Religion and law

[kengr]

Reading some of the latest fundie crap about the laws they want, and having stumbled across some stuff on dhimmi and related topics with regards to Islamic countries in the past, I had a sudden flash of insight.

We need to "redefine" separation of church and state. Here's my take:

You may have laws based on religion. However, they may onl;y be created by members of that religion and may not be applied to non-mebers. Period.

Any law that is to apply to everyone, or to members of a faith not that of those who created and passed the law, may not be based on any religion.

any intimation of "moral/immoral" or that something is a sin or that *not* following the law would be a sin is an automatic "this is a religious law" ruling.

Want to pass a law against X? Or requiring Y? Then you cannot talk about sinfulness or morality in arguing for or against the laws.

I'm not sure how one could prevent ringers from derailing things by deliberately making religios based arguments though...


And yes, the bit about making laws by and for members of a religion allows for "religious courts". But they'd only have jurisdiction where people were willing to *let* them have jurisdiction. Say that you don't belong and they have no authority over you.

Not that it could happen, but could you *see* the fur flying if something like that was brought up in the UN. You'd have the Islamic fundamentalists, the Isreali ones and the Christian fundies *all* arguing on the same side!

Comments

[janetmiles.livejournal.com]

I kind of like your idea. However, to play devil's advocate briefly, what happens when someone argues that "murder is illegal" is an invalid law, because it's clearly based on "Thou shalt not kill" from the Hebrew scriptures?

[kengr]

Well, that's where you bring in the "no, it's based on the fact that assualt, rape, theft, murder, etc involve actual *demonstrable* harm to the victims"


Also, there's a difference between the fact that a (or even *many*) religion says something is wrong and trying to base laws *based on* the fact that some religion says something is wrong.

[fayanora.livejournal.com]

Murder is something everyone can agree is bad, regardless of faith or lack thereof.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[kengr]

So? The idea is that they can think their way is Right all they want. They just wouldn't be allowed to inflict it on others unless the others *agree* to it.

Sure, they'll complain and hate it. But that's not *our* problem anymore.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[kengr]

Too bad, so sad.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[kengr]

Yeah, but if we got things re-interpreted the way I suggest, they'd have a lot harder time pulling off that sort of stunt.

BTW, something I read the other day points out that they are frequently claiming two mutually exclusive things as "facts" at the same time when they do that:

1. we need protection from discrimination (ie we are an oppressed minority)

2. Our views should prevail because we are the norm. (ie we are a majority)

We *really* need to get the courts (and the media) to start hammering on the inherent contradiction.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[xander-opal.livejournal.com]

Hm. This is similar to an economic thought I had, that a communistic enclave could exist within a capitalist society. The enclave pools resources and needs, and those needs that must be met by going outside the enclave can be taken care of by purchasing resources.

Likewise, your idea is very similar to libertarian ideals. No person may infringe on the rights of another-- however, by /voluntarily/ joining a group (like, the God Club), one can voluntarily give up one's rights to the group, with the understanding that a person may choose to leave at any time.

I also wish to note that I like the definition I heard for rights. Sadly, at the moment, I can only roughly paraphrase. A right is something that is inherent, and does not involve taking something away from another person. Someone who infringes upon the rights of another, ethically gives up the protections of their own rights to an equivalent extent, perhaps a bit more. For example, if a bible-thumper enters your property without permission to disrupt your spring rites, he has no complaint coming if you use rough force to remove them from your property. This could be done by yourself, by another attendee, a neighbor, or by police proxy.
This discussion generally breaks down over taxes, though, and common good.