Speaking Of Laws .....

August 21, 2005

In an ideal world the 10 Commandments would be enough laws for people to live in an orderly civilization.

We do not live in an ideal world. However, how many laws should be "on the books" of any country to allow for individual freedom, personal rights, pursuit of happiness and religious liberty?

Can we, or should we want to, pass laws to force individuals to do what our legislative body consider the "moral, ethical, healthy, and perhaps how many children should a person bring into this world" thing to do. Perhaps how and where an individual should live and/or work? Where should the "laws" stop?

If we say "Yes, pass laws imposing good moral conduct in the personal life of our citizens" then, in the end who would have the most to loose?

August 21, 2005

Absolutely - especially as we tend to assume Christian definitions of those things, but not all governments are Christian or will be in future. If we think government should legislate what is right and wrong, we shouldn't have had a problem with communist governments seeking to ban Christianity.

Yes, there will always be an overlap between human laws and God's laws: killing and stealing are prohibited in both, for fairly obvious reasons. Doesn't mean human law is, or should be, based in divine law.

August 21, 2005

The only law that is really needed in an ideal world is LOVE. For God is love. With love there is no need to have the 10 Commandments. Without love, even a million laws could not safe guard the world from its corruption.

August 21, 2005

Laws are morals. There is no getting away from that. A nation's laws reflects that nation's morals.

The morality the government doesn't have the right to impose on its citizens is to regulate the individual's behavior between the individual and God. Thus the government doesn't have the right to mandate church membership, mandate church attendence, mandate tithe paying, forbid idol worship (or mandate it), etc.

The government does have the right to regulate the behavior between its citizens. Thus laws against murder, rape, child abuse, mandatory education, speed limits, fraud, minimum wage, truthfulness in advertising, etc. are acceptable laws.

August 21, 2005

Agreed, with both of you. But yongttay, the corollary is that you can't legislate love, but you have to legislate something. Shane has a good clear division between the appropriate and inappropriate domains of government. And (perhaps more gently than my friend and teacher Ed D might have done <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />) he's corrected my statement about the communist regimes and regulation of religion. He's quite right that that was out of the appropriate domain of government.

There remain, of course, all sorts of more difficult areas at the edges, where religious 'rules' bear on our interactions with other citizens (e.g. the last 6 of the Ten Commandments).

August 21, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane said:

Laws are morals. There is no getting away from that. A nation's laws reflects that nation's morals.

What is the standard of measurement used to establish the morals or laws?

Or, perhaps I should ask by whose standards are the morals/laws established?

August 21, 2005

In a democracy laws are established and changed by elected representatives of the people. In a monarchy they are established by the monarch. In a dictatorship they are established by the dictator. In a communist country they are established by the communist party.

Many countries have laws the US doesn't have that secular humanists wouldn't like. In Mexico, for example, abortion is illegal. Yet such a law doesn't violate the legetimate bounds of government. Nations with such laws are not considered to be violating any human rights.

August 21, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

dgrimm60 said:

IS IT JUST ME OR DOES THIS SOUND LIKE THE SUNDAY LAWS

EVERY LAW that a country passes for the morals

of their country is based on the 10 commandments.

which tells us that morals are a spitual relationship

just thinking

dgrimm60

<hr /></blockquote>

No Doug, It's not just you. It does sound like The Sunday Laws. In the US we have laws for the laws yet as you observed you see a lot of them being openly broken.

Everytime another law is passed it makes the Federal Government stronger, individuals loose personal freedom. Bringing us closer and closer to Sunday Laws being slid into place using some guise that will be good for the worker, family or something. We become so adjusted to more and more laws for our well being that we don't even notice.

Yet, in the USA we can't even stop drugs from coming into our country, prisons and jails are overcrowded, we can't control our boarders or streets. Yet, we spend our energies passing more new laws and telling ourselves what a good job we are doing. Where does it end?

Passing laws to protect for public safety ... for example, wearing seat belts is often unenforced but does serve to make people aware of their necessity. Passing laws that we must do something in our personal life... for example the Covenant Marriage law, has the appearance of legislating personal morals.

August 22, 2005

There is a big distinction between Sunday laws and the drinking age.

The drinking age is set because minors cannot act as responsible when they drink as adults. Allowing a minor to drink creates a danger for the public. Thus the government steps in to reduce the danger.

A Sunday law is regulating an individual's relationship with God. It does not serve to reduce a danger to the public. An Adventist or Jew observing Sunday or a Muslem worshipping on Friday does not create any danger to the public.

August 22, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

some adults when drinking are a danger to

the public.

We also have laws that limit this danger by banning driving while intoxicated and being in public while intoxicated.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

the original question was

should we have laws passed to make other people

do what we see as moral?????

Perhaps a better question is if there is any law that isn't based on morals. Seatbelt laws are based on morals. Mandatory recycling laws are based on morals. Banning the 2 gallon toilet was based on morals. Tax laws are based on morals. Trade agreements are based on morals. Is there any law that is not based on morals?

August 22, 2005

Re: "Laws are morals. There is no getting away from that."

