Religious law for the religious?
Offline If any of you haven't read about the legal system in Malaysia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia
Short summary: Malaysia basically has two legal systems: A secular one (which is very much like that found elsewhere), and Sharia law, which only applies to Muslims.
There are a few things I take issue with (namely the difficulty of leaving religion all-together, and the cases where the two are in conflict, like custody issues between faiths), but aside from those, it's a very interesting system, and I wonder if it doesn't have some value.
What if religious people were actually required to abide by what they preach or face scriptural/traditional punishment? The non-religious would be completely exempt (behoven only to secular law), and it would vary by denomination to an extent, but it would be incredibly refreshing in some ways- from my perspective, anyway.
It might make people consider a bit more carefully what they profess to believe before doing so; or reconsider after they realize how tyrannical their beliefs are.
What are your thoughts? Would this be good, bad, or would it not make any difference at all? Why?
- Login to post comments
It's been done already.
This topic? Alas, no search feature.
Aside, if it bears discussion from newer members, maybe it's not necessary to resurrect something long dead.
Being a theist, I suppose you wouldn't be interested in the implications of having to obey your own rules? Or, are you one of the perfect ones who would relish seeing your laws exacted upon the 'posers'?
I've heard it both ways, from different people.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that the topic had been covered before, although I'm sure it's been touched upon in other threads. I meant to say that a body of canon law has existed for quite some time. I'm perfectly happy living by that law. I certaintly don't see any reason to impose that canon law on non-believers.
By the way, I'd be delighted to discuss the impications of living within my beliefs.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
That's completely different; I don't believe that you got my point. Read about Sharia law in Malaysia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia
If your religious law says having sex out of wedlock is immoral, and should be punished by stoning to death, should a semi-governmental body enforce that upon you?
Non-believers in Malaysia are exempt from Muslim law. I would never ask if Atheists should be subject to religious law- it's obvious that the community consensus would be no.
But in Malaysia, while Atheists are only subject to secular law (normal law), Muslims are also punished, legally, for doing things like drinking alcohol.
Should religious people be held, legally, accountable to their own professed standards?
It seems like a very reasonable compromise to me, provided people are permitted to leave their religions by taking oaths of non-faith, and secular courts get first crack at any cases. It's interesting to see a society in which the religious are forced to live by their own professed beliefs, and those who don't profess them are free to do as they will (within reasonable secular law).
I wouldn't mind living in a place like this. It would be interesting to see the Muslims, Christians, etc. put their legal responsibilities where their mouths are.
This isn't excatly the same thing but I find it interesting that when the muslims were still new and conquering, they decided to charge christians and jews an extra tax. This caused a huge conversion to islam and some religious leaders even began to refuse to preform conversions on people they didn't think were sincere.
Something similar has been happening with people converting to judaism in order to make immigrating to Israel easier.
I would like to know how the legal system works in Malaysia. Do you choose which one you want to be subject to? For example can a muslim choose to be subject to the secular laws (provided that they declare so before they commit a crime)?
I'm pretty sure if America instituted a separate christian legal system, that was forced on anyone who wanted to call themselves a christian, we'd have a lot more atheists. Either that or America would collapse (even more) due to a mass influx of prisoners.
I wouldn't mind having my religion have it's own laws in the legal system. That'd be kinda neat actually.
ciarin.com
No, if they are Muslim, they are subject to Sharia law; they have to leave Islam (which isn't easy to do), in order to be under secular law. Allowing them to choose would probably defeat the purpose.
Something like "oathbreakers get "liar" tattooed on their faces"?
Just remember, the laws would only apply to the people who were your religion (and they don't get exemption from any secular laws- there are just extra laws).
I think that any state willing to compromise its authority by instituting two sets of laws in order to placate a subset of its citizens, whteher that group is a minority or majority; religious or secular is a dangerous idea.
First, the great struggles of the Middle Ages between the Church and the State, in which each strove to define its role would have been fought in vain. Although I'm a theist, I'm not one who favors theocracy.
