The separation of church and state.

[TheOriginalJames]

Surely the government should step in if religion breaks laws?

uh... I didn't know a belief could break a law. Last I saw most laws were written in context of, most famously, the 10 commandments.

Do you think that we should repeal laws like murder and theft being illegal because they're goverment written laws based off religious views?

 

[All Else Failed]

If by "helped" you mean "haven't killed yet", then yes, we've "helped" them :tongue:

Its been documented that we trained and funded terrorist groups.

 

[All Else Failed]

uh... I didn't know a belief could break a law. Last I saw most laws were written in context of, most famously, the 10 commandments.

Do you think that we should repeal laws like murder and theft being illegal because they're based off religious views?

I was talking about churches and other religious organizations, not just ideas.


Theft and murder aren't based off of religious views...Don't even use the 10 commandments as an example, there were numerous codes and sets of laws in the ancient world that were non-religious that made such things as murder and theft punishable.

 

[dt3]

I was talking about churches and other religious organizations, not just ideas.


Theft and murder aren't based off of religious views...Don't even use the 10 commandments as an example, there were numerous codes and sets of laws in the ancient world that were non-religious that made such things as murder and theft punishable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi#Code_of_laws
"A carving at the top of the stele portrays Hammurabi receiving the laws from the god Shamash, and the preface states that Hammurabi was chosen by the gods of his people to bring the laws to them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Nammu
"Ur-Nammu is chiefly remembered today for his so-called legal code, which is arguably the oldest surviving example in the world. He was also responsible for ordering the construction of a number of stepped temples, called ziggurats, including the Great Ziggurat of Ur."

 

[TheOriginalJames]

I was talking about churches and other religious organizations, not just ideas.


Theft and murder aren't based off of religious views...Don't even use the 10 commandments as an example, there were numerous codes and sets of laws in the ancient world that were non-religious that made such things as murder and theft punishable.

I'm not talking about churches and other religious organizations either. The ten commandments weren't set for any denomination of religious organizations. They were set in stone, quite literally, for all of mankind to obey. Here we are abiding by them because the government says so also. You just refuse to accept that point for some reason.

 

[dt3]

I was talking about churches and other religious organizations, not just ideas.


Theft and murder aren't based off of religious views...Don't even use the 10 commandments as an example, there were numerous codes and sets of laws in the ancient world that were non-religious that made such things as murder and theft punishable.

Ma'at - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ma'at was the Ancient Egyptian concept of law, morality, and justice[4] which was deified as a goddess.

Gukumatz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Maya mythology, was a feathered snake god. Gukumatz was a culture hero who taught the Toltecs, and later the Maya, the arts of civilization, including codes of law.

 

[All Else Failed]

Code of Hammurabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Then you have various greek and roman sets of laws.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Oh comon... don't post links I'm not going to read and just accept that some, even if it's just a tiny bit, of religious outlook will always be intertwined into governments.

 

[dt3]

Code of Hammurabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Then you have various greek and roman sets of laws.

Dude, this DOES NOT prove your point. Here's a quote from your link:

Hammurabi (1728 BC–1686 BC) believed he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people. In the preface to the law code, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land."[1] In the upper part of the stela, Hammurabi is shown in front of the throne of the sun god Shamash.

How does that show religion had no place in their law?

 

[All Else Failed]

Dude, this DOES NOT prove your point. Here's a quote from your link:

Hammurabi (1728 BC–1686 BC) believed he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people. In the preface to the law code, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land."[1] In the upper part of the stela, Hammurabi is shown in front of the throne of the sun god Shamash.

How does that show religion had no place in their law?

A king at that period was mad if he didn't claim that some divine sourced "inspired" him, since kings claimed their throne through divine rule. If anything, kings took pre existing common law, and stamped their name on it along with a "divine source." Most laws at that time were collections of various regional common law.


"The Code of Hammurabi was one of many sets of laws in the Ancient Near East. Most of these codes, coming from similar cultures and racial groups in a relatively small geographical area, necessarily have passages that resemble each other. The earlier code of Ur-Nammu, of the Ur-III dynasty (21st century BC), the Hittite code of laws (ca. 1300 BC), and Mosaic Law (traditionally ca. 1200 BC under Moses), all contain statutes that bear at least passing resemblance to those in the Code of Hammurabi and other codices from the same geographic area."

