Christianity and the Strong Arm of the Law: Do the religious not trust themselves?
by pinkagendist
Council of Nicea
Christianity has had, since its inception, an obsession with moulding the law to subjugate entire populations to the tenets of the faith. By the year 321 Constantine had criminalized work on Sundays, prohibited Jews from stoning those who left the Jewish religion for Christianity and required all soldiers to gather on Sundays to recite a prayer to the ‘almighty God’. In 323 the emperor imposed a law against idol-worship, statues, divination, and against pagan sacrifices. In 332 Constantine forbade heretical groups to assemble. Their buildings were to be surrendered to the catholic church*. From then to now a barrage of prohibitions and restrictions have been thrust upon the public- and it is here we must ask: Why? Legalizations force no one to behave in any particular way. They leave each individual the choice to look at issues and arrive at their own conclusions. The need to involve the law in matters of faith can only be evidence that either Christians don’t trust themselves or they do not trust each other. Further, it is evidence Christians wish to interfere with the freedom of religion of others by obstructing the rights of free citizens to choose their own faith or no faith at all.
(*For a complete list of 4th Century Imperial Laws regarding religion click here)
Over the centuries that followed early Christianity, the church was involved in all manner of arbitrary prohibitions, including on issues such as abortion. In the 5th century St. Augustine wrote of the “delayed soul” (originally an Aristotelian concept), this meant males were “given a soul” 40 days after conception, females only received theirs on the 90th day. In practical terms it meant abortion within the first 3 months of pregnancy was permitted. St. Geronimus on the other hand stated that an abortion was only wrong once the fetus retained a clearly human appearance (4th month). In the 12th century the church introduced new terminology to define the theories of both St. Geronimus and Augustine, fetus animatus and fetus inanimatus.
Pope Sixtus V was the first pope to entirely prohibit abortion (in canon law), but his successor Pope Gregory XIV went back to the animatus/inanimatus theory, and prolonged the period of abortion to 116 days. It was actually only in 1869 when the church turned its back on its history and omitted the animatus/inanimatus concept from canon law hence taking an absolutist and generalized stance against abortion (with the short exception of Sixtus V’ths 3 years of power). I’d make a joke on Papal Infallibility here, except the Papl Infallibility doctrine was also only defined at that same point in time: 1869.
The example above is merely an illustration of the erratic nature of religious belief. One that on the grounds of erraticism alone should not be used as a parameter of morality or ethics.
Today we continue to see various factions of Christianity still involved in attempting to coerce society into following the tenets of their faith through the proposal of blanket prohibitions- rather than following the tenets of their faith themselves. The New Statesman’s exchange involving Cristina Odone and Robin Ince is a prime example. Under the guise of defending something that has never been under attack, Ms. Odone wants to celebrate a conference designed exclusively to attack the lgbt community and gay unions. Her right to marry heterosexually is alive and well- but as history has shown, that’s not enough for a certain sector of Christians. They feel the need to bring down the strong arm of the law because their belief system, obviously, can’t withstand scrutiny or reason. It cannot stand alone. To this end, we have seen a steady decline in Christian belief and practices in countries like Spain and France where they can no longer dangle the sword of Damocles over the heads of those who who refuse to subject themselves to archaic and ignorant Christian mythology.
And before the Christian-du-jour leaves a comment saying I wouldn’t speak the same way of Islam (a shameless and oft-used attempt to deflect), let me correct you: I would, and I do. Along the same lines of everything written above, is the equally appalling case of Maajid Nawaz and Mo Shafiq. Mr. Shafiq isn’t fighting for his right to not depict his prophet, he’s fighting to obstruct other free citizens rights to depict whatever and whomever they choose- all on the very shaky argument of his right not to be offended.
The Pink Agendist 
Brilliant article. I’m going to keep this for future reference.
A bit heavy on the references… Can you imagine how boring it is for people to have dinner with me? In the 5th century- 🙂
Ah, that’s why there’s wine! 🙂
The response of the fanatic would be to say that those laws are to protect you from yourself.
Because obviously, they know better. (Applies to most religions at one point or another through history.)
Applies to most religions period…
What a superbly written challenge … and, honestly, a simply exquisite piece of writing. I love it.
Pink, this is an excellent article.
