Should we revoke all "religious based" laws?

Question

many complain that Christians are "trying to force their religion" and that we are attempting to change laws based on our "religious beliefs."

But, our basic laws seem to be the same as the ten commandments:
Don't steal.
Don't murder.
etc.

and furthermore, Jesus said to treat your neighbor kindly and to pay your taxes.

Doesn't that about cover our laws? Since the ten commandments were written a zillion years ago and Jesus spoke more than 2k years ago, I can't see how this is being blamed on present day Christians.

Should we remove all laws that appear to be "religious based"??? How about if we are now allowed to steal, to murder, to evade taxes, ect. Would this make it a more tolerable place to live for those who detest Christianity?

I do hope you all recognize the jest in my tone. Can we just discuss this nicely?

PS- please avoid the topic of same-sex marriage and abortion. They have been beaten to death. THANKS

So far I am not getting a single real answer. I am disappointed.

Answer 1

Well I think if we were to remove all religious based laws then we would have to do away with our whole form of government,because our whole reason for forming this new nation ( America ) was for religious freedom. Our constitution was based on religious teachings and was written by men who were religious God fearing men, so if you want to go to the extreme ( which we seem to be doing ) and totally seperate church and state then we must figure out a whole new system of goverment, without any religious bases.

Answer 2

No we should not. This country was created by religious men, who made the laws according to how God would want it. If we take out any more laws, there would just be chaos. People need laws as much as they hate them. Here's an example. Many years ago it was not right to have sex out of marriage. People fought that they had a right to what they wanted with there bodies. Okay fast forward to today. There are soo may children born to unwed mothers and fathers. They are sent to foster care or some are raised by kids who have no business raising them, or they are aborted (another bad solution to an out of control problem), not to mention the diseases that have run rampant with all the sex. With porn, children are grown up jaded to sex and sometimes have major problems with intimacy. These are just a few things that stem from denying that God is right and we should not be having sex outside marriage. It won't change because it's too accepted now. What happens when we change other laws to suite are whims. I personally do not want to live in that world. We need to stop picking at how the laws are made and just realize that human beings need them in order to live in a humane way.

Answer 3

Rather unsuprisingly all societies have similar laws, thats how they survive as societies, the Ten Commandments have at least four and possibly five totally redundant laws which are purely about cementing religions place in society.

No atheist I know of would not have 'Thou shalt not kill' as one of society's law and most would be a little more assiduous in actually following such a law.

Edit:

No, you have real answers you are just ignoring them.

You have set up a straw man as follows:

"Should we remove all laws that appear to be "religious based"??? How about if we are now allowed to steal, to murder, to evade taxes, ect. Would this make it a more tolerable place to live for those who detest Christianity? "

None of these are religious laws as I and others have stated they are common to all societies and are a minimum requirement for any society to function. No atheist I know of wants to repeal any of them and I'll wager serious amounts of money that atheists follows these laws more than Christians, look it up.

If you don't like the answers you are going to get don't ask the question, at least not on a forum where not everyone buys in to your religion. All you are trying to do is fuel your fantasy that somehow atheists are amoral or less moral than Christians where in fact the reverse is the case, we do not need a book or the threat of hell in order to live a moral and just life.

Answer 4

No just take religion out of them. You don't have to be religious to be evil or good, and religion isn't a requirement for law. Most so called "religious laws" are things that were accepted before religion started claiming them. The Laws that you use as examples are a good starting point. If religion we not involved would you think it was OK to take something that didn't belong to you? If your religion supported murder would that make it OK? Religion merely took things that deep down people do not want to happen and made it a "religious decree". And besides MOST (if not all) of these crimes have been committed by the CHURCH or it's representatives, so what makes religion (any religion) so above the law?

Answer 5

what's suitable is context, and with this question we've not all started somebody else who's proposing a quote without context in any respect. right here's the quote IN context. “i can’t communicate to the regulation right here. The regulation is irrelevant,” Pfefiffer suggested on ABC information’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” “The pastime change into outrageous and inexcusable, and it change into stopped and it needs to be fixed to verify it in no way takes position lower back.” Stephanopoulos spoke back: “You don’t extremely recommend the regulation is irrelevant, do you?” Pfeiffer responded: “What I recommend is, even if it’s legal or unlawful isn't significant to the actual incontrovertible truth that the habit doesn’t count number. the dept of Justice has suggested that they’re searching into the legality of this. The president might want to not look ahead to that. we ought to ascertain it does not take position lower back, inspite of ways that seems.” replace: Your protection for misrepresenting an out of context 3 be conscious quote is to misrepresent a 2 be conscious quote out of context? it truly is merely pitiful.

Answer 6

Yes, because noone knows how to enforce them:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids this. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them, as per Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Answer 7

Basic human rights... those aren't based on the 10 commandments. The laws don't agree with religion in the situations you've mentioned, it's the other way around... religion agrees with the law.

Now... the topics you "want to avoid", the topics that ARE legislated based PURELY on religious doctrine, those ARE instances in which the law agrees with religion. There's NO factual basis to banning same sex marriage. If we went strictly secular in our consideration, IT WOULD NOT BE BANNED. I don't care if you don't like to hear it or think it's old news.

It's true.

Answer 8

I guess that's what people want. They only see one side of it though. Most christianity based teachings are for the better of man. If we all lived by God's principals our world wouldln't be like it is today. I guess some people won't be happy though until all christian principals are gone. Then it will be ok to kill, steal, cheat on taxes, and the world will be more of a mess. But I guess no one thinks about how these principals make our lives more liveble.

Answer 9

This is about the lamest piece of attempted sophistry I have seen here for a long time. What makes you think that an injunction against stealing, rape or murder are all thanks to either the ten commandments or to Christ mentioning them? It is in the character of Christians to think they have a monopoly on morals, with the implication that non-Christians are somehow less capable of morals. The fact is that injuctions against murder can and do exist without any recourse to religion whatsoever - rendering, by your own logic, religion more or less redundant at a stroke.

Your disappointment or otherwise is probably of less concern to us than you imagine.
_

Answer 10

See, with your "avoid the topic" topics, you're looking at really the only laws that ARE, for the most part, religion-based. So there's not much of a discussion that can be had here.