09-23-2016, 03:07 AM
(09-22-2016, 11:37 AM)PhilHos Wrote: While I understand this and in some ways, I agree (i.e. Muslim beliefs), the question I've asked before that no one really has ever answered to my satisfaction (that I recall, anyways) is why is it wrong to legislate beliefs based on religion, but it's not wrong to legislate beliefs based on non-religion? Like, I can understand why people would not want a law that says prayer is mandatory in school, but why is it then okay to make a law that says that genetic males are allowed to use a restroom designated for genetic females? I'm not trying to enter into a discussion about transgender laws, but my point is more on why people get upset at religious people pushing their agenda, but those same people don't get upset at non-religious people pushing THEIR agenda?
No matter what the topic, all legislation is based on someone's beliefs or ideas. Now, some are based on ideas grounded in fact, some are based on ideas grounded in faith, and some (most?) are based on ideas grounded in opinion. Why is only one of those an issue?
How many different religions are there in the world? How many throughout history? How many claim to be the only true religion?
Are you familiar with Giordano Bruno? He was charged with heresy. Tortured over the course of seven years. Then executed by being burned at the stake. His crime? An idea. Actually several ideas. Four hundred years later the Catholic Church still refuses to admit that maybe they were wrong lest it cast doubt on their faith.
Imagine if every religion burned people at the stake for differing opinions.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-fact-becomes-anti-catholic-fiction
Plato asked, "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
God exists outside of time, correct? After all, He was present before time. He invented time. Therefore, shouldn't God's morality also be timeless? If something is morally good, shouldn't that something always be morally good? Yet, what is morally good in the Old Testament isn't necessarily morally good in the New Testament. Why? God is omniscient. So why would he change his mind about what is morally good? If He knows He will change His mind about what He considers morally good, why didn't He just go with that from the get go?
Secular laws should be based upon justice, reason, logic, fairness. When a man is executed for heresy, what does that have to with justice? Although I'm not sure why you asked this question when you admitted in the first sentence you understand why. Your first three words are literally, "While I understand." If you understand why others oppose laws rooted in religion and even agree, why can't you answer your own question to your satisfaction? I mean if you understand . . . then you obviously understand. Your understanding obviates any need for an explanation from anyone else to help you understand because you already understand. If you need an explanation then I don't think you do understand. So which is it? Do you understand? Or do you need an explanation so you understand?