Very thoughtful and intriguing idea behind how the ‘church’ stands behinds their tenets, when they don’t seem to do so themselves. I found it particularly interesting to read the history of their acceptance/refusal of abortions, and the fact that it isn’t just something we’ve started looking at in the past half century or so.
I included the abortion thing because the religious speak as if from the beginning, the church only had one position on everything that was unchangeable. In fact, that’s entirely untrue.
Well said. I find your argument flawless. Unfortunately, it will fall upon deaf ears in the Christian communities. Only by the strength of numbers opposing using religion to write the laws will we make any progress. By Atheists coming out of the closet, and the stronger voice of the LGBT community we begin to make inroads in disallowing others’ religions to rule us. I’m even starting to like the new pope for shaking things up in the church. But he’s got a long way to go yet.
It all seems to be about control. It’s the arbitrary rules and symbolism that give them their strength. People can easily come up with reasonable laws on their own without religion to guide them and that’s what they are afraid of.
I agree with shirtless and the others. This is a highly share-able and well stated article.
Superb. One of the better takes on this I have read.
Reblogged this on A Tale Unfolds and commented:
Worthy of a read.
Excellent take on this aspect of the church and religon
Religion has always provided probably the most useful tool for abuse of power. Some of the abuses have been by genuine religious zealots, but more often by political opportunists.
Absolutely awesome. I agree with others, this post is absolutely sharable and I will do just that!
Thanks 🙂
Reblogged this on myatheistlife and commented:
The Pink Agendist has a pretty awesome blog. His take on this topic is stunning, and allows us to see how the church set the tone for what they now describe as necessary organs of society. Don’t stop with one post, check out the whole blog too.
I agree. I talk a bit about this topic in one of my posts (Faith, After a Fashion):
“Believers of all stripes like to give lip service to the perfect will of God – that whatever happens is divine Providence. Yet somehow it requires that matters be taken into their own hands on the social issues of the day such as gay marriage and abortion (and plenty of grievances that are far more trivial) by using legislative means and the maintaining of political clout (there is no Biblical basis for political or social activism). This betrays a certain insecurity, as if subconsciously they know the fate of what they hold dear rests ultimately in their own hands, that perhaps the odds of supernatural intervention in their favor aren’t so good. In God We Trust, but our bets we hedge.”
Reblogged this on Christianity Simplified and commented:
It is a challenge to truly believe with Christian faith, as the desires of many Christians to enact controlling laws demonstrates.
I am glad I stumbled across your blog. Brilliant article ! I have been reading a lot on Constantine at the moment for one of my blogs. Always interesting to read others views on Christianity. Thanks
I tend to agree with much of what you had to say, especially about the shameful history of the Catholic church. However, I take issue with you implying that Christianity is bad. I am sure you are aware that those who perpetrate violence against dissenters in the past, were not Christians at all.
I’m happy for you to lay out your position/retort here. No censorship.
But I’d begin by saying that ‘not a real Christian’ is the ‘not a real Scotsman’ fallacy.
Rome always had laws regulating religion. It wasn’t something new that happened when Constantine converted.
How does preventing Jews from stoning Christians prove that Christians don’t trust themselves?
But yes. The law has always been around to promote the common good/morality. Christians have a morality as well, and they, like everyone else, tend to want the laws to promote that good. I am not sure how Christians are different than anyone else in this regard.
“How does preventing Jews from stoning Christians prove that Christians don’t trust themselves?”
It doesn’t, nor was that the point in that part of the text. I was illustrating how religion was used politically. Re-read what I wrote, maybe it’ll be more easily understood the second time around.
What Christians have isn’t morality, it’s arbitrary dogma, and they manipulate the law to OBLIGE everyone in society to obey their arbitrary dogmas (ie forbidding work on Sundays). The difference with Christians is that they’ve never believed in freedom of choice, as I explained in the post, they believe the law should limit choice even in regards to personal/matters of conscience.
Religion has been used politically long before Christianity. Rome required people to do offerings to the gods and even to the Emperor who claimed he was some sort of god. Jews had laws as well. Religious people often think their morals come through their religion. Pretty much all people think morals should be advanced in the law. Non religious people like Stalin Pol Pot and Mao had their own morals that they wanted to enforce.
Obviously we disagree about what is moral. I don’t think Christian morality is arbitrary. You will vote for people who agree with your view of morality (whatever that may be) I will do the same.
