Should human laws be modeled after God's law?

[McCulloch]

[Confused]

No! God's laws should not be used as a model for human laws!

I am very emphatic on this. The separation of church and state could quite possibly be the single greatest political achievement of the 2nd milennium.

I do realize that it is impossible to keep religion and politics separated, and I also realize that it is impossible to keep religion from influencing the laws, but as much as is physically possible, politics should be about the collision of secular ideas -- may the greatest idea win.

Why do you think that it is impossible to seperate them? Would you consider that it is because they are intrinsicaclly linked and therefore should not be seperated?

There are certain parts of our law that are intrinsically linked to religion.

For example, individual property rights vs. communal property rights. Our form of law is based upon the principle of individual property rights, which goes back at least as far as Abraham and Lot, perhaps earlier. In other religions (for example, the Patuxet tribe that met the Pilgrims in 1620) believed in communal property rights...no one owns anything. It all belongs to everyone.

If our Congress is going to choose whether to base our law on individual or communal property rights, they are going to have to use one religion's sense of property rights and reject the other's.

I disagree. There are certain parts of mans law that may have a foundation in religious teachings or may have been inspired by religious teachings, but that doens't make them intrinsically linked. In regards to property rights, it is based on law, not religion. Once again, the roots may trace back to religion, but it is no longer based on religion. Religion used to deem women as property, should law recognize this still? Congress already distinguishes the rights of individual property, though they tax the hell out of us. But there exists no "communal" ownership outside of extremists, and even then, all the ownership is usually legally listed under a single name or organization in which case everyone in the organization owns a portion and is entitled to it.

[4gold]

I disagree. There are certain parts of mans law that may have a foundation in religious teachings or may have been inspired by religious teachings, but that doens't make them intrinsically linked. In regards to property rights, it is based on law, not religion. Once again, the roots may trace back to religion, but it is no longer based on religion. Religion used to deem women as property, should law recognize this still? Congress already distinguishes the rights of individual property, though they tax the hell out of us. But there exists no "communal" ownership outside of extremists, and even then, all the ownership is usually legally listed under a single name or organization in which case everyone in the organization owns a portion and is entitled to it.

It seems to me that you and I are in full agreement, not disagreement. The only part that we may differ on is whether laws that have roots in religion are intrinsically linked to religion, and to be honest, I don't really care if they are or not. All I know is that the law came from religious roots and when there is another religion that thinks exactly the opposite, the Congress still has to make a decision that puts one religion's beliefs above another's.

[Confused]

I disagree. There are certain parts of mans law that may have a foundation in religious teachings or may have been inspired by religious teachings, but that doens't make them intrinsically linked. In regards to property rights, it is based on law, not religion. Once again, the roots may trace back to religion, but it is no longer based on religion. Religion used to deem women as property, should law recognize this still? Congress already distinguishes the rights of individual property, though they tax the hell out of us. But there exists no "communal" ownership outside of extremists, and even then, all the ownership is usually legally listed under a single name or organization in which case everyone in the organization owns a portion and is entitled to it.

It seems to me that you and I are in full agreement, not disagreement. The only part that we may differ on is whether laws that have roots in religion are intrinsically linked to religion, and to be honest, I don't really care if they are or not. All I know is that the law came from religious roots and when there is another religion that thinks exactly the opposite, the Congress still has to make a decision that puts one religion's beliefs above another's.

Point taken, I didn't interpret it that way. Sorry for faulty assumption. I seem to be making a lot of these lately.

Michelle

[Greatest I Am]

If we look at most civil law's we see that most of them are indeed based on some spiritual concept from some bible. The logic trail for the law will not likely point to a spacific passage, but the ideas are the same.
Divine law is the corner stone of all law.

I chalenge any one to point to any law that predates or is not based on the conceopts of the bible.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

If we look at most civil law's we see that most of them are indeed based on some spiritual concept from some bible. The logic trail for the law will not likely point to a specific passage, but the ideas are the same.
Divine law is the corner stone of all law.

I would challenge you to prove that assertion. What if civil law preceded divine law?

I challenge any one to point to any law that predates or is not based on the concepts of the bible.

Stop on the red, Go on the green, Don't mess with Mr. In-between.