Second, such a system violates the great ideal of western jurisprudence, equality before the law. For laws to be practical, they must be enforceable, to be enforceable, they must be consistent. Hence the discussion in the pre-Civil War United states over the issue of "nullification" of Federal law which arose over the issue of tarriffs, particularly in the South. Nullificationists (if that's a word) held that individual states had the right to decide which Federal laws pertained and which could be "nullified" or not enforced in that state.
There was a third point, but while I stepped away from the computer, I suffered a "senior moment" and it was lost. If that thought finds its way home, I'll post it later.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Yeah Blake I see some problems with that thought really. I mean if your going to institute religious law and secular laws as separate, then you have to deal with issues that conflict with the 2, for example freedom of speech (depending in which country this may not be an issue) and blasphemy laws in religion. The freedom of religion, and the laws regarding heathens and unbelievers in some religions (which tends to either tax, kill or cast out the unbelievers). There are going to be laws/rules which will affect each one differently and their interpretation of such said laws.
I don't ever see it as workable, then of course comes which interpretation of the laws are to be followed and from what sect etc, etc, etc.
That's a horrible system that I would fight with violent force to keep from being put into place.
All citizens of the state should obey the same laws. I don't give a shit what someone's religion is. They obey the same laws as I do.
You meant to say "they have to leave Islam (which would result in their brutal murder)." You don't leave Islam.
Look up Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is a Muslim apostate. Even Imams in first world countries (including the US) have called for her death. An Imam in Pittsburg of all places was calling for her murder since she is an apostate. Back when she lived in Denmark, a judge there kicked her out of her house since she posed and unreasonable risk to her neighbors. It was determined that the likelihood of her being suicide bombed was so great that it is unreasonable for her to have neighbors near her who could be injured or killed in the blast. For that matter, a Muslim tried to suicide bomb Salaman Rushdie for being an apostate.
The point is, the Muslims lose their shit pretty easily. Hell, 11 of them were arrested on my campus two weeks ago for losing their shit when the Isreali Ambassador visited us.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Blake - I guess this ruling applies mostly to Islam in my mind - unless old testament laws were to be applied to christians? Trouble for me is that morality is universal and applies equally to theists and atheists, though most theists are too stupid to see it.
Secular morality and religious morality are twins. The only parts where they vary is when believers are forced to cling to the morality of 2000 years ago in order to subscribe to the ancient rules of the cult.
As an aside, I think there are rules in most religions that no longer exist under the umbrella of western cultural morality. I often wonder why these monstrous belief are enshrined in our constitutions and protected by our laws.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the posters rather skimmed my first post rather than reading it...
"There are a few things I take issue with (namely the difficulty of leaving religion all-together, and the cases where the two are in conflict, like custody issues between faiths), but aside from those, it's a very interesting system, and I wonder if it doesn't have some value."
When the two are in conflict, secular law, even in Malaysia (not perfect, but more and more today), takes precedence.
Religious people would *not* be exempt to secular law, but would have an extra layer of laws enforced upon them by their faith.
Put into practice with caution, this doesn't violate the separation of Church and state (or at least, still keeps religion out of secular state business), but creates and extra opt-in layer of state (which people may opt into by "choosing" a religion- assuming anybody ever really chose a religion).
They don't get out of parking tickets, and the secular aren't bound by the religious laws.
All it is, is that the religious are bound by their own teachings in addition to whatever the rest of us are bound by. Wherein there are contradictions, secular law has to be dominant.
They would have to. But they would also have to obey extra laws that you would be exempt from.
Muslim Malaysians aren't exempt from parking tickets, for example- but have extra laws and penalties for certain things Sharia law prohibits (like drinking, which non-Muslims may do without any legal consequences).
Often, yes- I did say it was difficult. In Malaysia, it is possible to be released from Islam for some obscure reasons, and particularly in some jurisdictions (they have to present themselves and explain why, I believe). In some countries, it isn't possible. Like I was saying, though, that's a problem with the system- there should be a requirement for somebody to be permitted to leave a religion.
In some parts (not all) of Malaysia, it's functional:
They do seem to, yes. But they'll do that regardless of whether they are subject to an extra set of criminal law or not.
There's a pretty concrete set of law to be applied to Jews. I would suspect that people of major Christian denominations would have their day in court to argue for the scriptural applicability of certain laws, and a judicial panel of some kind (maybe agnostic/atheistic historians and lawyers- for an unbiased perspective?) would decide which ones apply to them, logically, given their claimed beliefs.