It should not surprise you that people who disagree with your view of morality disagree with you on what the laws should be. But perhaps it nevertheless does. [shrug]
That was almost funny. The difference with Christianity, as you failed to grasp from the text above, was that religion and politics became one and the same. Emperor Constantine became Saint Constantine- as did many emperors who followed.
Obviously a certain level of morality should be advanced in law. The issue is then defining morality. Again you failed to understand the point which was that Christianity (as well as other religions) have fabricated (wrongly appropriated) various aspects of life into the discipline of ethics whereas they have no bearing on genuine ethics. Which aspect of the example of morality as defined by a woman wearing a hijab versus a burqa versus no head-covering at all do you find confusing? It’s arbitrary. Arbitrary because morality does not depend on a head-covering. Hence: ARBITRARY.
Consensual sex or the signing of contracts granting rights and obligations amongst consenting adults also bears no weight in ethics. Neither of those activities can determine the morality of an individual. Calling it morality is an absurd and arbitrary stretch- based exclusively on ignorant mythology and superstition.
“The difference with Christianity, as you failed to grasp from the text above, was that religion and politics became one and the same. Emperor Constantine became Saint Constantine- as did many emperors who followed.”
Before Constantine religion and the state was just as intertwined perhaps even more so. The pre-christian Emperors were not viewed as Saints they were viewed as divine! Not to worship them was considered treason.
Some Ancient Persian rulers were remarkable for their toleration of different religions but that was remarkable due to it being the exeption not the rule. By and large in pre-christian states were closely intertwined with religion. That includes ancient Greece, ancient Rome, ancient Egypt just to name a few.
A good case can be made that the separation of Church and state in the west came about because of Christianity. Starting with Christ saying give to Caesar what is Caesar’s give to God what is God’s continuing with Aquina’s book the 2 cities and various decrees by Popes where they tried to gain a free hand from the state concerning the teachings of Christianity.
“Again you failed to understand the point which was that Christianity (as well as other religions) have fabricated (wrongly appropriated) various aspects of life into the discipline of ethics whereas they have no bearing on genuine ethics.”
We obviously disagree about morals here. You might think you know what is right and wrong from some other source other than religion whereas I believe God is the best guide. But both should have access to the laws and government and be free to vote our consciences.
“The difference with Christians is that they’ve never believed in freedom of choice, as I explained in the post, they believe the law should limit choice even in regards to personal/matters of conscience.”
Certainly Christianity is a faith that puts allot of emphasis on belief. Perhaps more than any other religion. I will concede that in the past Christians have been very intolerant of beliefs that have differed from their own. But the old ways are not indicative of how all Christians view things now.
Consider Vatican II:
“2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.”
Your voluntary ignorance/self deception is phenomenal. Christianity absolutely revolutionized the marriage of religion and politics. From that point on allegedly religious texts and dictates were used/invented/created to further the power of rulers and for the first time in history there was a religiopoltical (and proselytizing) group that manipulated and coerced the masses across borders.
Religion ceased to be mere cultural tradition of feasts, celebrations and sacrifices (simple magic)- it became a highly political system used in itself to oppress and control the population.
And just to clarify a bit more of your voluntary ignorance, Christianity FOUGHT (and still fights) the separation of church and state every little step of the way. Every time they had a chance to get into bed with a dictator (Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet) they jumped in and made themselves OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. Separation of church and state my foot.
We disagree about morals because you don´t know what morality is. You’re confusing religious tradition and dogma with ethics. Your god doesn’t like this or that. The Mullahs believe it´s immoral for women to walk around with their heads uncovered. Neither of you understand ethics if you define it by actions that have no bearing on an individual’s capability for honesty, compassion, kindness, generosity, courtesy- and all other characteristics that make up an ethical person. That´s the problem with your imbecilic and arbitrary religious ignorance. Any fool can decide that red hair is something of the devil, hence immoral, and without any reason, any explanation any thought, relegate red-heads to the margins of society without consequence. That is the history of the manipulations of monotheism.
Vatican II is a farce. The Vatican wants to have its cake and eat it too, as it always has. Have you ever read of the process of excommunication? They excommunicate you, and yet you´re still considered a Catholic- it´s a joke, and some idiots fall for that garbage.
There is no doubt Christianity requires more from people than just spilling some wine to the gods. So to some extent religious views would have a larger impact on morals and an overall world view.
