What's a secular law?

[Wootah]

Separation of religion and state is good right?

If so then what is a secular law and what is the general principle we can use to determine which laws remain?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]

Sure but as far as the laws themselves they need no religious basis. As far as how the state enforces them religion need not be involved. If we open the door to remove the restriction of separation of church and state which denomination gets to enforce marriage laws? Presbyterians? They have gay marriage as a rite. The Catholics? Good luck getting a divorce. Islam? Are all women required to wear Burkas to?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]

Sure but as far as the laws themselves they need no religious basis. As far as how the state enforces them religion need not be involved. If we open the door to remove the restriction of separation of church and state which denomination gets to enforce marriage laws? Presbyterians? They have gay marriage as a rite. The Catholics? Good luck getting a divorce. Islam? Are all women required to wear Burkas to?

Do you mean that they need no theistic basis? Is one man one woman marriage more acceptable if it is based entirely on a predominant visceral preference? What about divorce? What if it is simply decided that women should wear burkas in public for the same non-theistic reason? Would you say that a societies visceral response is adequate justification on the grounds that it is not a theistic argument?

With regard to these United States, the tenth amendment leaves these decisions to the States and the people respectively.

[SailingCyclops]

That is to the extent that they are enforced by a secular state.

This is true. Selective enforcement is a problem. The courts are slowly correcting this, and will continue to improve as many of these old crusty white farts croak off the bench and are replaced by some younger 21st Century blood.

We are constitutionally, a secular state. And yes, popular interpretation/enforcement is always filtered by culture, education, beliefs.... etc. This is why we have courts. To subjectively interpret the law.

The young folks coming into adulthood now are going to be the ones interpreting and enforcing and changing laws. They are much more secular, much more into critical thinking, so their society will likewise reflect that. From what I see, this is a very good thing! Gives me hope for the future of our species.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 12 by bluethread]

come up with 1 secular reason for any of the questions you just asked and you'll have your answer.


10 th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The amendmentments are delegated to the USA. Which is why they apply to the states to...

is there any state that can prohibit 18 year olds from voting? The 10th is not a bill of rights get out of jail free card for states.

[dianaiad]

That is to the extent that they are enforced by a secular state.

This is true. Selective enforcement is a problem. The courts are slowly correcting this, and will continue to improve as many of these old crusty white farts croak off the bench and are replaced by some younger 21st Century blood.

We are constitutionally, a secular state. And yes, popular interpretation/enforcement is always filtered by culture, education, beliefs.... etc. This is why we have courts. To subjectively interpret the law.

The young folks coming into adulthood now are going to be the ones interpreting and enforcing and changing laws. They are much more secular, much more into critical thinking, so their society will likewise reflect that. From what I see, this is a very good thing! Gives me hope for the future of our species.

Doesn't me.

Now, I'm about to sound...(and nobody appreciates the irony better than me here) like an 'old crusty white fart." Though I really resent the racist 'white' thing.

I've met a LOT of old crusty black, brown and somewhere-in-between farts. too. See, I'm from the old 'hippie' generation. You know, the "free-love" flower children who wouldn't trust anybody over thirty, and were absolutely convinced that ours was the generation that would free everybody and make everything all better? You know, the pot-smokin', flower wreath wearing dwellers in communes who named their kids Dweezel and Moon Unit.

THESE are the folks you are calling 'old crusty white farts."

What happened to us?

Most of us grew up, and realized that things just ain't that simple, that people are people, that there's nothing new under the sun, and that cliches are truths disguised as triviality.

What's happening is NOT new. It's not even unusual. (sigh) I wish that people would do more than listen to Santayana. I wish they would realize that Santayana wasn't even the first to say "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

..............I think that's what MAKES us 'crusty old farts." We look at what's happening, realize that it's all happened before (and we did ourselves) and that someday the 'millenials' will grow up and get some sense too. And then they will be the crusty old farts that the twenty year olds will want to boot out.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 12 by bluethread]

come up with 1 secular reason for any of the questions you just asked and you'll have your answer.

