Should people's personal opinions and beliefs mandate law.?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuYamlU8PgNgkq1dg.EpdxLsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030081740AA68YP3

In my last question, few really answered this specific point?

Should one's personal opinions and beliefs mandate our laws when those beliefs are the majority of the populace?

My point being...I do not feel that fundamentalist Christians should be allowed to adopt children. I feel it is a terrible environment for those children to be raised. If that were the majority consensus, should we be allowed to enact laws to prohibit the fundamentalists from adopting?

Or, should our laws protect the freedoms of all...even those in the minority.

And, what about slavery. At one point, Southern Baptists among many religions thought slavery ordained by God. So, slavery was legal, because that was the majority opinion.

Should the majority always rule? Even when it is based on opinon or beliefs, that may not be shared by all?

Answer 1

Before there was an America, the Catholic Church ordained slavery, what does this mean? that religions themselves can be easily corrupted....just like any organization or institution based on doing "good." Look at out govt.

Which is a great reason NOT to let personal opinions and beliefs mandate law.

Personal beliefs and opinions change, its better to protect the freedoms of all than to restrict anyone's.

Of course, this only pertains to adults.

Answer 2

So you feel your opinion should be mandated as law? I can't guarantee with any certainty that dogma will cause mental trauma 100% of the time, and I cannot guarantee that 100% of fundamentalists Christians will instill that dogma into their children with enough passion and vigor to cause such trauma. So I cannot agree that as a rule we should bar fundamentalist Christians from adopting Children.
Let's say I'm a Trotskyist, and I heavily speak about Marxist politics around my children, and explain to them that it is the most correct paradigm society has ever come to. Would I be guilty of the same crime?
What if instead of politics, it was an ice cream brand? Would I be guilty of imposing fanatical devotion to Breyer's? I think not.
So while I agree very much that it can potentially cause trauma, I don't think that warrants a law or a restriction of civil liberties.
Benjamin Franklin once said "Anybody who would sacrifice a little liberty to gain a little security would deserve neither and lose both." I must mirror his beliefs here.

Answer 3

In your last question I think primoa1970 made the perfect answer. What he was basically saying is "I know what is right, you don't, so everything should be the way I want it". I think it is funny that he represents the exact person you AND I wouldn't want raising children. I would much rather have a loving homosexual couple adopt a child rather then that hateful, hypocritical, dumb a$$ of a person.

And personal opinions have to play a factor in laws, but the ultimate mandate should be freedom and equality.

Edit: They just continued in this question. I think the country that person is looking for is Iran...it is run by religious laws.

Answer 4

I am not an Atheist, but I understand where that are coming from when it comes to Christians. Christians have this belief that Atheist do not live by a moral code and it OK to do what you want since you will not answer for the things you do. Untrue! Christianity has the shadiest past of any modern religion. Everything Christians do that is deemed bad is justified in the name of God, when its good its justified in the name of Jesus. Complete doubt standard in the sense that they are suppose to be one and the same. Manifest Destiny is one example and the ever popular subject that everyone is tired of, slavery is another. Jim Crowe Laws and Segregation were all justified in the name of God. Look what Christians did to Mormons. Since Popes are elected by a group of his peers, how is he more Catholic or closer to God then you? That is like saying a president is closer to God just because he/she is in the white house. I am not saying we should not have laws and I don't believe they are all religiously driven, but factor in religion and Christianity takes a front seat everytime.

Answer 5

You write:

...I do not feel that fundamentalist Christians should be allowed to adopt children. I feel it is a terrible environment for those children to be raised. If that were the majority consensus, should we be allowed to enact laws to prohibit the fundamentalists from adopting


Are you yourself not doing exactly what you claim others are? Allowing YOUR beliefs to influence laws?

You forget the simple truth of the matter, all children all, need a mother and a father. not two mothers or two fathers, regardless of religion or non religion. Your issue is not the environment, but mearly your personal opinion about a twisted lifestyle that you want to be accepted as normal, You really should get over it, it will never be accepted as normal, it may be tolerated, but never accepted.

Answer 6

They will anyway. Our laws are little more than codifications of the collective opinion - or at least they were, before the age of lobbying.

It's interesting, though, that we're now on this disturbing trend of putting people's rights up for the popular vote. That completely ducks the separation of Church and State. Half the states in the union have passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, based on their "religious beliefs" (which is only a euphemism for their petty bigotries anyway). ALL people concerned with democracy and freedom ought to find this disturbing.

Answer 7

No, majority should not rule at the expense of the rights of the minority. That was the whole point of the US Constitution. To protect EVERYONE. Not just those with the power of numbers.

(And I think you're going to be standing alone on the adoption issue. Discrimination based on religion is purely illegal for good reason.)

Answer 8

I sort of answered this in your last question, but I'll reiterate. My religious belief is that homophobia is a sin. Anyone promoting homophobia or involved in the homophobic lifestyle should not be allowed to marry, adopt children, serve in the military or be a member of the Boy Scouts of America. However...I do not believe my religious belief or anyone else's should be used to create laws under which others have to live. When you base laws on religious belief, whose belief do you use? In a country with hundreds of religions, denominations, sects, and beliefs, basing laws on one can be very dangerous.

Answer 9

Laws are enacted by representatives of the majority, but are always bound bythe Constitution, which is designed and intended to prevent the majority from taking away the basic rights of the minority. In this casem equal representation under the law and seperation of Church and state would Constitutionally prevent such as law from being enforced.

BTW, I am increasingly convinced Primoa is actually an atheist trying to make people frightened of Christians.

Answer 10

Laws are mandated by what the people value most. We value life so we pass laws against murder. We value property so we pass laws against theft. We value our sleep at night so we pass laws against blasting loud music at 1 am.

Everytime you pass a law you restrict one freedom to provide another. Passing a law not allowing music to blast at 1 am is limiting my freedom to blast the music, but providing me the freedom from hearing the music. So which do we value more as a society, the freedom to blast the music or to not hear the music?

There is no such thing as protecting the freedoms of all because then there would really be no laws.

The courts, and society in general has determined the best place, and the best interest in society, is to try to place children in 2 parent heterosexual homes. If society changes its attitude then the laws will change.