should the law take precedence over religious beliefs?

Question

i'm in a debate and i'm for the motion that it should
no idea what to say and the debate is tomorrow morning
help!

Answer 1

The law of the land should have precedence over religious beliefs or we would live in complete chaos. Everyone would have different laws and no one would know control.

Answer 2

The law should take precendence.

The Supreme Court has answered this many times when it made prayers illegal in school- just research the cases!

The United States is built upon the separation of church and state; thus, ideally we live in a secular society. The only reason it has become such a big deal is because we now live in a time where information is found out instantly. The republicans have tied on to the value scales and religion scales of the United States and made politics a fight against Christianity and Secularization.

If law hadn't taken precedence over religious beliefs then we would still have slavery; many southerners believed full-heartedly that slavery was supported by Christianity. Furthermore, Hitler thought that Christianity ordained his genocide.

Many fight that the founding fathers were Christian. Well, Mr. Franklin was an ambassador in France who was known to live it up. In addition, there is a difference between those that first settled here, and those that wrote the constitution. Those that wrote the constitution knew that there was discrimination based on religion and many laws were put into place to limit the religions to which you could belong. So, they wanted to prevent that. However, if you have ever read the Scarlet Letter, where adultery was punished severely because of their religious beliefs, this is not what the 'founding fathers' agreed with. If a law of a body, preferably secular and religious mix, agreed on a punishment and crime then it would become fair.

Indeed it has done just that. Abortion will not be banned, homosexual marriage will be permitted if not by the courts then by the government, and this evangelist nuance will be thwarted in time as the trend is becoming more secular and liberal as people gain more understanding about people and issues.

Answer 3

There is a fantastic quote that Thomas Fuller used over 300 years ago, "Be you ever so high, the law is above you". This was echoed by Lord Denning in Gouriet [1977] 3 All E.R.

It would thus be appropriate to deem that this also ment organs of religion and faith to also be subject to the law.

There are moves afoot to allow religious law to apply where both parties consent it to be, however, even then if a Court were to make an order upon both, then the court, with it's authority deriving from the Crown, upon which all executive authority is vested, will take precedence.

Religious law cannot apply to everybody since not everyone is of the same faith. Therefore, a level playing field would be that of a secular court system that is independent of all factors.

Answer 4

I think the law should be in charge however most religious beliefs are totally compatible with the law anyway. Issues arise when the law tries to influence religious beliefes. Whilst this is necessary when we need to tackle religious extremism, the law should not interfere when religious beliefs do not have any negative effect on anyone else. Take, for example, the law forcing Catholic adoption agencies to allow gay couples to adopt from them. I believe that this is wrong because it is an insult and totally disrespectful to Catholicism. If homosexual couples were not allowed to adopt fro Catholic agencies, there would still be hundreds of other agencies that they could turn to and so their lives would not be affected in a negative way at all. I think it is disgusting that the government seems to disregard faith views that are close to so many people's hearts.

Answer 5

The purpose of Law is to ensure the efficient functioning of society and to maintain its peace and tranquility, consequently law should take precedence over religious belief. However, the law should be based on English Common Law - statutes should incorporate the need to prove mens rea (gulty mind) as well as actus reus (guilty act). This leave s a channel open for appeal to a higher court if a law is found to discriminate unfairly against a religious minority.

Answer 6

I think that you have asked the wrong question. The question should be, "Should laws be created that override fundamental Christian values that have been accepted and practised for centuries"? The law has no business involving itself in matters of conscience. I am talking about Christian values here. The problem with your start position, is that you have no fundamental moral principles to create law from, or test it against. What if an oppressive government starts to impose unreasonable laws out of self interest, that perhaps contradict what most of us have been brought up to believe. You need religion to test those laws against. I don't accept the Human Rights Act, because I think that it was spawned by the political 'left' who have their own agenda. They don't even believe in religion. Laws should not be created that try to override hundreds of years of Christian Teaching. So, the two things should not be in conflict.

This issue came up recently, when the Government created legislation forcing the Catholic Church to cast aside its firmly held belief regarding the adoption of children by gay couples. If they had to create this legislation, which they didn't and shouldn't, they could easily allow the Catholic Church to opt out. Left wingers have, in effect, invented a right for gay people without any religious support, but have removed a centuries old right from the Catholic Church.

Whoever framed your question, is leading you into a trap. ie. you are almost bound to answer 'yes'. That is why I am suggesting it is the wrong question.

Answer 7

There was a time when one religion predominated and perhaps at that time religious beliefs (Google, The Inquisition) might have had more "weight" than the Law, nowadays with the proliferation of sects and creeds ( I am a member of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster myself) the Law must prevail because of all the conflicting religious sub laws, "thou shall not permit a witch to live" is still murder. Religion is a personal choice, the LAW is what permits civalisation to exsist.

Answer 8

law should always take precedence for a simple reason.
how many religion are there currently in britain. ontop of my head i can say maybe more than 10. now if u allowed each religon to hold its own version of law u end up with 10 different laws, this would mean that chaos would ensure as the person will be judged only on his law thus dividing the commuinity.
if there is only 1 law then they know whats what that way they can always be sure what they are doing is right.
i hope u understood the core of my meaning

Answer 9

The law always takes precedence over religious beliefs, but in some countries they are indistinguishable.

Answer 10

The law applies equally to all? Well, sort of.
The law forbids both the prince and the tramp from sleeping rough on a park bench.
It oulaws the killing of individuals, but sanctions the killing of thousands in wars.
If you steal £1,000 from a bank in a robbery you'll get 7 years. If you steal £1,000 while working for a bank, you'll get 7 months. If you steal it from the bank shareholders by insider trading, you'll get promoted.
If you slip a policeman a tenner to look the other way, you'll get a jail sentence. If you pay a huge bribe to a corrupt official to get a defence contract, you'll get the Attorney General to step in a stop the investigation.
The 'rule of law' is in reality the rule of the lawmakers. Their interests are reflected in the laws they pass. The law is not of equal effect because we are not all equal.