Why religion shouldn't be a basis for law.

[FluffyMcDeath]

It's so hard to settle on any one reason when there are so many, but this is a pretty good example, I think.

http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=5379

[KennyR]

It seems only to be 1% of food wasted, not 10%. Still, what a silly law. But tell me a religious law that isn't.

[bloodline]

KennyR wrote:
Still, what a silly law. But tell me a religious law that isn't.

Not eating Pork, that a brilliant law! It's the best! It means I get all the bacon to myself!! :-P

[that_punk_guy]

KennyR wrote:
Still, what a silly law. But tell me a religious law that isn't.

Umm... "Thou shalt not kill"?

:-?

[KennyR]

But it's "Thou shalt not murder", didn't you know? :lol:

[that_punk_guy]

KennyR wrote:
But it's "Thou shalt not murder", didn't you know? :lol:

Oh yes, of course! How silly of me ;-)

:lol:

[bloodline]

KennyR wrote:
But it's "Thou shalt not murder", didn't you know? :lol:

...and that is a social law, not a religious one :-D

[cecilia]

why don't they send the "bad" food over to the palestinians?

[mikeymike]

It seems only to be 1% of food wasted, not 10%. Still, what a silly law. But tell me a religious law that isn't.

Thou shalt not kill?

[AccyD]

mikeymike wrote:
It seems only to be 1% of food wasted, not 10%. Still, what a silly law. But tell me a religious law that isn't.

Thou shalt not kill?


Repetition ?? :-)

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
But tell me a religious law that isn't.

I agree the bulk of the laws originating from Religion cause more issues than they resolve. The problem being when you try to criticise / amend those laws based upon the modern society there are too many conservative factors working against changes which would benefit society as a whole.

I'm not just talking the extremes of Al Quaida here, more along the lines of, for example shop opening hours on a Sunday, why restrict these to 10 to 4 (in the UK) when already more people visit B&Q than church each weekend anyway?? It's hardly affecting the religious members of society, who can still choose what they want to do. Crazy :-? :-?

As soon as these archaic laws are reformed the better for all of us.

[FluffyMcDeath]

cecilia wrote:
why don't they send the "bad" food over to the palestinians?

That's a brilliant idea. Since the tithed food isn't to be eaten by humans, and the Palestinians aren't considered to be humans ...

[KennyR]

Religious law is like real law that's been through about 1000 passes of Chinese Whispers. It starts out good for the people, gets corrupted by people passing it on wrongly, wilfully misconstruing it, being too stupid or deluded to understand its significance, trying to get around it, and basically then accepting the changed version as dogma to prop up the uncertainty of their short, unhappy lives. By the time a few hundred years have passed, the original law no longer helps, it just harms. That's my main problem with religious law, and why it should *never* take precedence over real law, which is formed for the needs of the people through real and logical reasons.

If the people then harm themselves badly and form a new religious law, then good. If they are too stubborn or conservative to change it, then it destroys them. Either way is good. Evolution in action.

[bloodline]

KennyR wrote:
That's my main problem with religious law, and why it should *never* take precedence over real law, which is formed for the needs of the people through real and logical reasons.



/me recalls some Law about killing Welshmen on sunday's with a bow and arrow from the city walls...

[mikeymike]

Religious law is like real law that's been through about 1000 passes of Chinese Whispers.
Surely that's the same as any law (speech, quote, etc) that has existed for more than a thousand years?

[cecilia]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

cecilia wrote:
why don't they send the "bad" food over to the palestinians?

That's a brilliant idea. Since the tithed food isn't to be eaten by humans, and the Palestinians aren't considered to be humans ...finally someone appreciates my sick sense of humor!!

:lol:

------------
Who is the CEO of Amiga??? (http://www.geocities.com/ceciliafx/mos/ceo.html)

[KennyR]

Mikeymike wrote:
Surely that's the same as any law (speech, quote, etc) that has existed for more than a thousand years?

Real laws change to whatever best supports the majority's sense of justice. Religious laws by their nature don't. All we get from them is "It must be this way because the <insert book here> tells us so." They don't change and can't change. And that's why they're obsolete.