However, that does not mean that the pagan religion, what there was of it, was more separate from politics. What there was, as far as religious requirements was still enforced often on pain of death.
This attitude did not change immediately when rulers became Christian.
As far as the separation of church and state. Its true we probably disagree on what this should mean. I think it should mean people should be free to worship as their conscious dictates barring some extreme problems. You might think it should mean that religious people should not be allowed to participate in government or something close to that.
Finally, you claim I don’t know what morals are. Do you know what they are? If so how?
I define ethics as “a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behaviour helps or harms sentient creatures”- that entirely excludes consensual adult sexual behaviour, clothing choices, food choices etc…
Extremist Muslims claim eating pork products is ‘immoral’- but for that to be the case, their arbitrary religious book/traditions have to supersede MY RIGHT not to follow their religion.
The same is true of whatever YOUR religion considers morality and is based arbitrarily on your book.
You say:
“I define ethics as “a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behaviour helps or harms sentient creatures””
How do you know this is what ethics/morals are? It sounds at best vague and at worst made up, to me. Did you do some scientific test from which you drew this conclusion?
Do I have the right not to follow your definition of ethics, or is everyone required to follow ethics as *you* define them?
It’s not ‘my definition’. It’s the secular definition. We need a secular definition as a society, precisely because there’s such a thing as freedom of religion. That’s not a very complicated notion and has been used in most democracies of the free world as a guiding principle of laws.
Murder isn’t just bad because the bible says so, it’s bad because one citizen infringes the right of another citizen TO BE ALIVE. See, we can come to that conclusion without any ‘holy’ book whatsoever.
You said “I define ethics as….” Now you say its a secular definition. But its still your secular definition. There was no person or council called secular who defined it that way. If there was, do we all have to accept their definition? Like I said it sounds vague and made up. Do we all have to accept that make believe. Are people allowed to believe that morals are simply made up like they are allowed to believe God was made up?
Of course “murder” is usually defined as the “unjustified” killing of a human being. So it pretty much begs the question as to whether its wrong. No one thinks things that are unjustified are ok.
That said, killing people in certain circumstances has been illegal for a long time. But people thought killing humans was wrong at different times for different reasons. Often it was considered wrong because human life was considered sacred. Now you likely want to say nothing is sacred but you still want killing other humans to be wrong. So you create some new definitions of what is right and wrong and why and try to hitch it up to your worldview.
Now you want just say its wrong because we have a “right” “to be alive.” Except of course when you don’t think its wrong such as perhaps death penalty or abortion or euthanasia or whatever. In other words that “right” to be alive is not absolute. It can be lost. How and when we think that right can be lost will change depending on why we think its wrong to take human life to begin with. Your statement that we have a “right” “to be alive” really does nothing to help in this regard.
I didn’t say ‘I define’ to the exclusion of anyone else. You’re welcomed to check the encyclopaedia or the many writings available in books or online for variations of the same principle.
The definition in question is based on logic and reason. How do we define morality/ethics in a society that ENSURES freedom of religion. There’s nothing made up in that. It’s the product of hundreds of years of thinking since the enlightenment.
Murder isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of law, which is also based on reason. That’s how we come up with definitions for vehicular manslaughter, manslaughter, 2nd degree murder and pre-meditated murder. No bible necessary. We as human beings sat down and created a system based on secular principles. What guides us in these decisions is the notion that every citizen HAS RIGHTS, and the rights of one cannot supersede the rights of another free citizen. We all have an equal right to live. That doesn’t depend on any holy book.
Your last paragraph is just absurd, so I won’t bother except to say that you’re terribly confused. The right to remain alive does not mean the obligation to do so- so there’s voluntary euthanasia removed from your argument… re-read what you write and try again because it was just incoherent.
“The definition in question is based on logic and reason. How do we define morality/ethics in a society that ENSURES freedom of religion. There’s nothing made up in that. It’s the product of hundreds of years of thinking since the enlightenment.”
Logically follows from what? Logic involves premises. What premises do we need to accept to get to that definition. Again the definition is exceptionally vague if not just made up. (although I agree you probably didn’t make it up. It seems you are just repeating what someone else told you.) What do you mean by “help” “sentient” and “creatures”? Its all very vague. Seems like we could make that definition fit to whatever laws we want.
