posted by [identity profile] ashfae.livejournal.com at 01:05pm on 03/11/2006
I think laws are generally in place to make sure that one's actions don't infringe upon another person's freedoms. Within a reasonable extent, of course. But most are designed towards limiting destruction (and thus anarchy); ensuring the greatest amount of personal freedom that doesn't involve restricting someone else's personal freedom.

That's a large part of why I think religion and law need to be kept far, far away from each other. Religions involve their own sets of religious law which may or may not be analagous or even appropriate in a changing society, particularly one including a number of religions and thus inevitably conflicting religious beliefs. Granted, my own foremost reliegious belief is centered upon respect for others' beliefs, so that's something of a self-fulfilling prophesy and thus hypocritical.

But also religious laws (being connected to faith) should, in my opinion, be a matter of personal choice and testing, kept between one and one's God and not punishable by earthly officials. If they also are illegal for other reasons as well (see above), so be it, but they shouldn't become illegal solely because they are immoral by the tenets of one's religion.

I'm not sure I'm putting any of this well.
 
posted by [identity profile] ashfae.livejournal.com at 01:07pm on 03/11/2006
("Within a reasonable extent, of course" is where a lot of argument happens, alas...)
emperor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 01:10pm on 03/11/2006
So are you trying to optimise people's ability to do exactly what they want, then?
 
posted by [identity profile] ashfae.livejournal.com at 01:18pm on 03/11/2006
No, I'm trying to optimize their ability to choose. That's a very, very different thing.
emperor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 01:23pm on 03/11/2006
Hm, could you explain that a little more? I'm not quite sure I'm with you...
 
posted by [identity profile] ashfae.livejournal.com at 01:33pm on 03/11/2006
You're confusing a cause and an effect, I think. The optimal ability to choose does not inevitably mean that people will do "exactly what they want" (a confusing phrase, because it implies harmful hedonism without taking into account those who genuinely want to do good).

Morality is meaningless without choice. The ability to do "exactly what they want" might follow upon the insurance of the freedom to choose, but it also might not, but ensuring the freedom to choose is what's important. From the perspective of the law, ensuring that your choices will not infringe upon another's ability to make their own choices. From the perspective of religion, ensuring that you choose to be moral because you're following God's guidelines, and not because of physical threats imposed by society.

I'm still not putting this well, or at least nto completely. Bah.
lnr: Halloween 2023 (Default)
posted by [personal profile] lnr at 01:17pm on 03/11/2006
But also religious laws (being connected to faith) should, in my opinion, be a matter of personal choice and testing, kept between one and one's God and not punishable by earthly officials. If they also are illegal for other reasons as well (see above), so be it, but they shouldn't become illegal solely because they are immoral by the tenets of one's religion.

Thankyou, that's roughly what I wanted to express and failed.
 
posted by [identity profile] yrieithydd.livejournal.com at 01:47pm on 03/11/2006
But also religious laws (being connected to faith) should, in my opinion, be a matter of personal choice and testing, kept between one and one's God and not punishable by earthly officials.

Your saying you agree with my answer to [livejournal.com profile] emperor on the Kingdom of God made me engage more with your post which I hadn't quite agreed with. The above quote is key for me. The reason I dislike the idea of a theocracy is because of the people who would implement it! When societies have gone in that direction (cf Oliver Cromwell and the Commonwealth) a lot has been lost because a very hard line is taken. It becomes about controlling people. That is not to me what God is like. Law sets the big boundaries, but we need freedom within that but have the choice (and responsibility?) to choose the good. We also have to acknowledge our imperfections and that includes those who might set themselves up as arbiters of society.
 
posted by [identity profile] ashfae.livejournal.com at 03:36pm on 03/11/2006
Just so.

October

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31