[Dan]

bloodline wrote:
/me recalls some Law about killing Welshmen on sunday's with a bow and arrow from the city walls...


That´s quite alright, it´s not really murder anyway... they are welshmen after all not really real people like us.... ;-)

It´s the same in old swedish provincelaw, kill someone from your own province and get hanged, kill someone from the neighbouring province and get a few years in jail, kill someone from a province further away in Sweden and pay damages for manslaughter varying with distance and danes and finns was of course killed for free.


And that "Thou shall not kill" of course only applied to jews before some slacker who was the {bleep} son of a carpenter and a bunch of beggars and good for nothing youth criminals started to mess things up. :-)

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:

Real laws change to whatever best supports the majority's sense of justice.
Don´t forget that they change slowly and that it´s the majority of the people that counts, not a majority of judges(USA) or burecrats(EU)

Religious laws by their nature don't. All we get from them is "It must be this way because the <insert book here> tells us so." They don't change and can't change. And that's why they're obsolete.
<insert book here>=the american constitution?

[mdwh2]

AccyD wrote:
I'm not just talking the extremes of Al Quaida here, more along the lines of, for example shop opening hours on a Sunday, why restrict these to 10 to 4 (in the UK) when already more people visit B&Q than church each weekend anyway?? It's hardly affecting the religious members of society, who can still choose what they want to do. Crazy :-? :-?
Well, there are secular reasons for restrictions on a particular day of the week for the sake of the employees. It is generally a good thing if friends and family can have some regular time off in common, as opposed to a world where everyone works different hours to maximise the efficiency of the business, but it's hard ever being able to see many of your friends and family all at once.

I'm not saying I strongly believe this - but the reasons here are not purely religious.

What is an issue though is the arbitrary restriction on some goods. For example, alcohol is often restricted to fewer hours (or not at all in some places?), even though the shop itself is still allowed to open. I can't think of any good[1] reason for this.

[1] Ie, "I think that God says so" doesn't count.

[T_Bone]

[MAD]

Hoya!

Since religion is a big myth and a big fantasy, it can be interpreted in MANY ways.
So a law based on a fantasy just cannot work...

Be funky

M A D

[Speelgoedmannetje]

cecilia wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

cecilia wrote:
why don't they send the "bad" food over to the palestinians?

That's a brilliant idea. Since the tithed food isn't to be eaten by humans, and the Palestinians aren't considered to be humans ...finally someone appreciates my sick sense of humor!!

:lol:
I really really do not consider this as 'sick humour', for tis a rather good idea indeed! :-) make 'em think in all THEIR sickness!

[KennyR]

Dan wrote:
<insert book here>=the american constitution?

Does this mean we're allowed to add amendments to the Bible? :-D

"34th Amendment: Onan wasn't masturbating, it was the sin of taking his brother's wife under false pretences for which God smited him. So stop persecuting masturbators, you prudish freaks!"

[KennyR]

mdwh2 wrote:
Well, there are secular reasons for restrictions on a particular day of the week for the sake of the employees. It is generally a good thing if friends and family can have some regular time off in common, as opposed to a world where everyone works different hours to maximise the efficiency of the business, but it's hard ever being able to see many of your friends and family all at once.

I'm not saying I strongly believe this - but the reasons here are not purely religious.

I'm sure not being allowed to play cards or cut my toenails on a Sunday is also for efficiency reasons. Those clever Christians, eh?

[cecilia]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

cecilia wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

cecilia wrote:
why don't they send the "bad" food over to the palestinians?

That's a brilliant idea. Since the tithed food isn't to be eaten by humans, and the Palestinians aren't considered to be humans ...finally someone appreciates my sick sense of humor!!

