Religious Laws

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hm, what's your definition of legitimate?

How is *my* definition of "legitimate" relevant to what *you* mean by the term?

 

[jeager106]

No, because Islamic Law is not applicable to non-Muslims. I am not a Muslim. Simple.

I'm sorry you are not a simple Muslim.
Well YOU said it first!

If: No, because Islamic Law is not applicable to non-Muslims. I am not a Muslim. Simple.

Why the Miami massacre, Boston Marathon, W.T.C., and so many others?
And this:

Jihad Report
Sep 10, 2016 -
Sep 16, 2016
Attacks 43
Killed 191
Injured 228
Suicide Blasts 6
Countries 14

Aren't my posted examples the way Radical Islam imposes religious laws upon others?
The Koran contains at least 109 verses promoting violence towards non believers.

These are GLARING examples of forcing religious laws upon others.

If non Muslim then DIE!

 

[Sundance]

How is *my* definition of "legitimate" relevant to what *you* mean by the term?

Oh! I was assuming that you believed your definition was, at all, relevant. My mistake. Carry on.

 

[Quintessence]

Hmm... well... not going to vote in the poll because it won't mean what people think it means.

Druidry doesn't have dogma and laws governing people's behavior or stuff like that, so I'm thinking the closest proxy of "Druidic law" would be the nature of reality itself. Things like the various nutrient cycles of our planet, phenomena like biological evolution, laws of matter and motion, and so on. Thus, in that sense, "Druid law" applies to all humans whether they want it to or not.

 

[Sundance]

I'm sorry you are not a simple Muslim.
Well YOU said it first!

If: No, because Islamic Law is not applicable to non-Muslims. I am not a Muslim. Simple.

Why the Miami massacre, Boston Marathon, W.T.C., and so many others?
And this:

Jihad Report
Sep 10, 2016 -
Sep 16, 2016
Attacks 43
Killed 191
Injured 228
Suicide Blasts 6
Countries 14

Aren't my posted examples the way Radical Islam imposes religious laws upon others?
The Koran contains at least 109 verses promoting violence towards non believers.

These are GLARING examples of forcing religious laws upon others.

If non Muslim then DIE!

All of things happen because some people force their own views on others. Again, this is explicitly forbidden to Bahá’ís, jeager.

 

[Sundance]

Hmm... well... not going to vote in the poll because it won't mean what people think it means.

Druidry doesn't have dogma and laws governing people's behavior or stuff like that, so I'm thinking the closest proxy of "Druidic law" would be the nature of reality itself. Things like the various nutrient cycles of our planet, phenomena like biological evolution, laws of matter and motion, and so on. Thus, in that sense, "Druid law" applies to all humans whether they want it to or not.

Well, Q, in such a case, indeed, natural law is applicable to everyone.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Giving "due props" is not the same as "not contradicting". And as you've admitted here, Baha'i is replacing the previous religion's laws. Which is all I'm trying to say.

If I haven't explicitly said it (although I feel like I probably did), then I will say it now. Of course the Noahide Laws apply to you as a non-Jew, because all non-Jews are meant to follow them. Whether you "dig it" or not. You don't have to like it. But its there. And your religion's stance on the issue contradicts and by extension replaces my religion's Law about you.
And that's all I've been trying to say the whole time.

Does this mean Jews who believe as you do view all other religions as replacements and/or ones containing replacement theology?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh! I was assuming that you believed your definition was, at all, relevant. My mistake. Carry on.

If you were less defensive, it would be easier to have a productive conversation.

Back to the question at hand: you said that these other religions are "legitimate". What do you mean by this? Are you saying that their prophets were really sent by God? That their scriptures are correct? Something else?

 

[Quintessence]

Well, Q, in such a case, indeed, natural law is applicable to everyone.