It is very likely that, under these legal systems, people like Ted Haggard would suffer more extreme punishments than under the secular system- I don't know what those punishments would be, though, as it would depend on some kind of judicial evaluation.
They'd have to abide by all of the secular laws too, they'd just get some extra ones, just for them.
that's cool with me.
ciarin.com
I thought you'd like that one.
Out of curiosity: What kinds of laws would you make? Can you list a few for us?
I think what laws people would submit to is very telling of a people's beliefs (more so, often, than what they say they believe in).
It can be argued that ritual sacrifice is law, an order from God, in some religions. If secular law applies first, religious law is incomplete. Assuming, obviously, that ritual sacrifice is illegal in secular law, which it sure should be. I'm sure there are more dichotomies, that was the first that came to mind.
Even if all conflicting situations fell on the side of secular law, it doesn't scale. In this world economy, I don't want tens of millions of Jews to rest on the sabbath. Likewise, I don't want menstruating women to unable to touch anything for one week out of every month. Do I think these would be in the religious law? No. Therefore, it would be either cruel or extremely selective.
Lastly, I do not, as a human being believe that law or punishment should follow Biblical guidelines. No stoning. No exile. No eye for an eye. No forced labor. As a human being, I object to most all laws in the Bible, and whether the person agree or not, the rules are despicable, immoral, and should make you sick.
Yes. You don't think this practice would discourage people from certain faiths that require it?
I never argued for its completeness. I don't see why an opt-in practice should be illegal, though. Why?
That would open a huge market for Sabbath Goyim, and provide jobs for millions.
If they want to touch things all of the time, why can't they change their religion?
Which is basically a good summary of religion, period.
As long as it only applies to the people who have opted in by proclaiming it good and having that faith, why does it concern us?
Yes, they are largely disgusting laws. They would not apply to us. Many people do things under secular law which I also consider disgusting- this is not a practical argument for outlawing them.
I find animal agriculture and meat-eating to be some prime examples [repulsive], yet I'm not going around trying to outlaw the practice.
Same thing for cigarette smoking. People opt-in to things that hurt themselves all of the time.
I'll take a wild guess that at 21, I'm younger than you are, and that I am still in the bleeding heart phase of life. I think it is wrong, under any circumstances, to punish anyone for touching an object during menstruation. I use that, Leviticus 15:19, very often when debating Christians. It is a great way to show people, peacefully and civilly, that they do not follow the Bible. I use it to show them that because they decide what to follow and what to ignore in it, the book is irrelevant. I think that is the way to unconvert theists, by challenging them in the private sector.
What it seems you're supporting is a "you made your bed now sleep in it or renounce your deity" policy. No, I don't think a single theist will look at the new laws and say "gee, that's right, animal sacrifice is bad. I'll become an atheist!" It doesn't work that way. If you believe God wants you to slit the neck of a goat and stone your child, a prison sentence is not going to deter you. Capital punishment is not a deterrent for murder, why would a law deter you from a direct order from God if you believe that?
Please explain the economic impact on unemployment if the individual is working only four days a month.
Especially considering many of these jobs are just not possible to fill in for. If you can have a new person fill in for you once a week without loss of efficiency, your job isn't very important.
More than anything, it disgusts me that you would actually tell a woman that if she touches anything for a week after menstruation, she has to either give up her religion or face the legal punishment for it. You're sick.
This isn't about opting in, it's about saying "I'm going to have somebody interpret your holy book. If you break the rules as determined by that person, you'll either be punished or you can't call yourself a member of that denomination."
^ I agree. Besides, why just religious rules? Why not the rules of country clubs, fan clubs and all other groups people may choose to join? Why should their rules not be put into law, but treat religious ones differently?
"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
This is probably true.
But don't worry; I'm not necessarily advocating this be done; I'm just bringing it up as a sort of thought experiment, because it's an interesting idea.
You could call me 'agnostic' to the proposition. There are some things about it I like, and some things that suck, and I'm not altogether sure what would happen if it was put into practice.