Sorry, Shane, I disagree with you. Speaking as a Christian, morality is founded in God, not seccular law. And, seccular law is often based upon rules of behavior, and not morality. When the law raised the speed limit in certain highways from 65 MPH to 75 MPH that was a change due to seccular rules of behavior, and not a basic change in morality.

In one sense, you may be correct. If I am not a Christian, I might be able to state that morality is founded in law. If so, your statement might be correct. But, as a Christian, I strongly disagree with you. Morality is founded in God, not seccular law.

August 22, 2005

Re: "Tax laws are based on morals. Trade agreements are based on morals. Is there any law that is not based on morals?"

Oh, come now Shane. Such a position trivilizes God and morality.

What is the morality in a law that says that in one country an origonal work of are may be brought into the United States without payment of customs tax, but a copy of that same work of are must be charged 10% customs tax to enter the country?

What is the morality that says that in one country citizens must drive on the right side of the road, and in another country citizens must drive on the left side of the road?

What is the morality of a law that says that in one country the President must be a natural-born citizen, and in another country the President may be a naturalized citizen?

What happened to morality when the law was changed to raise the speed limit from 65 MPH, to 75 MPH, on certain highways in the United States. You are making morality a fickle thing that can be changed at will by the citizens.

There are many laws that are NOT based upon morality, but are based upon what society has determined to be the accepted rules of behavior.

August 22, 2005

Re: "Many countries have laws the US doesn't have that secular humanists wouldn't like. In Mexico, for example, abortion is illegal."

Shane, do you distinguish between secular humanists and Christian humanists?

Do you acknowledge that Christian humanists (and some Christians who may not be humanists) may believe that abortion should be legal?

Oh, boy, I have certainly stepped into this one, haven't I?

August 22, 2005

some details ...

dgrimm60 wrote:<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

EVERY LAW that a country passes for the morals

of their country is based on the 10 commandments.

In western culture, yes, but.... In Muslim countries, such laws are based on the Qur'an (outright), or to its interpretation of the Ten Commandments. In Hindu countries, it's the Rig-Veda. In others, the Dhammapada, Mangala Sutta, and Upanishads of Buddah, or various writings of Confusius, etc. Occasionally, there is even some crossing over between country and moral sources.

I suspect, Doug, what you are trying to get at more nearly is that if there is only one God as we believe - Yahweh/God/Allah - as opposed to multitheistic traditions, and He is the source of all truth and righteousness, which includes morality, then His propositions of what is moral are the ultimate sources of whatever derives from that, including various codifications of law.

It's probably well to note, however, that Jesus said there are only two great commandments rather than ten; from those Two, everything else is is derived, including the Ten, and below that, the many of the remaining biblical injunctions. In fact, to carry the point further, there is reason to believe that the Ten are pretty specific to this Earth, that other inhabitants of the universe are subject to different derivitives of the Two, as apropos to their stations.

Shane wrote:<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Laws are morals. There is no getting away from that. A nation's laws reflects that nation's morals.

A nations's laws do reflect its morals to some degree, but laws are not outright direct equivalents of morals, either negatively or positively - laws do not equal morals. In fact, many, if not most, laws have little if anything to do with morality, either for well or for ill. Those however that are immoral, for example, are defined so by that country's standards, or by other standards - things that are not inherently laws. That's the flag that draws our attention to the fact that law and morality are related. But it also highlights the fact that laws and morals are not identical.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

In a communist country they [laws] are established by the communist party.

As we have experienced it in the last hundred years of political history, that's true. But the party is not inherently the governing body of a communist state, as are the executive/legislative branches of the other political forms you listed. Other communist formulations can or could function quite differently. Granted, this still doesn't change your following point there.

Regards,

Norm

August 23, 2005

First let's look at a few quotes from Clifford Goldstein's book, "One Nation Under God?"

"The idea that you can't legislate morality is ludicrous. Morality is always legislated. It is one of the few things that ever is legislated." p.63

"If religion is tied to morality, and morality is tied to politics, then inevitably religion will affect politics, and the last thing those who believe in God's law ought to do - or even appear to be doing - is fight every arrempt to legislate those principles out of fear that each step brings us closer to the ;mark of the beast' " p.71

"One we concede, as we must, that the state should make moral laws, even if those morals are linked to, or are parallel to, religion, then 'secular' Sunday legislation becomes sensible. The fourth commandment would more easily come under the purview of government that would the tenth." p.72

So Clifford Goldstein and I see eye to eye on this issue. Ours is not exactly a fanatical position.

Now let's look at import taxes. Yes they are all about a moral debate. Is it moral to protect the jobs of domestic workers at the cost to the consumer? That is the issue. When we have high import taxes, domestic jobs are protected but consumers must pay more for their goods which often times become inferior because of the protective taxes.

What about income tax? The top 20% of income earners in the US pay 80% of the taxes. That is an issue of morality. The US society has decided that those blessed with wealth have a greater responsibility to society as a whole than the less fortunate.

