opinion of a religious figure. It cannot be a theology because it has no god. And no Athiesm doesn't guide my life, if anything existentialism, pragmatism, and a touch of hedonism do, all of which are philosophies, none of which are religions. Atheism is not religion.

 

(B) Morality exists outside of religion, not because of religion. Religion just finds ways to enforce morality which is still created by man, society and philosophy. The bible is filled with god commiting one atrocity after another or commanding his people to commit one atrocity after another, none of which any sane person would condone. He blames women for being raped, burns people for certain forms of adultery, kills people by stoning them to death for almost any minute crime, demanded genocide in his name, executed countless innocent children either by his own hand or by using his nation as executioners. In any modern context these things would disgust us, but in the bible they are considered righteous acts of god. These things are rarely mentioned in favor of the ten commandments, though which have a far more basic moral sense to them, don't kill or steal or cheat on your multiple wives, which just about every nation at that time had laws for, not just the jews.
That last part really begs the question, if these other heathen nations didn't get guidance from god, how did just about every nation arrive at the same basic principles? Society, and philosophy. Society can't function without certain ground rules, so any group that failed to set up these ground rules dissolved into chaos and died out. Natural selection. After the ground rules are set up, they diverge in many ways. But no society can function if there is no law against taking anything you want, or killing whomever you dislike. Pragmatism, and natural selection, not scripture decided early morality.

How about modern day? Take any course in any kind of ethics and you will see they don't consider religion to be a part of the decision making process. Pragmatism is. If we make this law, is it going to hurt people or help them? What will this law lead to in the future? Does this law contradict other ethical guidelines that already exist? If so, do those guidelines need to be revised or is there something ethically wrong with this new one? Modern morality, ethics, laws are not based on dogma or scripture, but rather discussed pragmatically, and rationallistically. What the bible, or Koran, or Buddha says isn't a consideration. At least it shouldn't be, because then you have people trying to dogmatically enforce what some book says, rather than stopping to think whether or not there is logic, or reason in the dogma.