There are lots of controversial issues that face our lawmakers today: abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. So, what guidelines should we use to form our laws?
The US has a policy of a separation of church and state, and as such, people are arguing that religious values should be kept out of the lawmaking procedures. Yet the fact remains that the majority of Americans have a core set of values that they trace back to their religion.
This question has puzzled me more and more recently as I've looked at the arguments of the religious right against abortion and gay marriage in particular. I hold the position that we should keep religion out of the law, so here should be no reason to not allow same sex marriage. The reason the religious right gives is that these people are immoral, 'because the Bible says so'.
So, I think we shouldn't base our beliefs on one book. And certainly a good number of laws agree with that. We no longer allow slavery, which was permitted in the Bible. We do not require food restrictions (though there are companies that voluntarily agree to them). On the other hand, there is a number of things that we do have laws for that are similar in the Bible. For example, we have a death penalty. Yes, the penalty is no longer stoning, but it is putting someone to death all the same. Similarly, we have laws against murder, stealing, etc.
When setting the moral guidelines for our country, what should we go by? The majority of opinions? Well, if the majority is basing their opinions on a single religious book, should we allow those opinions to be made into law?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I completely agree with you. Under so many circumstances, the government is influenced by religion in the law-making process. The debate over stem cells significantly appeals to me. The opposing viewpoints are founded on moral standpoints. And where do this views arise from: religion. A vast number of people find that man should not play with the power of God. In the process, though, we are letting our own neighbors suffer and/or die.
So many illnesses can be cured from stem cells. However, the opponents to stem cells find the moral issues more dominant. Our society begins by voiding the use of embryonic stem cells as a means for another's survival. Government mirrors this standpoint by refusing to fund stem cell programs. Further technological developments allow scientists to get stem cells without using embryos. Yet society is steadfast on its previous decision.
If we as a society find that the old moral views outweigh the scientific and societal benefits, then we are committing a crime. We are failing to a level comparable to negligent homicide - in our refusal to aid the helpless, we are directly deciding to kill them. The Hippocratic Oath dictates that doctors must aid people unconditionally. Yet we as a society decide to aid only those who follow a particular person's moral code.
Is this itself moral?
Since the existence of "god" is a religious opinion rather than an objective fact, appealing to that existence will get you nowhere when it comes to the Law. Likelwise, advocating the idea that stem cells, and even embryos are human persons in the sense that they have identities and even rights is a religious opinion that cannot be objectively supported, and your comparison of stem cell research to "homicide" is not a rationally supportable position when you remove the necessary religious underpinnings that inform your position. That is why the law does not generally agree with you in these matters.
percivale
> what should we go by? The majority of opinions? Well,
> if the majority is basing their opinions on a single
> religious book, should we allow those opinions to be
> made into law?
I think that my good friend Thomas Jefferson could answer this question better than I.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." ~ Thomas Jefferson
The Law is not an appropriate tool for setting "the moral guidelines for our country." The whole POINT of a Constitutional Republic is to place the most basic protections of the Law outside the reach of the whimsical mob. What many people forget is that majorities change, and appealing to majority opinion today is a precedent that may very well be used against you tomorrow. Again from Jefferson...
"From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
The Law exists to protect the rights of individuals, and no disparity in numbers justifies the denial of an individuals right to be free having his religious opinions dictated to him though the police power of the government.
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression." ~ Thomas Jefferson
In matters of Constitutional Law, there is a test designed specifically to answer the question of whether or not a particular law has crossed the line between a legitimate secular purpose and an unlawful religious establishment. It is called the Lemon Test. The test asks three questions:
1) Does the law have a legitimate secular purpose?
2) Does the law have have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion?
3) Does the law represent an "excessive entanglement" with religion?
When your religious friends begin to advocate their positions against things like "abortion, gay marriage [and] euthanasia," ask them these three questions. If their answer includes the terms "they bible says" or "god says," then they have failed to meet the three prongs of the test, and their opinion is inconsistent with the Constitutional protection of our rights. A valid idea which is founded on a religous principle must be able to stand up to NON-religious reasoning as well. If it cannot, then it cannot be a law in this country.
In closing, I will turn to a quote from Benjamin Franklin...
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." ~ Benjamin Franklin
percivale
"A prime part of the history of our Constitution...is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." ~US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Thomas Jefferson was an exceptionally intelligent and thoughtful person, he knew that things would change, that the country would evolve, and we would need solid laws that could not be misinterrupted by the majority to suit their needs... Which is what they have tried to do again and again...
Near genocide of Native Americans, Slavery, segragation, outlawing interracial marriages, prohibition, gay marriage, abortion...
America's history has been glossed over by many historians to paint a picture that the public's majority wants to hear or doesn't want to know or doesn't want others to know. As the country progresses over certain areas and people look back and learn the truth about what really happened many are embarrassed, appalled, saddened, etc.
The glossing over of history is not unique, but the majority tends to forget that what our country was really built on, and as the Christian Right and others tend to sway towards is exactly what people escaped when they came to America.
My opinion: this country is being corrupted by religion nuts.
Just because you believe something doesn't mean others need abide by your sanctions.
Religion did not invent morality. We give it way too much credit.
Did I say that religion invented morality? I'm pretty sure that I didn't, and if I implied it, then I'm sorry. I also never said that we should have religious sanctions going on throughout the nation.
What I DID say was that in a time where we set an example, it is ok to have laws that are based on a 'religious' set of morals if the majority agree? Not eating pork is a religious moral, but clearly the majority do not agree with that. The idea that life begins at conception has a basis in religious texts (though it can come from other places). If the majority believes that life begins at conception, then should we outlaw abortion?
This, of course, isn't only limited to Christians. If the majority of people felt that it was ok to walk around naked, then would it be? If it happened to be a belief of a religious group, would this be endorsing a religion? Those are the questions I'm looking at, or I intended to look at.
~C
Visit my blog.
> is ok to have laws that are based on a 'religious' set of
> morals if the majority agree?
In a country that specifically prohibits religious establishements, no, its not okay. Now, that doesn't meant that there might not be some laws that coincidentally are aupported by a particular religion, but the law is an intentionally secular expression of order.
Laws in the United States for example, are subject to a First Amendment test that was developed by the High Court in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose.
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.
If a law fails to pass even ONE of these "prongs," it is unconstitutional and conflicts with the Establishment Clause.
percivale
I have to agree with percivale here. Religious law arguments that don't make sense by reason, can't be made into law.
I understand where to author is coming from in that if a majority believes something seems like something that should be made into law. But you also have to give it the test of reason.
When it comes to gay rights, it doesn't make sense by reason that they should be treated as 2nd-classe citizens.
Abortion is a tough issue. Frankly, I think we would all rather not have abortions at all. But in some cases it's necessary. The only way you can truly combat it is through education and getting rid of poverty.
I do have to point out that the fact that some people regard the US as a Christian nation is kind of ridiculous given it's based upon capitalism. And I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't a capitalist. In fact, I believe he said money = bad.