And the speed limit? Now that is easy. The speed limit is based on two issues of morality. The first is the value of human life and the second is energy conservation. When there was a precieved gas shortage the speed limit was lowered to conserve gas. When the shortage was over the speed limit was raised.

What about driving on the left or right side of the road? Well which side isn't the issue of morality. The issue of morality is the government designating a side so that accidents are avoided. If the government didn't designate which side of the road to drive on people would be crashing all the time. There are a few morality issues here. Of course one is the value of human life. However there is also the issue of orderly commerce. Designating which side of the road to drive on allows goods to be shipped and people to travel in an efficient way. That of course keeps the consumer cost of goods at its lowest.

What about a countries executive officer (President/Prime Minister) being a natural-born citizen or naturalized citizen? This is an issue of security. Of course providing security for society is an issue of morality. Some societies believe the exectuive needs to be natural-born in order to provide the level of security desired and other societies do not believe that is nessasary.

This is good. Any other laws people think are not based on morals?

August 23, 2005

Refer to Dr. Alden Thompson's (School of Theology, Walla Walla College) book, Inspiration, for a thorough discussion of the Two, the Ten, and the Many.

As for the universe, how many planets are likely to have had 7-day weeks instituted, be created on an Earth-pattern creation week, or have beings who exist and function identically to humans? There is too much variability in the universe to consider that very likely. And it's exceedingly self-centered to think that all the universe is based on a geocentric model, especially when our instance is a puny, atypical, dysfunctional model at best.

We serve the same God, but their needs and ours are almost certainly different, their contraints quite unlike ours, their burdens altogether unrelated to ours (they aren't tempted), etc. The laws then that govern them will be very unlike ours, even though the absolutes behind them, which come from the same absolute God, are identical.

Recall that geocentrism has not worked as an astronomical model, and I have my doubts about it as an astropolitical one either.

Back to this earth, the similarities between certain laws from country to country have more to do with the common source of the absolutes of an absolute creator God behind the Ten than from an iteration such as the Ten themselves. In my opinion, it is better to trace a thing to its actual source than it's assumed source. I stand by my statement. I'm not saying you can't stand by yours, but I feel more comfortable with this one.

We are, after all, not dealing in issues that must be correctly ascertained if we are to insure the survival of the race.

Regards,

Norm

August 23, 2005

Quote:

Any other laws people think are not based on morals? [shane]

There is a law in China that only two children may be born to a family, isn't there? What kind of morality is this? Putting a "limit" on God's will that we be fruitful and multiply?

August 23, 2005

Laws are morals but that is not to say they are good morals or ones we agree with. Of course that is why laws are always changing too. Societies change their minds about what they believe to be moral.

I thought China had a one child limit. That is an issue of the morality or immorality of overpopulation, use or overuse of a nation's resources. Due to that law India will soon have more people than China, if it doesn't already.

August 23, 2005

Although laws might carry some of the same characteristics as morals do, laws are NOT morals. Laws reflect some of the morals of a society's government.

August 23, 2005

Methinks we need to define our terms a little, or this discussion can go around in circles forever.

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: mor·al

Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom

1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>

3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>

- mor·al·ly /-&-lE/ adverb

synonyms MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong <the basic moral values of a community>. ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity <committed to the highest ethical principles>. VIRTUOUS implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character <not a religious person, but virtuous nevertheless>. RIGHTEOUS stresses guiltlessness or blamelessness and often suggests the sanctimonious <wished to be righteous before God and the world>. NOBLE implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character <had the noblest of reasons for seeking office>.

Main Entry: law

Pronunciation: 'lo

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at LIE

1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : COMMON LAW b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : LITIGATION (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : CONTROL, AUTHORITY

2 a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : PENTATEUCH, TORAH -- see BIBLE table

3 : a rule of construction or procedure <the laws of poetry>

4 : the whole body of laws relating to one subject

5 a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : JURISPRUDENCE c : legal knowledge

6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions

- at law : under or within the provisions of the law <enforceable at law>

synonyms LAW, RULE, REGULATION, PRECEPT, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, CANON mean a principle governing action or procedure. LAW implies imposition by a sovereign authority and the obligation of obedience on the part of all subject to that authority <obey the law>. RULE applies to more restricted or specific situations <the rules of the game>. REGULATION implies prescription by authority in order to control an organization or system <regulations affecting nuclear power plants>. PRECEPT commonly suggests something advisory and not obligatory communicated typically through teaching <the precepts of effective writing>. STATUTE implies a law enacted by a legislative body <a statute requiring the use of seat belts>. ORDINANCE applies to an order governing some detail of procedure or conduct enforced by a limited authority such as a municipality <a city ordinance>. CANON suggests in nonreligious use a principle or rule of behavior or procedure commonly accepted as a valid guide <the canons of good taste>. synonym see in addition HYPOTHESIS

I know the dictionary isn't the final word, but those two definitions seem actually not to have a huge overlap.

Sign In

Speaking Of Laws .....

Recommended Posts

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Yong T Tay

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gregory Matthews

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gregory Matthews

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gregory Matthews

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NormF

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NormF

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cricket

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cricket

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity