First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Is it okay to make laws against sin?
3191 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Death Star
Offline
Posted 5/22/14


Sadly you're right, some people view marriage as just a means to an end, it's horrible. Marriage is a wonderful thing but now-a-days it's taken to be as nothing more then signing a paper for some folk and gaining something (wealth, status, documentation)


30952 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Iowa
Offline
Posted 5/22/14
8===D~~~ Make a law against that.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 5/22/14
To make sin illegal is to enforce religion.
Sogno- 
45684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/22/14
well considering different people think of different things as "sin", i would wager it is not okay
Posted 5/22/14
law =/= ight and wrong. all that's unsaid is left to morality
48494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 5/22/14 , edited 5/22/14

Bearhand73 wrote:


seekerperson7 wrote:

First let me respond in the secular sense.

I don't believe you can legislate morality. Its a good idea in theory but incredibly difficult and dangerous in practice. I personaly think that in the public sphere, you simply have to mitigate the damage rather than prevent it. You simply can't use the law to make better people because people themselves make the law.

Now let me respond in an peculiar "religious / democratic sense."

I actually think that people should be able to legislate against sin - but not on a federal level. This democratic republic of ours (here in the US) seems to have been based on the notion that different regions would have different laws. This harkens back to the fierce independence the States used to assert. Its not as strong now, but its still there. I personally believe that different states (or different districts within states) should be able to gather like-minded individuals and impose regional laws against sins as a community. Obviously, the federal government can regulate the most important stuff within states and districts (laws outlined in the Constitution and amendments or state constitutions and amendments), but if its not mentioned in those documents, I believe regional communities should be able to legislate pretty much whatever they want - including laws against sin. If one doesn't like these laws, they could always garner support from like minded individuals in that community to change the laws or amend the state / national constitution. Or they could move as well. But, admittedly, this way of thinking may be a tad idealistic.


So it would be okay for local communities or states to outlaw homosexuality, intermarriage between blacks and whites, banishment of atheist, and the prohibition of competing religions? How about the censorship of books and records and now videos? The requirement of the sexes to wear clothing that is deemed appropriate for each sex, the denial of education opportunities because of race, religion or sex or sexual preference. And let's not forget the establishment of the punishment for the breaking of these laws, be it fines, jail time, banishment, or even death. There is a reason why many of the Western countries are moving away from legislating sins.

The reason why different states and municipalities have different laws isn't because like-minded people gather for the purposes of making laws that apply to them. Because the system of lawmaking doesn't exactly work that way. In other words, laws aren't an after-effect of group mentality like a bunch of nudists starting up a club so they can play tennis in the buff. Laws exist in specific areas when special circumstances make them necessary. It's kind of a trickle UP approach being that the even highest court of the land does not have absolute authority over a small town in the backwoods of south west Arkansas. The process of democracy in the purest sense grants that authority to the citizens of that particular town because they are the ones actually impacted by their own laws. And the unique or particular laws they make probably have no impact on the people in the next town or the next town after that.
Posted 5/22/14 , edited 5/22/14
Sure. Over here it's illegal to shout at eggs. Those eggs make me so angry.
39015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Tralfamadore
Offline
Posted 5/27/14
If it wasn't against the law what fun would it be?
21580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Reston, Virginia
Offline
Posted 5/27/14
I personally believe that legislating against "sin" is both wrong and stupid. Wrong, because the government should not be an enforcer of morality. Stupid, as the US's stint with prohibition showed us, once you legislate something considered a sin, it just goes behind doors and becomes a money maker for organized crime. Things I would put under legislating "sin" would be banning activities like drinking, sexual activities, over-eating, gambling, etc... Morality always raises questions and scenarios that require careful consideration, but laws are a very blunt instrument that is incapable of looking at the particulars of a case.

Now I am okay and believe that regulation of activities many consider "sin" is required. For example, rules on driving when drunk. Or laws that dictate behavior between adults and minors, since adults always have an extreme power advantage over a minor in any situation. I don't see these laws as saying you can't do an activity, it is more saying if you are going to do it, it has to be done in a way that is safe for others. I could care less if someone wants to drink themselves silly in their own home or get totally stoned, but get behind a wheel after that and then you've become dangerous to others.

42648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
60 / M / Earth
Offline
Posted 5/27/14
Never mind sin, people don't even do as much as emulate the first law of robotics...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.