To circle this around to something that applies a bit more to your topic, a question I ask is what makes a law a "religious" law. Ideas are tricksy things - they are not things that can be owned or claimed to the exclusion of all else. Worse, what "religious" looks like varies so much that it's hard to pin down what that means. As an example, a prohibition against theft could be considered a "religious law" from Abrahamic traditions - is it bad now for this to be in "secular law" because it is part of "religious law" for that tradition? Instead of assessing an idea based on whether it happens to be labeled "religious," it seems to me that we could instead lay out guiding principles and virtues we want our culture to uphold. Then, assess incoming ideas based on how well they align with the desired virtues. If they align well, use it. If they don't, discard it.

Seems to me this is basically what we do anyway. We use the ideas that fit what our goals are, whether the label of "religious" is slapped on it or not. When I look at the laws of my country, "Bible law" is written all over them. The justice system assumes free will exists, for example, and a ton of laws have parallels in the commandments or other sources. If we say that "religious laws" should not ever apply to people outside of those religions, this means we would ignore any law that has a Biblical precedent Doesn't strike me as a wise approach, even as I disagree with much of the Bible-centric law framework of my country.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To circle this around to something that applies a bit more to your topic, a question I ask is what makes a law a "religious" law. Ideas are tricksy things - they are not things that can be owned or claimed to the exclusion of all else. Worse, what "religious" looks like varies so much that it's hard to pin down what that means. As an example, a prohibition against theft could be considered a "religious law" from Abrahamic traditions - is it bad now for this to be in "secular law" because it is part of "religious law" for that tradition? Instead of assessing an idea based on whether it happens to be labeled "religious," it seems to me that we could instead lay out guiding principles and virtues we want our culture to uphold. Then, assess incoming ideas based on how well they align with the desired virtues. If they align well, use it. If they don't, discard it.

Seems to me this is basically what we do anyway. We use the ideas that fit what our goals are, whether the label of "religious" is slapped on it or not. When I look at the laws of my country, "Bible law" is written all over them. The justice system assumes free will exists, for example, and a ton of laws have parallels in the commandments or other sources. If we say that "religious laws" should not ever apply to people outside of those religions, this means we would ignore any law that has a Biblical precedent Doesn't strike me as a wise approach, even as I disagree with much of the Bible-centric law framework of my country.

Of course, the actual distiction isn't made the way you describe it, but along these lines:

- laws that have a place in a secular society: those that can be justified without appealing to religious beliefs.

- "religious" laws: those that require acceptance of religious tenets or claims for their justification.

Origin of a law is irrelevant. A secular society is free to steal good ideas from anywhere. The thing that makes a law secular is that it can be justified without appealing to religion.

 

[Sundance]

If you were less defensive, it would be easier to have a productive conversation.

Back to the question at hand: you said that these other religions are "legitimate". What do you mean by this? Are you saying that their prophets were really sent by God? That their scriptures are correct? Something else?

I'm sorry, Penguin. I shouldn't be this defensive, normally I'm not, but one individual has just driven me up the wall. I can't take this.

As for other religions being legitimate, I believe that other religions are different reflections of God's Will and Purpose, but this is my understanding. Truer to the proper context of ‘legitimacy of other religions’, I believe that other religions do constitute different pathways to salvation, which in my religion is understood as nearness to ‘God’.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As for other religions being legitimate, I believe that other religions are different reflections of God's Will and Purpose, but this is my understanding. Truer to the proper context of ‘legitimacy of other religions’, I believe that other religions do constitute different pathways to salvation, which in my religion is understood as nearness to ‘God’.

Okay. I'm still not clear on the details, though.

Take Islam: Baha'i believe things that the average Muslim would say contradict Islam... but you say that Islam is a "Religion of God". So does this mean:

- the Quran is entirely correct, but Muslims have misinterpreted it?
- Gabriel really did dictate the Quran to Muhammad, but Muhammad got some details wrong, which have caused problems?
- the Quran wasn't dictated by angels at all, but Muhammad coincidentally ended up with a religion that we think includes some correct ideas?
- something else?