[palmera]

In tracing the roots of law to religion one makes a huge assumption: that religion doesn't trace its roots to law. Too often, Christians assume that because there are God given laws in the Bible that Law is a phenomenon of religion. It makes far more sense to see religion (in part) as a means to codify pre-existing laws. One can see examples of this from cultural religious taboos. For instance, the taboo on killing cows for Hindus. Is it that cows are inherently sacred, or that because common folk throughout India's history have relied so heavily on cows for their livelihood? A dead cow gives food for a while, but one can use a live cow for milk and it's dung (and urine) for fertilizer and about a thousand other things. Keeping cows around is practical and necessary- it makes sense that a taboo on killing cows found its way into their religious beliefs. There are many other examples, including many from the Bible. These were practices that were best passed down through religious teachings.

One can find many reasons that the ten commandments were codified in the Bible beyond that they came from God. In fact some seem silly otherwise. If the reason you don't murder someone, steal, or lie is because God tells you to, then you must be a pretty bad person to begin with. Making law religious in nature is a great tool (consciously or unconsciously undertaken) for passing down important cultural information to future generations.

[diggnate]

I wrote some thoughts on this issue (gay marriage) over at my blog.

I've thought about it a lot, and I consider myself to be a libertarian. Religious people simply can't impose laws in their holy book unless it submits some sort of secular benefit. The prohibition of gay marriage offers no benefits other than it makes Christians "feel better" to know that they are policing the country.

Anyway, here are the links to the articles that contain my thoughts on gay marriage:
http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/11/07/election-day-2006/ - Look for the section on gay marriage
http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/31/re ... g-society/
http://www.nathanrice.org/2007/01/05/fo ... iage-post/

[Goat]

I wrote some thoughts on this issue (gay marriage) over at my blog.

I've thought about it a lot, and I consider myself to be a libertarian. Religious people simply can't impose laws in their holy book unless it submits some sort of secular benefit. The prohibition of gay marriage offers no benefits other than it makes Christians "feel better" to know that they are policing the country.

Anyway, here are the links to the articles that contain my thoughts on gay marriage:
http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/11/07/election-day-2006/ - Look for the section on gay marriage
http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/31/re ... g-society/
http://www.nathanrice.org/2007/01/05/fo ... iage-post/

When it comes to Gay Marriage, I will go with the Whoopie Goldberg remark.

If you don't like Gay marriage, don't marry one

[Beta]

Should human Laws be modelled after God's Laws ?
I thought they were !!!
Did man have any Laws BEFORE the 10 Commandments given by God in Exodus 20 ?
It is obvious that some of our civil Laws were taken from them but in doing so man has violated the entire Law of God which is not to be split up.
Ever thought why our Laws are ineffective, why we are failing to deal with criminals ? Man is tampering with God's word and he has withdrawn his protection and power for our peace and safety.
God repeatedly admonished man to obey his voice if we want to reap the benefits set up for us. The consequences of human disobedience are seen worldwide.

[diggnate]

Should human Laws be modelled after God's Laws ?
I thought they were !!!

The laws that are modeled after God's laws have a secular benefit. The ones like "keep the sabbath day" should not be enforced by government. you really need to read my article:
http://www.nathanrice.org/2007/01/05/fo ... iage-post/

Did man have any Laws BEFORE the 10 Commandments given by God in Exodus 20 ?

Actually yes. Egypt was a government that enforced laws. For instance, Moses killed an egyptian, and had to flee in fear of punishment. This was before the 10 commandments were etched.

It is obvious that some of our civil Laws were taken from them but in doing so man has violated the entire Law of God which is not to be split up.

Perhaps not by the church. We don't live in a theocracy. It is the same freedom to NOT obey God's laws in this country that gives you the liberty TO obey those laws.

Ever thought why our Laws are ineffective, why we are failing to deal with criminals ?

Laws are ineffective when they are not enforced or enforceable. Many of the jewish laws are not enforceable by our government.

God repeatedly admonished man to obey his voice if we want to reap the benefits set up for us. The consequences of human disobedience are seen worldwide.

Man does have that responsibility. The question here is do you want to give your government the power to enforce religious laws?

I know I sure don't.