In a Free Country Should Laws Be Made Based on Religion?

[B-DizL]

In a free democratically elected country where the politicians are supposed to represent all members of society should laws be made based solely on one religion?

Some examples:

Laws banning gay marriage because one group of politicians are against homosexuality based on their religious beliefs regardless of the religious beliefs of those who wish to get married.

Laws banning abortion for the same religious reasons.

[Diocle]

NO!

In a Democarcy Religion and Politics must be two different worlds!

[Condottiere 40K]

Homogeneity based on a common culture; usually no one objects unless those laws become oppressive or some outside factor stirs up unrest.

[B-DizL]

I decided to add some examples.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I don't think the average pro-lifer argues from religion. I think you are wrong in that claim.

[Vanoi]

I don't think the average pro-lifer argues from religion. I think you are wrong in that claim.

I don't see many at all argue from a religious standpoint.

Also, this belong sin the Political Academy.

[B-DizL]

I don't think the average pro-lifer argues from religion. I think you are wrong in that claim.

I don't see many at all argue from a religious standpoint.

Also, this belong sin the Political Academy.

Yes it does they say specifically that life begins at conception.

There are laws banning late term abortion but they are against all abortion, some say even in the case of rape.

[Vanoi]

Yes it does they say specifically that life begins at conception.

And? Is that concept solely religious?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

And what's religious about thinking abortion is murder? An atheist might hold that position, and many do.

[B-DizL]

And? Is that concept solely religious?

Yes it is because they always quote the bible or other religious beliefs even though science says the brain is not evolved enough for conscious thought until much later.

And what's religious about thinking abortion is murder? An atheist might hold that position, and many do.

You are clearly missing the point of this thread. Should you be subject to a law based on another persons belief even though what you are doing doesnt effect that person in any way.

[motiv-8]

This is Political Academy material.


Also a great many laws are based on religion anyway, whether you like it or not. They key is finding which ones coincide with the rational concerns of creating the most just, balanced society where people are able to live their lives as they please without unduly restricting the ability of others to live as they please as well.

[IZob]

The majority will always define the laws in their country, assuming it is democratic.

So concerning religious views, that is entirely up to the population if they want religion part of their law.

Religion and law are not necessarily bad. It entirely deppends on the religion and the extent it is part of law.

However the majority should also have an ethical duty to see that the rights of minorities are also included into consideration. Its about getting the best level of happiness for the entire population and the smallest level of unhappiness you put on the minorities.

[Vanoi]

Yes it is because they always quote the bible

So your saying that everyone who uses the phrase "life begins at conception" quotes the bible to back up that phrase? you do realize this claim is pretty much impossible to proof and is not proof that its a religious concept?

or other religious beliefs even though science says the brain is not evolved enough for conscious thought until much later.

this does not prove that the idea that life begins at conception is a religious concept.

[pacifism]

The answer to your exact question is inconclusive. A Democracy would have citizens there at government meetings, in which they vote according to their religion. I do not know of any democracy today. In a Republic, citizens elect or choose representatives to vote for them. I know a State Representative and he says "You do not vote for me to choose what you support. You vote for me to make decisions you also support". So, in a Republic, I'd say that it is allowed to make decisions according to one religion (although morally, several religions do agree on what is bad).

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Since in a "free" country religions are supposed to coexist, any law based on one religion acts against any others if not every other religion or those lacking one.

[pacifism]

Note I said "allowed" not "ideal" or "recommended".

[Lazarus]

"In a free country, should laws be made based on religion?"

Nice and loud no. That's not to say that there are some concepts that religions have adopted that make for good laws (the whole "don't murder" is probably a keeper) so you shouldn't oppose a law solely on the grounds that a religion endorses it. If you were to say... outlaw contraceptives - there's a law to oppose quite vigorously because the law serves no purpose other than to enforce a religious view point. I hope I'm making the distinction here clear.

[Condottiere 40K]

I'd say religion was co-opted to help enforce those laws, so that behaviour modification and sanctions had a sharper bite; it's when the priests started incorporating some strange notions, that you have to become skeptical.

[DarthShizNit]

Based off of Religion? No, as a law based on certain christian principles may deny something to someone who is Hindu. Laws based on more univeral "morals" ("You probably shouldn't kill that dude") sure.

[NobleWoman]

No.
If it is a free country, then how can it justify laws based on religion? I am supposing that a "free" country is multi-religious, and often different religions have differing and contrasting laws, so if you make a law that is suitable from one religious denomination's viewpoint, is it just? what about followers of other religions?
Anyway, why should laws be made on religion? Just because they have been since time immemorial? I find that a poor excuse.