 

[Sundance]

To circle this around to something that applies a bit more to your topic, a question I ask is what makes a law a "religious" law. Ideas are tricksy things - they are not things that can be owned or claimed to the exclusion of all else. Worse, what "religious" looks like varies so much that it's hard to pin down what that means. As an example, a prohibition against theft could be considered a "religious law" from Abrahamic traditions - is it bad now for this to be in "secular law" because it is part of "religious law" for that tradition? Instead of assessing an idea based on whether it happens to be labeled "religious," it seems to me that we could instead lay out guiding principles and virtues we want our culture to uphold. Then, assess incoming ideas based on how well they align with the desired virtues. If they align well, use it. If they don't, discard it.

Seems to me this is basically what we do anyway. We use the ideas that fit what our goals are, whether the label of "religious" is slapped on it or not. When I look at the laws of my country, "Bible law" is written all over them. The justice system assumes free will exists, for example, and a ton of laws have parallels in the commandments or other sources. If we say that "religious laws" should not ever apply to people outside of those religions, this means we would ignore any law that has a Biblical precedent Doesn't strike me as a wise approach, even as I disagree with much of the Bible-centric law framework of my country.

Understood, Q, but that's not what I'm talking about necessarily. I am saying is that the specific laws and ordinances that apply to followers of one religion should not be forced upon the followers of another religion. I'm not referring to general ethics.

 

[Sundance]

Okay. I'm still not clear on the details, though.

Take Islam: Baha'i believe things that the average Muslim would say contradict Islam... but you say that Islam is a "Religion of God". So does this mean:

- the Quran is entirely correct, but Muslims have misinterpreted it?
- Gabriel really did dictate the Quran to Muhammad, but Muhammad got some details wrong, which have caused problems?
- the Quran wasn't dictated by angels at all, but Muhammad coincidentally ended up with a religion that we think includes some correct ideas?
- something else?

When I say that Islam is a religion of God, what is meant is that fundamentally, Islam is designed to cultivate (at least, to me, what are known as) Godly qualities – compassion, mercy, justice, self-discipline, others–within yourself. Any issues concerning The Qur’an are irrelevant in this matter. Though to answer your question about it, The Qur’an is believed by Bahá’ís to be fully authentic. The Word of God. Muslims haven't got it wrong, we just look at it in different ways.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When I say that Islam is a religion of God, what is meant is that fundamentally, Islam is designed to cultivate (at least, to me, what are known as) Godly qualities – compassion, mercy, justice, self-discipline, others–within yourself. Any issues concerning The Qur’an are irrelevant.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Sundance]

Okay. Thanks.

I added to my response, Penguin.

 

[Quintessence]

Of course, the actual distiction isn't made the way you describe it, but along these lines:

- laws that have a place in a secular society: those that can be justified without appealing to religious beliefs.

- "religious" laws: those that require acceptance of religious tenets or claims for their justification.

Origin of a law is irrelevant. A secular society is free to steal good ideas from anywhere. The thing that makes a law secular is that it can be justified without appealing to religion.

Occasionally, I wish I could believe it as simple and as clear-cut as you describe. It is sure easier to wrap one's mind around.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Though to answer your question about it, The Qur’an is believed by Bahá’ís to be fully authentic. The Word of God. Muslims haven't got it wrong, we just look at it in different ways.

As an outside observer, when the Muslims say "Muhammad is the last prophet" and the Baha'i say "no, he's not", it sure seems to mr that you're implying that they got things wrong.

 

[Quintessence]

Understood, Q, but that's not what I'm talking about necessarily. I am saying is that the specific laws and ordinances that apply to followers of one religion should not be forced upon the followers of another religion. I'm not referring to general ethics.

Hmm. I want to make sure I am understanding correctly here. What you are wanting us to talk about here are super specific guidelines for behavior that happen to come out of a religion - such as keeping kosher - but not broader ideas like having a healthy diet or treating one's food animals with respect?

 

[buddhist]

Should the laws of one religion apply to the followers of the subsequent (or any other) religion(s)? Should one be expected to follow religious laws which are not meant for their religion? Yes or no, and why?

Dogmatic laws grounded in faith apply if you believe they should apply to you.

On the other hand, Laws of Reality (like the ones many Buddhists like myself seek to conform to) apply to all of us regardless if we like or believe in them or not. E.g. The Law of Causality (cause-and-effect, kamma) applies to everyone.