Murder has been a matter of law for a long time. Much of that time it was illegal because human life was considered sacred. Now you are trying to come up with a vague definition to justify this way of thinking. I asked you how you came to that and you refer me to the “encyclopedia” and “books”. But I am sure you don’t mean one book which has had the largest impact on the morals of western civilization. You likely want that book excluded. 🙂 But really again your answers are so vague, It sounds like you really haven’t thought it through for yourself.
Do we all have to accept the definition of morality you pulled out of books or an encyclopedia? Or are we allowed to accept understandings from different books than the ones you like? Or maybe you think we can do that, but only people who believe in morals as you define them, should be allowed to participate in government?
How does it work?
There’s nothing vague in that definition. Nor is it new. The first person known to propose arguments of this style was Confucius (hundreds of years before Christianity). In coming up for a concept of morality he proposed the golden rule- which you’ll probably recognize as Christianity later adopted a very similar line: Do not unto others… (to be more exact: Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself).
This isn’t an arbitrary notion. It’s the basis for fair social interaction, as is the right to being alive.
For society to function we need basic rules. Society has been working at these rules for all of history, whether it was an eye for an eye in the code of Hammurabi (1780 BC) or the more recent Declaration of Human Rights.
Nothing vague in any of that. It’s reason and logic applied to all of human history. And it’s based on that that countries write constitutions.
You went from something about “helping and harming sentient creatures” to the golden rule. They can go hand in hand but not necessarily. And yes “helping sentient creatures” very vague. Helping them what? Would providing punishment to sentient creatures when they act wrongly, be helping them?
You keep saying its based on logic. But you never give the premises from which you logically conclude this definition. So your claim that “It’s reason and logic applied to all of human history.” is not only very vague but it really doesn’t make any sense.
Who even knows “all of human history”?? Let alone use “all of human history” as a premise from which they can logically reach a conclusion?
Are you sure people didn’t just make up morality so others would do what they want them to do? If so, how do you know this?
I defined (as do many) ethics as “a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behaviour helps or harms sentient creatures”- that’s actually from the Foundation of Critical Thinking. Confucius’ golden rule is simply an early interpretation that fits perfectly with that principle.
I think you have to consider these ideas a bit more profoundly before discussing them because you’re still jumping around from one side of the argument to the other.
I’ve already explained the basis for ethics as rational. We all share one planet. We all must live together (whether we want to or not). Therefore there must be certain principles that regulate the great variety of people in society. The principles mankind has come up with is a set of rules that ensure certain rights and certain obligations to each and every member of society. These come in the form of rights and laws to protect the population. Sometimes this means the exclusion (imprisonment) of certain individuals so they cannot interfere with the rights of other (property rights, civil rights, human rights).
None of this is confusing, nor arbitrary, nor vague. If you study the history of law, you’ll see the conclusion is logically obvious.
“I think you have to consider these ideas a bit more profoundly before discussing them because you’re still jumping around from one side of the argument to the other.”
Fairly early, you asserted I don’t know what morality is. So I don’t remember you asking me, or me telling you what I think it is. I was asking about your views.
And your views are very vague. If they are so clear to you perhaps you could answer a few or my questions.
First you said “It’s reason and logic applied to all of human history.” but I asked if anyone even knows “all of human history” and you gave no response. Do you think you know all of human history? If so what part of human history logically implies that ethics is all about helping sentient creatures?
You never even explained what you mean by a sentient creature. Do you mean anything that can feel pain?
History would seem to consist of facts. Morals consists of normative claims. How do you go from say “James Madison was president in the war of 1812” to the conclusion that we need to help sentient creatures. It would seem James Madison would have been the president in the war of 1812 even if no morals existed at all right? How does that historical fact or any other historical fact prove morality even exists let alone prove the rules of morality? Or do you think some other event in history proves that morals exist and not only do they exist but that the aim of morality is to help sentient creatures? (whatever that is supposed to mean.)
“I’ve already explained the basis for ethics as rational. We all share one planet. We all must live together (whether we want to or not). Therefore there must be certain principles that regulate the great variety of people in society. The principles mankind has come up with is a set of rules that ensure certain rights and certain obligations to each and every member of society. These come in the form of rights and laws to protect the population. Sometimes this means the exclusion (imprisonment) of certain individuals so they cannot interfere with the rights of other (property rights, civil rights, human rights).
None of this is confusing, nor arbitrary, nor vague. If you study the history of law, you’ll see the conclusion is logically obvious.”