Also, its not a far off thought to see that all other regional laws and common law were inspired by this as well, and were gathered by rulers and put a big "THIS WAS GIVEN TO ME BY GOD!" stamp on it. All laws are secular, its just that some have been stolen by the religious and claimed to be given to them by a divine source.

 

[dt3]

there were numerous codes and sets of laws in the ancient world that were non-religious

A king at that period was mad if he didn't claim that some divine sourced "inspired" him, since kings claimed their throne through divine rule.

Maybe this makes sense to someone else, but I'm pretty damn sure you're arguing against yourself.

 

[dt3]

A king at that period was mad if he didn't claim that some divine sourced "inspired" him, since kings claimed their throne through divine rule. If anything, kings took pre existing common law, and stamped their name on it along with a "divine source."

Got a source for this?

 

[All Else Failed]

Maybe this makes sense to someone else, but I'm pretty damn sure you're arguing against yourself.

They are nonreligious in the sense that a divine being didn't give them to someone.

 

[All Else Failed]

Got a source for this?

I think its common sense. Divine authority was very important back then. VERY important. I do have some sources on it I just have to find the bookmarks.

 

[dt3]

They are nonreligious in the sense that a divine being didn't give them to someone.

So there's no possible way these rulers could've thought the laws were handed down by god? I think we've all heard accounts of people's experiences with religion on here. Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I think people don't believe in their experiences.

And I'd love to see you prove god DIDN'T hand these down.

 

[All Else Failed]

So there's no possible way these rulers could've thought the laws were handed down by god? I think we've all heard accounts of people's experiences with religion on here. Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I think people don't believe in their experiences.

And I'd love to see you prove god DIDN'T hand these down.

Personal experience is not proof of something being real or true.


Well, seeing as how I think all "gods" are myths and a cultivation or regional lore and legend, I don't see how they could be handed down from a creator since I personally of no think they exist. The onus of proof is on you to prove that they were handed down, not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the one who claims. If there is a divine being that hands out laws, where is he now? If anything we need better laws. Doe s he not care?

 

[dt3]

Personal experience is not proof of something being real or true.


Well, seeing as how I think all "gods" are myths and a cultivation or regional lore and legend, I don't see how they could be handed down from a creator since I personally of no think they exist. If there is a divine being that hands out laws, where is he now? If anything we need better laws. Doe she not care?

I've had personal experience with pain. I can't show it to you. Does that make pain not real?

Not believing in god is NOT scientific proof of his lack of existence. You cannot prove these laws WEREN'T handed down by god. Therefore you can't say these laws were not based in religion.

 

[All Else Failed]

I've had personal experience with pain. I can't show it to you. Does that make pain not real?

Not believing in god is NOT scientific proof of his lack of existence. You cannot prove these laws WEREN'T handed down by god. Therefore you can't say these laws were not based in religion.

Pain is provable. I'm talking about personal beliefs.


I wasn't saying it was proof of his lack of existence. I just personally do not think they were based on how things worked back then with law and common law.

 

[dt3]

Theft and murder aren't based off of religious views...Don't even use the 10 commandments as an example, there were numerous codes and sets of laws in the ancient world that were non-religious that made such things as murder and theft punishable.

Pain is provable. I'm talking about personal beliefs.

I wasn't saying it was proof of his lack of existence. I just personally do not think they were based on how things worked back then with law and common law.

So you went from "there were" to "I do not think they were"? There's a slight difference there. If you had said the second one first, we wouldn't have had this conversation.

How is pain provable? Because you've experienced it? What about people who are born feeling no pain? Would you expect them to believe pain exists?

 

[All Else Failed]

So you went from "there were" to "I do not think they were"? There's a slight difference there. If you had said the second one first, we wouldn't have had this conversation.

How is pain provable? Because you've experienced it? What about people who are born feeling no pain? Would you expect them to believe pain exists?

Pain can be easily observed through various stimuli and brain wave tests, this is basic knowledge to all doctors. Its been well documented and tested.


I would expect people who cant feel pain to believe in pain since its undeniably proven. Soooo......