Quote:
Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam
Ok... I don't really agree with you. Separation of church and state isn't so much to set up laws completely void of moral values but to protect the state from the church and the church from the state. There's going to be overrun, however, between both because obviously to a huge part of the population, religion is incredibly important (no matter the religion).
I'd say that since we don't yet have a state-run church and we don't have a state that is run by the church, the idea has been fairly successful.
I think morality will always play a part in lawmaking, it just depends what type of morals you prescribe to. We'll always have laws that prohibit things just because they're wrong (malum in se, I think, things like murder) and we'll have laws that prohibit things that aren't necessarily morally wrong (malum prohibitum, things like parking on the wrong side of the street).
That's not to say that morals don't change, but I'm just saying that you don't need to have religion to have a strong set of morals.
ETA: I'm not trying to change your personal belief, just state my own.
|
Thta's cool and some of your points I agree with.
No probs here.
I guess the overall arc for me is that we live in a society that in some ways are more tolerant of behaviors and mores (and not just this case either) that would have been condemnable many many years ago. So it's sometimes interesting to see how the more things 'change' the more things stay the same.
This case in particular is going to set a precedence considering also this is coming from the same state that shot down Prop 8 just a few short months ago.
It will be interesting to see how similar cases will stack up.
Threaded Mode