Following are the questions I posted. Though you say my answers to those questions make the point, it would be good if you were to confirm that when I am done.

Do you mean that they need no theistic basis?

The secular reason why I presume that you mean theistic basis is because theistic is a more precise term. I believe discussion is generally more productive when one uses precise terms. I also presume such belief to be secular.

Is one man one woman marriage more acceptable if it is based entirely on a predominant visceral preference? What about divorce? What if it is simply decided that women should wear burkas in public for the same non-theistic reason? Would you say that a societies visceral response is adequate justification on the grounds that it is not a theistic argument?

Presuming that a predominant visceral preference does not require a deity, it would fall under designation of secular. Therefore, even in a secular society, those three things would be justified, if there was a predominant visceral preference.

10 th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The amendmentments are delegated to the USA. Which is why they apply to the states to...

is there any state that can prohibit 18 year olds from voting? The 10th is not a bill of rights get out of jail free card for states.

I do not think that you are presenting the proper application of an amendment. The constitution was written to apply to the federal government and specify the parameters of it's powers. The purpose of the first ten amendments is to make that fact clear, by stating specific instances in which federal government may not pass legislation. The tenth is a summary catch all that applies that principle beyond the first nine specific instances to all other instances where power is not explicitly granted to the federal government.

Marriage is a case in point. In the past, and even today, states determine what constitutes legal marriage. To some extent, certain parameters have been placed on that vie the ICC clause of the Constitution, the equal protection clause of the 13th amendment and federal coercion through collection and distribution of funds via the IRS. However, certain characteristics of marriage have not been left to the people and the states. For example, common law statutes and property distribution laws.

Therefore, to the point I was making, there is no secular reason why things like marriage, divorce, and wearing burkas must be regulated only by the federal government and/or the federal government can regulate them in any way they wish. States and communities are more than capable of regulating themselves. If they should have laws that are similar to those in theistic codes, that does not disqualify them. Because of the three factors I stated above, ICC, 13Th and IRS, a law that is designed to respect an activity based on it's pro or anti theistic nature can be overridden.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]

Presuming that a predominant visceral preference does not require a deity, it would fall under designation of secular. Therefore, even in a secular society, those three things would be justified, if there was a predominant visceral preference

Not necessarily, you would still have to justify that the predominant visceral preference requires these things to be so. There is a predominant visceral preference to have unconsequenced sex that doesn't mean free love should be mandated.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]

I do not think that you are presenting the proper application of an amendment. The constitution was written to apply to the federal government and specify the parameters of it's powers. The purpose of the first ten amendments is to make that fact clear, by stating specific instances in which federal government may not pass legislation. The tenth is a summary catch all that applies that principle beyond the first nine specific instances to all other instances where power is not explicitly granted to the federal government.

Marriage is a case in point. In the past, and even today, states determine what constitutes legal marriage. To some extent, certain parameters have been placed on that vie the ICC clause of the Constitution, the equal protection clause of the 13th amendment and federal coercion through collection and distribution of funds via the IRS. However, certain characteristics of marriage have not been left to the people and the states. For example, common law statutes and property distribution laws

The first amendment becomes problematic for you here though. You cant mandate church attendance the wearing of burkas or ban gay marriage because of it. The supreme court is not in your favor here.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 8 by Jashwell]

A law that establishes secularity, e.g. the first amendment.

That sounds a bit circular.

A law that is supported secularly, e.g. "don't murder".

What does that mean: A law with societies agreement?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 8 by Jashwell]

A law that establishes secularity, e.g. the first amendment.

That sounds a bit circular.

Secularity is (of course) the separation of Church and State, you asked what a 'secular law' would be. This is one of the meanings.

A law that is supported secularly, e.g. "don't murder".

What does that mean: A law with societies agreement?

A law that's not (in practice) supported or enforced solely on religious grounds.