Do you think morality is something “mankind has come up with” or do you think it exists in reality independent of what we think it is?
You said the basis for ethics is rational but then you start talking about laws. Laws are just made up by people – who are sometimes rational sometimes not so much.
You refer to “a form rights and laws” That seems vague. Do we have rights that are not enacted by law? Do all Christians have to accept your set of rules?
I wonder if you can answer any of these questions. Most are yes or no questions.
This discussion began when you asserted that morality was defined by your holy book. I countered that by saying that religious books are about dogma rather than morality.
We can have ethics without anything religious. Philosophers have been discussing it long before your religion.
Secular morality is about a system of co-existence (AND LAWS TO GUARANTEE said system). There’s nothing vague here or confusing. Socrates, Aristotle and many others were already contributing to a system of thinking that relied on the mathematical formulations of reason to delineate a world where one citizen’s rights were balanced with the rights of the next person.
All Christians don’t have to accept ‘my’ set of rules. Nor do I have to accept theirs. Nor does a Muslim or Jew have to accept either of ours.That’s why we have neutral, secular ethics.
You weren’t able to answer a single question I asked. But the questions I asked you were basic questions that anyone who thinks about what morality is will ask. Your inability to answer even those basic questions shows how vague and confused your views are. You can get angry at me for telling you that but that won’t change the truth.
“This discussion began when you asserted that morality was defined by your holy book.” I did not say that. I said “Religious people often think their morals come through their religion.” I did not say I was one of those people. I was merely pointing out that in a democracy we all get a vote. I may not agree with your secular morality (however you want to define it) but I agree you get a vote. Other religious people might follow a sort of divine command theory of morality, that I disagree with, but they also should still get to vote. It’s not the case that just because people don’t accept my or your secular version of morality they shouldn’t have a right to have their views on government considered.
You seem to disagree and think only people who accept some sort of secular formulation should be allowed to effect the laws.
I’ve answered every question you’ve asked even if you haven’t been able to understand the answers.
If it makes it easier for you, why don’t you ask them in simple sentences and label them by numbers, 1, 2, 3 etc- and so when I answer it’ll be easier for you to match what I say with your questions.
First you said “It’s reason and logic applied to all of human history.” but I asked if anyone even knows “all of human history” and you gave no response. Do you think you know all of human history? If so what part of human history logically implies that ethics is all about helping sentient creatures?
You never even explained what you mean by a sentient creature. 1) Do you mean anything that can feel pain?
History would seem to consist of facts. Morals consists of normative claims. How do you go from say “James Madison was president in the war of 1812″ to the conclusion that we need to help sentient creatures. 2) It would seem James Madison would have been the president in the war of 1812 even if no morals existed at all right? 3)How does that historical fact or any other historical fact prove morality even exists let alone prove the rules of morality? 4)Or do you think some other event in history proves that morals exist and not only do they exist but that the aim of morality is to help sentient creatures? (whatever that is supposed to mean.)
“I’ve already explained the basis for ethics as rational. We all share one planet. We all must live together (whether we want to or not). Therefore there must be certain principles that regulate the great variety of people in society. The principles mankind has come up with is a set of rules that ensure certain rights and certain obligations to each and every member of society. These come in the form of rights and laws to protect the population. Sometimes this means the exclusion (imprisonment) of certain individuals so they cannot interfere with the rights of other (property rights, civil rights, human rights).
None of this is confusing, nor arbitrary, nor vague. If you study the history of law, you’ll see the conclusion is logically obvious.”
5)Do you think morality is something “mankind has come up with” or do you think it exists in reality independent of what we think it is?
You said the basis for ethics is rational but then you start talking about laws. Laws are just made up by people – who are sometimes rational sometimes not so much.
You refer to “a form rights and laws” That seems vague.6) Do we have rights that are not enacted by law? 7)Do all Christians have to accept your set of rules?
I wonder if you can answer any of these questions. Most are yes or no questions.
Answers to your questions here: https://pinkagendist.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=5725&action=edit&message=1
[…] comments section of the post titled Christianity and the Strong Arm of the Law: Do the religious not trust themselves? is getting very long, so I’m moving the discussion here. A Christian asked me various […]
[…] Source: Christianity and the Strong Arm of the Law: Do the religious not trust themselves? | myatheistlife […]