:lol:
I really really do not consider this as 'sick humour', for tis a rather good idea indeed! :-) make 'em think in all THEIR sickness!
we have a "slight" language problem, here. :lol:

I'm "laughing" at those who think the palestinians aren't human enough to get food or care. that's why it IS a good idea. not only would it be the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons, it would show up the people who would be forced to give thier enemies food.

that just tickles me! :lol:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

The funny, but also good thing you pointed at is, that they'll be 'challenged' in their believes :roflmao:

ehm, what I wrote down in this (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7874) thread is sick humour

You also might like the dutch standup comedian Hans Teeuwen
spoken about 'political incorrectness' (as being an understatement :lol:)

he has some weird obsession with 'jokes' about fussing around with sheep and kebab :nervous:

[MAD]

Hoya!

@speel

BTW, what is the meaning of your nick???

Be funky

M A D

[Speelgoedmannetje]

MAD wrote:
Hoya!

@speel

BTW, what is the meaning of your nick???

Be funky

M A D
"Toy man"

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:
Dan wrote:
<insert book here>=the american constitution?

Does this mean we're allowed to add amendments to the Bible? :-D

I meant it the other way around, that the american constitution is a holy text, no one is allowed to change it.:-) Most other countries adapt their constitution to reality once in a while.

[MAD]

Hoya!

@Speel

Toy Man! Huho... Sounds kinky, let's call Demi Moore! :lol:

Be funky

M A D

[KennyR]

There are good reasons why the Americans don't change their constition much, chimp-boy and asscroft being two of them. But they do change it sometimes.

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:
There are good reasons why the Americans don't change their constition much, chimp-boy and asscroft being two of them. But they do change it sometimes.
What?????:-? I thought they just wrote amendments and sometimes laws that is deemed unconstitional by the Supreme Court and has to be changed.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

MAD wrote:
Hoya!

@Speel

Toy Man! Huho... Sounds kinky, let's call Demi Moore! :lol:

Be funky

M A D
Who's Demi Moore?
But when I chose this nick I was inspired by Drs. P (a Swiss-Dutch standup comedian)

[cecilia]

Who's Demi Moore?a dopy actress. :lol:

[MAD]

Hoya!

@Speel

Demi Moore is the ex-wife of Bruce Willis.
Now, she got a boyfriend who is young enough to be her son, he is 24 or summink, and she wants to marry him.
She wants Willis to attend the wedding, too!!! :-0

@Cecilia

Lol. She is not a very good actress, indeed.
I saw Strip Tease one day and it was pathetic! :-D

Be funky

M A D

[Speelgoedmannetje]

MAD wrote:
Hoya!

@Speel

Demi Moore is the ex-wife of Bruce Willis.
Now, she got a boyfriend who is young enough to be her son, he is 24 or summink, and she wants to marry him.
She wants Willis to attend the wedding, too!!! :-0
Argh! That's my age!
Now I also understand that with toyboy and so.
Well, she won't get me :-D

[AE6ZA]

Guess this is as good a place to jump in as any...

Striptease was just plain honest... It was a tease. Heck, I saw that one coming when we got it at the theater I worked at, didn't even need to take it out of the cans first! No way Macho Brucie was gonna let his ol' lady show off her stuff to the world! ;)

-D

[kreciu]

The question is what religion and God or god or gods... or trees ;). It's a serious question.

BTW. Eating Palestinians... ehhhhh

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Talking about necromancing :-o


Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Argh! That's my age!Not anymore...
good old times :cry:

[motorollin]

It's still my age :-P

--
moto

[bloodline]

motorollin wrote:
It's still my age :-P

--
moto

Ttaah! Kids... ;-)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

motorollin wrote:
It's still my age :-P

--
moto/me shouts, grumbles and wields with his walking stick to Moto :admonish:

At least I have seen more of the 80s :-P

[motorollin]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
At least I have seen more of the 80s :-P
You can have the 80s - I'd rather not see them!

--
moto

[Speelgoedmannetje]

motorollin wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
At least I have seen more of the 80s :-P
You can have the 80s - I'd rather not see them!

--
motoHeresy!!! Despising the heyday of the Amiga!

