First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Is it okay to make laws against sin?
545 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / NYC
Offline
Posted 5/20/14
I know we have arguments that break into a "this is only illegal because of religious inclinations" debate, but I use sin in a secular sense. In this case, it could be drinking in your apartment alone with a dirty magazine in the hand your liquor is not in just as much as it could biblical vice. There is an obvious distinction between what is right and what is required. There is an obvious distinction between what is wrong and what is prohibited. We live in a pluralistic society and to promote everyone's liberty we allow for things we might find unsavory personally, but do not actually affect us. There are a growing number of cases on Privacy rights though and the scope of what a person can do in their home, or at all; is becoming a legal battleground. Some think it should get much larger to include all drugs and prostitution and some want to take the opportunity to ban illicit behavior.

I think it is easy to say that something is generally negative so it should be prohibited, but if you look at the reverse it is an awful notion: something is generally good for us all so it should be required. Seat belt laws are not to protect citizens. They exist to ensure that car accidents have the least damage so as not to fill emergency rooms as they used to as it was getting costly to society. Drug laws are not because we do not like that people take drugs, but because when they do they forfeit responsible states of mind and can become hostile, or more inclined to commit petty crimes. Laws requiring virtue are shaky are worrisome. It feels personally like prohibiting vice is equaling disconcerting if said vice does not directly harm others, but what do you guys think?
72836 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Central KY.
Offline
Posted 5/20/14
I personally think that the only 'rule' that should be enacted in this World is the "Golden one"...Do unto others as You'd have them do unto You. The rest IMO are simply a mix of Humanity's 'self imposed' morality mumbo jumbo - most probably concocted in the backroom of some top secret international cabal. I mean think about it seriously. The reality that OTHER Human beings; people who were born and came into this World the same as EVERYONE ELSE...to think that there is this 'special group' of other Men and Women across the globe that have the ability to hold count over another; ANYONE else's life other than their own...to Me that's sickening. As just a regular guy walking the face of this Planet, i'm appalled that anyone else would even wish to HAVE that type of authority. And in the Days in which We currently live, it's getting worse - at times more quickly, than gradually.

So no. No one is perfect...Everyone has a vice.
545 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / NYC
Offline
Posted 5/20/14

x-Cellar_Door-x wrote:

I personally think that the only 'rule' that should be enacted in this World is the "Golden one"...Do unto others as You'd have them do unto You. The rest IMO are simply a mix of Humanity's 'self imposed' morality mumbo jumbo - most probably concocted in the backroom of some top secret international cabal. I mean think about it seriously. The reality that OTHER Human beings; people who were born and came into this World the same as EVERYONE ELSE...to think that there is this 'special group' of other Men and Women across the globe that have the ability to hold count over another; ANYONE else's life other than their own...to Me that's sickening. As just a regular guy walking the face of this Planet, i'm appalled that anyone else would even wish to HAVE that type of authority. And in the Days in which We currently live, it's getting worse - at times more quickly, than gradually.

So no. No one is perfect...Everyone has a vice.


I respect that notion, but politics can get a bit more tricky than that. Especially as some people would like things that I would very much not enjoy. The person who is a masochist and doesn't mind being hit could also be a sadist under the Golden Rule. Now setting up rules that honor the intent of the Golden rule is certainly something to go by: Right to Life, Liberty, Property and the derivative rights that come as implications of those, but I definitely think we need some structure to guarantee we can flourish as individuals without hurting society.
17181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 5/20/14
Sin is so vague. How should one define sin? Does it just mean bad? A handful of laws rides on morality. I think there would be more direction if you stated the current laws you have a problem with ...involving sin.
18972 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/20/14
Sin?

Posted 5/20/14



I hope they make some laws against that sin.
545 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / NYC
Offline
Posted 5/20/14

FlyinDumpling wrote:

Sin is so vague. How should one define sin? Does it just mean bad? A handful of laws rides on morality. I think there would be more direction if you stated the current laws you have a problem with ...involving sin.


It is intentionally vague to let the argument be one of principle instead of one of semantics. Sin in this thread is simply referring to undesirable behavior.
18972 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/20/14 , edited 5/20/14

deliciousmeatsandwich wrote:




I hope they make some laws against that sin.