I definitely think it's an interesting idea, though- it would all depend on the specifics of how it worked, I think, as to if it were a useful social system or not. (I enjoy speculating on law and politics.) If the right system came about, I think I'd support it, but it would have to account for various concerns.
As 20% - 40% (the Goyim is potentially needed all day, not just for eight hours) of a job, which would be safe and relatively high paying per hour for the skill required, it would provide a subset of the population a supplemental income (particularly for the under-employed) of roughly $500 per month, which if you know anything about the lower-middle class, and lower class, that's very substantial.
Umm... weekends? What are you talking about?
I certainly don't work seven days a week (well, sometimes I do, but it's by choice, not by need).
Thank you for the insult. Is that, then, what the Torah really says? I can tell you now that you're exaggerating. In either case, it wouldn't be me deciding it or enforcing it.
This is just conceptual- and it's something many religious people seem to want and agree with (although not all, of course).
And leaving a denomination that you disagree with is a problem why?
Opt-in, Opt-out; I tend to support freedom of contract.
We don't have any laws. We have thews and customs, which will differ from group to group. Here's a list of the current thews/sidungas of my organization:
These are the behaviour guidelines(sidungas):
The man or woman who holds to Fyrnsidu should never steal, nor commit hámsócn, which is to violate the sanctity of another’s home. Likewise, no member of the Fellowship shall make an assault upon another, nor malign them, nor seek to do them harm through duplicity or gossip.
The man or woman who holds to Fyrnsidu should sacrifice to the Gods no less than twice a year, upon Hallows at Wintor-Fyllith, and at Yule.
Let the man or woman who holds to Fyrnsidu offer thanks and libations to the Gods, by holding a feast in their honor upon Hallows, Yule, Ewe-Milking, Eostre, May Festival, Midsummer, Loaf-Festival and Harvest Home. Also let them do so at other times and tides as seems right and honorable.
Let the man or woman who holds to Fyrnsidu, honor the Gods of the English, Saxons, Danes, Jutes, Germans and Frisians above all others.
Here are some of the thews:
Árfæstness, Æfæstnes, Ellen, Sylen, Holdnes, Getréowð, Metgung, Sóðfæstnes, Bisignes. AKA: Piety, Courage, Generosity, Hospitality, Loyalty, Temperance, Truthfulness, Industriousness.
The penalties for insults, crimes, outlawry, etc is shunning, weregild, bót, and scyld. In times past, they would also allow the death penalty for certain crimes. We don't have that anymore because of secular authorities.
Weregild literally means "man price", which means you're basically paying for killing someone, equivalent to civil suits for wrongful death. Bót means compensation. Scyld means debt.
ciarin.com
Ritual sacrifice isn't illegal.
ciarin.com
So, if you were permitted to make your own law, to which would that apply, according to custom?
We remember this from study of Beowulf.
/background in literature.
He was probably mistakenly referring to human sacrifice; though this has represented an extremely small minority of sacrificial rites.
To the sacrifice hater:
If the 'victim' has consented, though- as was almost always the case in instances of human sacrifice in the past, unless the sacrifices were prisoners- what is the problem with it?
Social law has its roots in the implicit social contract, derived by game theory. In short- you don't do that shit to me, and I won't do it to you. If somebody wants shit done to them, it's really not applicable to social protection.
We don't have laws because laws are made by the governing body of the land, which happens to be local, state and federal gov'ts. If we had our own governing body we'd have to create a legislature to come up with laws. I'm pretty sure they'd be similar to most other places, regarding theft, assault, fraud, murder, etc. The social contract doesn't need to be religious. I suspect that the system of governing might follow the icelandic model, having an Althing. The penalties for outlawry would need to be determined by a local/regional Thing, and would depend on each circumstance.
But in general, scyld is for breaking oaths, lying, fraud, etc. Bót is for insults, breaking of frith, minor offenses, etc. Weregild is just for killing a person. Shunning is for more dire offenses such as assault.
hehe
ciarin.com
Leviticus 15:19-30 (King James Version)
19And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
23And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
24And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
25And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
26Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
27And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
28But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
29And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
30And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.
If you'd like to point out how I'm misinterpreting that, please do. I oppose this being in the law books for anyone, opt in or not. You're oversimplifying the issue.
