AntiChristian:
This is introduction to atheism!

OCompatriot:
1 There Can be Religious Laws but No religious structure should have the power to administer either Corporal Penalties or Capital Punishment on those who break those laws (including adherents).
The highest power a religious body should have is excommunication (Not banishment from the person's own place/property or the community where the person lives).

2 Any injurious action by adherents of a religion targeted at a non adherent on the basis of his/her nonconformity should be treated as crime against humanity.
All individuals involved (not just the leaders of the mob) should be punished.

3 No religious practices should ever prohibit movement or everyday life/activities of non adherents at any time.

4 Expectation of Observance of any aspect of any religious law should only be limited to adherents.

5 Those who attempt to force observance of religious laws on people or forcefully extend the fears and expectation of their religion on non adherents should be quickly prosecuted and penalized.

What do you think?

OCompatriot:


No! You are wrong. This is introduction to common sense, and it recognizes that people can either be adherents or non conformists.

OCompatriot:
■ What do you think?

Dtruthspeaker:


People already have the right to choose their associations with the provision that they do not trespass. So it is already covered.

Kobojunkie:
of what use are religious laws when we already have laws that government businesses and organizations of that kind? All your so-called religious laws do is give exemptions to particular businesses where none is necessary.

OCompatriot:
■ It won't be correct to deal with issues as sensitive as religion as we deal with secular organizations.
■ Our inability to have a proper understanding/definition of social systems/structures/institutions, and clear delimitation of regulations is fundamental among the causes of problems in our society.

Kobojunkie:
Why not?

2. Government is a secular organization and so ought to focus itself on dealing in the manner it comprehends with all. If religious folks require their own special rules, that should be handled by their particular deity on their behalf and not government. Government has no business making special rules for any section of the population because of that which it supposedly has no ability to understand.

OCompatriot:
■ Honestly, I think your thought is dangerous and not so informed. I don't see how it will ever produce a governable society. But the government (anywhere) still sets bounds. For instance, the government would/should not fold it's arms seeing religious systems/organizations openly engaging in human sacrifices (or something similar) because their gods are bloodthirsty. (It actually happened and was common/normal before the evolution of the modern society). It still happens today indirectly, and it's something government can be held accountable for anytime. Or, you think the government should('ve) fold(ed) its arms because it's too dull to understand religious matters in this case also?
■ Let me nail my point here again: the need for moderation of extreme religious practices cannot be overemphasized because a lot of attrocities that threaten the peace and safety of the society often hide under the guise of practice of devotion to one deity or the other.
Any government that would do its duties, part of which is guaranteeing the security of people's rights, lives/properties and expect success
must be informed enough to understand how to moderate one man's excesses (including religious ones) that may constitute serious violation of another man's rights.
■ We don't need the deities to help us understand the intricacies of how the interaction of religion and its diverse practices with the society should be managed. All we need, all that the government needs, is an adequate sense of reasoning. Most, if not all laws are products of reason and experience, and good laws should guarantee a more progressive society.
■ Or, are you suggesting that the deities are in the best position to moderate religious violence/extremism/perversions/attrocities that threaten normal life?

Kobojunkie:
1. I am afraid you are still not making any sense to me. Why should it matter to the government whether a crime was committed by a bunch of religious nutjobs or not? So long as a crime is committed, the Government is obligated by Law to deal mercilessly with the perpetrators, is it not? So why does the government need special laws tailored to religious folks when the laws on books are sufficient to handle all criminal cases?

2. I see no need for all that since all Government should focus on is ensuring that all crimes — regardless of the leanings of those who commit them— are punished to the full extent of the law. I am for a fully secular government system that respects no man's religion.

3. Then why are you here insisting there should be religious laws on the books?

4. I am not the one who created a thread specifying that "religious" laws are somehow needed.

OCompatriot:
■ On your first and second point, I am in total agreement that crime should be treated as crime no matter who the perpetrators are. That's the whole point I've been working out. However, I believe we will continue to see the justice lapses and religious intimidation/attrocities we see in our society today until the need to delineate, delimit and handle issues as sensitive as religious ones with utmost clarity and specificity starts to make sense to you and to us all.
■ On your question, Then why are you here insisting there should be religious laws on the books? I never said, and would never say that more room should be created to accommodate Sharia or any of its equivalents (even though they are already recognized) I am a proponent of a secular government that really understands the religious complexities of the society and has clearly defined criminal code that makes no concession on the grounds of religion. None of the five points suggest differently.
■ On the reason I suggest that our laws should be more sensitive to religious intricacies, it's because we have for time immemorial witnessed how disregard for these micro explanations/provisions has allowed religious jackals to bite and get away. We have seen the inability of the government to act in cases of violation of people's rights on religious grounds, which ought never to be.
If you read me with an open mind, you will have no problem connecting all I've said and/or making sense of the same.
■ And, I would like to emphasize that what I recommend is not the accordance of more recognition to religious organizations or their typical laws (as found in religious books). I simply call for more practical observance of extant human rights laws to the point that there are no hideouts for religious extremism.