Me too man me too.
17181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 5/20/14 , edited 5/20/14
This topic is going nowhere

Officer: "have you sinned today?"
Sinner: "Why no officer"
Officer: "Lier"
Sinner: "I swear I am not"
Officer: "I saw that you didn't offer that old lady your seat, and you lied twice. Three counts of sin. You're under arrested"
545 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / NYC
Offline
Posted 5/20/14

FlyinDumpling wrote:


prometheus8 wrote:

It is intentionally vague to let the argument be one of principle instead of one of semantics. Sin in this thread is simply referring to undesirable behavior.
Then literally anything can be undesirable. I do not think laws should be made against sin mainly because (like I said before) it's just too vague and it might actually be counter productive and led to a backwards society. Plus, I live in America, so if sin ...as it's described so far, would be part of law then it would inevitably be about religion. I think laws should be made to so that action that are potentially harmful would be illegal or framed so that there would be less incentive on doing that particular action. There is too many aspects in law to consider, making sin illegal seem more plausible under divine right governing.

Officer: "have you sinned today?"
Sinner: "Why no officer"
Officer: "Lier"
Sinner: "I swear I am not"
Officer: "I saw that you didn't offer that old lady your seat, and you lied twice. Three counts of sin. You're under arrested"


You have a misconception of the stated question. I said sin would be secular in this thread and merely a variable for anything undesirable. It could mean Larsony. It could mean Substance abuse. It could be sexual lasciviousness. I am not saying the biblical definition of Sin is at play, nor am I saying that "sin" itself is being made illegal. I am saying the criminalization of undesirable acts. In the US, prohibition, marijuana, anything related to sex, and plenty of other laws are made without a solid reasoning from the empirical perspective that laws against murder, or perjury, ect. have when they are made. If this question is too vague for you, then feel free not to weigh in. I do not believe it is too vague a question for a discussion of principles though and would like the feedback of others as well.
16743 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / IL
Offline
Posted 5/20/14

prometheus8 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

Sin is so vague. How should one define sin? Does it just mean bad? A handful of laws rides on morality. I think there would be more direction if you stated the current laws you have a problem with ...involving sin.


It is intentionally vague to let the argument be one of principle instead of one of semantics. Sin in this thread is simply referring to undesirable behavior.


When you let the definition of sin be so vague it leads to people arguing on their personal beliefs on sin and the argument becomes too detached. I believe that the word sin in general provokes different people's religious beliefs. Going off that I believe that laws shouldn't be made just because of religious belief in that being wrong, but the problem you have there is it can't be the reversed in that every law influenced by religion be taken away because f the overlap between religious morals and standard human morals. Like for instance murdering being against the law is law is something seen in most religions but is something people without religious belief see as wrong as well.

But again I don't know if you are trying to make this become a discussion on religion in law. If this just a discussion on each individuals belief on desirable behavior in law then I like to go by the thought of anything that doesn't bring direct pain to someone shouldn't be illegal. But the whole argument is to gray to have a black and white decision on this. Like economic laws may not prevent people actually being physically hurt but prevents the rich from taking advantage of the poor and causing them indirect physical and mental pain. But when you look at certain drugs like marijuana, I don't see as much direct pain caused by people using, at least not compared to other legal substances like alcohol. I don't personally see any point in using marijuana and alcohol but don't have a problem with others using them for enjoyment as long as they don't go overboard. However that is why there are laws in place to limit people's alcohol consumption.
bhl88 
75211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 5/20/14
Such things lead to more sin.
3191 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Death Star
Offline
Posted 5/20/14
As a Christian, I ask myself this a lot. I don't like politics at all (mostly politicians) For example I believe homosexuality is a sin (I'll define it as breaking God's law) but I don't know how people argue that homosexual marriage is against the constitution. While I don't agree with it, I can't say it should be illegal because I believe it's wrong. Can I infringe the rights of someone when I think something is wrong when I can't argue against the idea using the grand law of the country, that law being the constitution. Back to my point, it's hard me to decide but if we're talking lawfully, I can't say that homosexual marriage is against the constitution. I will state again I don't think homosexuality is right. I'm not looking to argue with what I believe but I'm just stating what I think about law. I just take issue when people say I can't say what I believe because of what most people believe. So I just ask that if gay marriage is made legal just don't tell me I have to go against what I believe because it's made legal. What I mean by that is if I'm a pastor (I'm not) don't threaten to sew me because I'm not going to against what I believe to make you happy. I'm not a homophobic, I love gay people and would become friends with anyone who is gay. I just want my rights to believe what I believe to be protected.

I hope I made sense, I'm very bad with putting my thought together like this.
545 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / NYC
Offline
Posted 5/20/14

bhl88 wrote:

Such things lead to more sin.


Frederick Bastiat said something similar. He said it perverts the law.
Posted 5/20/14
of course it's not ok.

it's time, this primitive society starts moving forward with morality and values instead of depending on morality some sheep farmers invented over 2000 years ago. it's so backward.



First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.