[motorollin]

True, but also the heyday of ghastly clothes, ridiculous hair and cheesy music. Give me the 90s any day. Amiga might have been going downhill, but at lease we had better clothes, hair and music, and Amigss had AGA ;-)

<hides from speel and bloodline>

--
moto

[Speelgoedmannetje]

motorollin wrote:
<hides from speel and bloodline>

--
motoYou better do, snotnose! :admonish:

[whabang]

Thread necro ftl? :-(

Here I was, thinking that Kenny had returned.

[Dandy]

AccyD wrote:

...
I'm not just talking the extremes of Al Quaida here, more along the lines of, for example shop opening hours on a Sunday, why restrict these to 10 to 4 (in the UK) when already more people visit B&Q than church each weekend anyway?? It's hardly affecting the religious members of society, who can still choose what they want to do. Crazy :-? :-?



So you say it's just a matter of choice?

Then please tell me what choice does a young, single parent mother have, that has a job at B&Q?

She relies on the money she earns - and if she tells her employer that she prefers to go to church with her child/children or even just to be at home one complete day together with her children, I'm sure she would be risking her job.


AccyD wrote:

As soon as these archaic laws are reformed the better for all of us.



I fail to see the advantage in my example for the mother, the kid(s) or the society - but maybe you can point me to...

[Dandy]

KennyR wrote:

Religious law is like real law that's been through about 1000 passes of Chinese Whispers. It starts out good for the people, gets corrupted by people passing it on wrongly, wilfully misconstruing it, being too stupid or deluded to understand its significance, trying to get around it, and basically then accepting the changed version as dogma to prop up the uncertainty of their short, unhappy lives. By the time a few hundred years have passed, the original law no longer helps, it just harms.



As you wrote "Religious law is like real law" I can agree...


KennyR wrote:

That's my main problem with religious law, and why it should *never* take precedence over real law, which is formed for the needs of the people through real and logical reasons.



I guess that's your main problem with real law as well, then? (As you wrote: "Religious law is like real law...")

BTW., I was taught at school that all our laws are derived from the Ten Commandments...


KennyR wrote:

If the people then harm themselves badly and form a new religious law, then good. If they are too stubborn or conservative to change it, then it destroys them. Either way is good. Evolution in action.



Are you sure you would hold that view if they would be going to destroy themselves right next to you by igniting his/her explosive belt?
:roll:

[Dandy]

Dan wrote:

...it´s the majority of the people that counts, not a majority of judges(USA) or burecrats(EU)
...



Hey - that would be democracy!
(But unfortunately democracy actually just is SF, so...)
:-(

[bloodline]

Dandy wrote:

KennyR wrote:

Religious law is like real law that's been through about 1000 passes of Chinese Whispers. It starts out good for the people, gets corrupted by people passing it on wrongly, wilfully misconstruing it, being too stupid or deluded to understand its significance, trying to get around it, and basically then accepting the changed version as dogma to prop up the uncertainty of their short, unhappy lives. By the time a few hundred years have passed, the original law no longer helps, it just harms.



As you wrote "Religious law is like real law" I can agree...


He was stating that Religious law is at least as flawed as real law... ie it holds no special distinction over real law, and he explains how he has reached that conclusion. Do you agree with his reasoning?



KennyR wrote:

That's my main problem with religious law, and why it should *never* take precedence over real law, which is formed for the needs of the people through real and logical reasons.



I guess that's your main problem with real law as well, then? (As you wrote: "Religious law is like real law...")

BTW., I was taught at school that all our laws are derived from the Ten Commandments...


This is not correct. Modern law is based on far older rights, privileges and traditions than the Judeochristian commandments... which themselves are based on older nomadic tribal laws.

All laws stem from the basic idea that you will agree to not do something to someone, if you don't want that person to do the same back to you. It is essentially a simple mutually advantageous contract (please see game theory and the prisoner dilemma), without that single basic contract, a society of any size cannot work. Laws are built on top of that to give the individual an idea of what society considers permissible.



KennyR wrote:

If the people then harm themselves badly and form a new religious law, then good. If they are too stubborn or conservative to change it, then it destroys them. Either way is good. Evolution in action.



Are you sure you would hold that view if they would be going to destroy themselves right next to you by igniting his/her explosive belt?
:roll:

Which is KennyR's point :-)