Kobojunkie:
1. I completely disagree with you on the portion in bold. The lapses in judgment today exist majorly because of the existence of special religious laws and treatments in the nation's constitution. You remove them and subject everyone to the same laws, and you have a better-working justice system all around. No Nation should give religion that special treatment that you highlight there. Crime/Terrorism is terrorism, whether it be religiously motivated or not. The same treatment should be handed down across the board.

My not-too-far-away statement was that crime is crime. If you were more relaxed, you won't be in total disagreement.

2. I am not a proponent of any such. I am against the Government pandering to the whims and kicks of any religious groups out there.

I never suggested the part in bold. There is an obvious difference between understanding a situation so as to be able to manage it and getting rubbed off on.

3. I am totally against laws pandering to the whims of any one religious group or organization. They are all of their businesses/organizations and should require no special laws when dealing with criminal offenses or issues.

Like which of the five recommendations I made?

4. I recommend instead that the Government completely withdraw itself from the dealings of religious groups and organizations and maintain itself in the secular circle where it ought to exist/belong. The government should not dabble in religion nor especially engage religious organizations for any reason whatsoever.

OCompatriot:


If on paper, I can't agree less. But in reality, that is a lot limited.
How often have we found that expectation of observance of certain religious laws peculiar to certain sects are often transferred to non adherents also?
For instance, traditional worshippers sometimes rule that there shouldn't be movement for certain period because they have rituals to perform that forbid members of the public from going out. I have seen it a lot. Also, in places where the practice of Islam is prevalent, expectation of observance of Islamic laws is often unreasonably passed on to neutral community dwellers. The failure to do so sometimes attract brutal consequences. Where is the effect of the said right to choose association?

Dtruthspeaker:


This is because of the interconnection of Laws especially The Law of its their land. lex loci

OCompatriot:
■My not-too-far-away statement was that crime is crime. If you were more relaxed, you won't be in total disagreement.
■I never suggested the part in bold. There is an obvious difference between understanding a situation so as to be able to manage it and getting rubbed off on.
■Like which of the five recommendations I made?
■You may own your perspective. I have made myself clear. Any other person who is open-minded and really understands what is realistic will have no difficulty comprehending my position on this

Kobojunkie:
1. If special laws are required for some crimes as opposed to others, you might as well be for leniency for some crimes.

Fallacy of composition. There are special laws for most, if not all crimes, though

2. You don't need special laws in order to acquire an understanding of any situation out there. Laws are not necessary for that.

No one said laws are necessary to have understanding. Rather, workable laws may be a product of good understanding.

3. I am against every Religious Law.

I won't judge! You are free.

4. I am not obviously not the one here having a hard time grasping the obvious of my comments so far which is that religious laws have absolutely no place in secular society and government.

OCompatriot:
■ Fallacy of composition. There are special laws for most, if not all crimes, though
■ No one said laws are necessary to have understanding. Rather, workable laws may be a product of good understanding.
■ I won't judge! You are free.
■ Of course they have no place in the secular society. But they have in virtually all the countries of the world; in their wider societies. Only that some countries moderate the power/reach of those laws better than others. They set the limits and no one leaps beyond. That moderation is what I recommend now, not the religious laws themselves. I said this before.Lol

The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is fallacious, because vehicles are made with a variety of parts, most of which are not made of rubber. The fallacy of composition can apply even when a fact is true of every proper part of a greater entity, though. A more complicated example might be: "No atoms are alive. Therefore, nothing made of atoms is alive." This is a statement most people would consider incorrect, due to emergence, where the whole possesses properties not present in any of the parts.

This fallacy is related to the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn. The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division.

Kobojunkie:
1. Say what now?


2. Again, laws are not necessary to gain an understanding of any particular aspect of living. Secular governments need not resort to making religious laws when understanding of crimes committed even by religious entities can be gained even without such moves.

3. Of course!

4. That they currently exist does not make them a necessity or right for that matter. Those supposed limits are unnecessary since a more general — secular — legal and criminal system will more than suffice.

OCompatriot:
■ Your answers are absolute and your assumptions are infinite. Perhaps it would do you good if I said, You win!🤗

OCompatriot:


Maybe...
But, whatever the cause, I think it is an unacceptable limitation to human rights. What do you think?