From a sociological perspective, to what extent should religion be used to define standards, values, and laws?

Question

IN any society??
What are the advantages and disadvantages?

Answer 1

Read up on the history of various religions--witch hunts, Inquisitions, wars, Crusades, jihad, cross burnings, slavery, etc.--then tell me why anyone would imagine that religious folk are more qualified than the non-religious to define everyone else's standards, values and laws.

Answer 2

Religion should be the basis of any healthy society, but not just any religion at all. This is a very interesting question with a lot of different pitfalls, but let me take this approach: any religion that claims any sort of validity as a religion, whether Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Pagan, or whatever, should strengthen society. It should encourage people to live in a way that complements a functional, strong, civil society. It's pretty apparent that there are a number of religions in the world today that don't do this (i.e. any religion that has strong elements of anarchy, self-gratification, depriving others of choice, etc. as part of its core belief system). And so, from a sociological perspective, those religions that encourage the growth and development of society in general should be used (always in conjunction with common sense and human decency) to determine standards and values. Laws, however, are only viable if formulated untouched by any particular religion. Because of the variety of religions people live by, the possibility of creating a religiously-based law system which would be fair to everyone is absolutely nil (I speak specifically of communities of more than one religion). Religion's only influence on the system of laws should be that it teaches its followers to be keepers and upholders of the law, and to be good citizens of the country in which they live.

The advantages and disadvantages can't be defined universally, because every society and religion has its own unique set.

Answer 3

It's a little messy, because laws are based on the community's values, and values are strongly impacted by religious beliefs. You can't really draw a line easily through it.

(For example, because I'm a Christian, I don't think murder should be permitted. Does that mean we shouldn't have a law preventing murder, if we don't want to legislate from religion?)

I guess my point is that there's a lot of overlap between laws, community values, and faith issues.

Idealistically, in a community of mixed faiths, I think we just would step back and determine what laws are necessary in order to leave everyone's rights equally respected, protect the weaker innocent person from the more powerful selfish one, and make society function most efficiently for the most people.

So you will have laws prohibiting murder, or stealing, or lying under oath, or child abuse -- all based not specifically on "morality" (and religion) per se, but because the bottom line is to preserve justice, mediate how we interact with other, and give everyone a fair shot at life.

A society built on religious law (theocracy, for example) can function if the faith system is similar to what I have described, but if the religion is an extreme one, the laws can be harsh and unfair -- harshly punishing people for things that arguably might not be "wrong" to the majority of the community and instilling fear rather than peace. Power is also easily abused by the religious leaders in charge.

In general, it's best to simply have a level playing field and ensure that no one is abusing someone else for their own benefit.

Answer 4

Whose religion? The problem is that this question would have to be assessed from a given society. In a closed society, where the members are homogenous - of the same culture and belief system - it can be a secure, stabilizing force for everyone. People in such a society know what to expect, and rebellion is quickly quashed. In a diverse society, however, trying to set up standards, values, and laws based upon any one religion, even the dominant religion, tends to disenfranchis others who do not adhere to that religion. Animosity, prejudice, rebellion, and even anarchy has arisen from such oppression. In fact, the United States was somewhat founded on just such a situation. Later, many indigenous cultures were destroyed on the same premise. From a sociological perspective, this creates a sense of anomie for those on the receiving end

Answer 5

Well that depends on if you let religion become the standard on morals. Should people kill...no... is that a religious standard... yes... is that a humanistic standard... yes... Religion can be seen as a sociological self government tool; however the "laws" of religions are also humanistic and it is short sided to say that they are only religious in nature.

Answer 6

Religion can be used to back up all kinds of positions. My religion (Christianity, believe it or not) teaches that it is vitally important to work for justice on behalf of the oppressed and that means that BECAUSE of my religion, I work for gay rights, better medicare, peace with justice, keeping water public, etc.

Answer 7

None. What better way to degrade morals then to discredit them by associating them with an unseen god, and unseen dimensions of reward and punishment that apply to an unseen disembodied consciousness?

Answer 8

Very little.Advantages Robots,Disadvantages to many.

Answer 9

well, in many cases, religion can give a structured set of morals to go off from; things that can't be modified otherwise.