The number one way religion spreads is from one generation to another. It would be abusive to make a child choose between being shunned by their family, or being held to ridiculous laws. It only gets worse in Islam with the penalty for apostates being death, for children and adults alike.
You say you wouldn't be the one interpreting scripture for each denomination. Who would? Cases like the one I've just quoted give specific instructions for animal sacrifice. Would you make that part of the law? If you don't, you're not following the Bible.
That they are allowed to touch things, and it just makes those things "unclean" for a little while. They can even touch people- and are even allowed to have sex during this period- it just makes them "unclean".
Do you know what the significant of "unclean" is in this context?
That is where you are misinterpreting the severity of it.
It's not really a very big deal. Jews are always getting unclean by various things; just just kill things and spill the blood to wash away the uncleanliness.
I don't think I am.
Would you disagree that religion itself is a form of child-abuse?
I addressed this- several times.
You seem to have ignored my questions you couldn't immediately answer, and I didn't raise many. I have questions and issues still unraised because I'm trying not to convolute the thread and essentially bury your idea under a wall of text. Do you or do you not support the penalty of sacrificing two turtles or pigeons by law? There's no secular cleanness law to default to. And in the US at least, the sacrifice is legal as I understand it. Not so in Switzerland or much of Scandinavia, but most other nations don't forbid religious animal sacrifice. The only case law I'm familiar with is slaughter in Judaism and Islam. I don't know of any pigeon test cases. So answer the question.
If I were trying to really convince someone that Biblical law is bullshit for theists and atheists alike, a better argument could be made about rapists being forced to marry their victim and pay the father, or rape victims in populated areas being put to death for not crying for help. To be honest, I'm just tired of bringing up rape. The menstruation instructions came to mind just because they are so absurd. They still meet the definition of law in this context, even if you think it isn't "really a very big deal." Neither is jaywalking. If you want the Bible to have governmental enforced laws for those who subscribe to it, why shouldn't this apply? Why not the ban on eating shellfish? That isn't just unclean, it's fucking abomination.
Yes, I believe religion is a form of child abuse. But I wouldn't outlaw it. First amendment is a two way street. If comparing taking a child to religious practices and forcing them to decide between their families or the secular law, the lesser of the two evils is obvious to me. You answered my question with an irrelevant question.
Your previous answers re apostasy in Islam are unconvincing to say the least. Saying "it's difficult at times" to leave Islam is a vast understatement. We're talking about human lives, not yacht club memberships or spam mailing lists. Read Hirsi Ali or Salman Rushdie. Christians don't care because you'll burn in Hell anyway, Muslims have explicit orders to get you there.
You really need to be talking to a Rabbi about this.
Then please don't ask questions which presume to put words into my mouth.
I said it would depend on implementation, and in particular, that the effects of the laws are more important than the laws themselves. Without any summary of expected effects, I can not answer that.
I agree that those laws would probably be implemented under the circumstances. The rapists, however, would also be subject to additional penalty from secular law- so the woman would probably end up being married to a prisoner.
I'm not supporting any particular law here, but the idea that it's interesting, and perhaps would be socially useful, to permit these things as opt-in laws.
All of that very well might. I don't necessarily *want* those laws to exist. That said, the overall body could be a useful mechanism to drive consistency and rationality, which could be overall a very positive social change.
You know the whole thing about the ends justifying the means? I tend to agree with that more than the average bleeding heart liberal would.
See, here is where we differ. Providing a means that was compatible with game-theory and social contract, I would.
I don't think it's so evident, no. You're vastly over-simplifying.
It's not just a single instance of a child being taken to religious practice, but an inherited disease which plagues society at large- and not just individuals.
Religion is more like smoking in that regard. It's unhealthy for the people around one, damages the quality of one's own life, and occasionally start serious, and lethal fires.
Sometimes, yes. This is beside the point of instituted law as I described it, though, which included this "out" as a potential premise/absolute necessity.
We are very likely in disagreement over the proposition of the ends justifying the means. This does not mean that I do not understand the facts involved, or am any less conscientious than you are.
You can't sacrifice animals in scandinavia, wtf?