I was pondering the other day.
The laws of the US goverment and it’s States seem to have a strong root in religon.
Now, I know some laws that are on the books are brought about both because of religion and common sense.
Man connot live in a large group without well defined laws to make a peaceful co-existance.
Such examples as murder and theft.
Some laws on the books I do not understand being there except because of religious bias.
an example would be laws against same sex marriages.
So what about he seperation of church and State?
What I was wanting to have debated for my own general gain in knowledge is this.
What laws have ben created due to religious Bias and which laws were made for peasesful co-existance of society?
I apologize I did not type out my thoughts in a reasonable easy to understand manner, but I hope you bully thru my poor grammer and typing skills and share your thoughts.
An example of a law that seems to derive from religious origins: in the state of Maryland, at least 12 years ago (when I got married), weddings in private buildings had to be performed by a representative of a church.
My understanding of the separation of church and state was not that government and law would be nonobservant of religions and religious organizations, but rather that they would not favor one religion over another and in no way would endorse a “state religion”. Thus the above law does not designate any particular religion whose representative must be used.
Though I might still quibble. As an athiest, I think it may be sensible to broadly divide people into athiests and thiests, and say that “theology” is a broad category of religion, just as “Christianity” is (only broader). Broad as “theology” is, it still excludes me, and I resent having to use one of “their” clergy for my ceremony.
Of course, we found a Unitarian, so I still sort of won…
There were (and still are) regions in the U.S. where it is illegal to sell alcoholic beverages on Sunday morning, but not on any other morning of the week. These antiquated laws are clearly religious in origin.
Unfortunately, it is not at all clear that you have thought this through yourself; the dividing line is not as black and white as you seem to think it is. Perhaps you should make it more clear what you think a “religious bias” would entail. Any morality? This might cover just about any law, including murder. A fundamentalist Christian would claim that theocracy is necessary for the “peaceful co-existence of society.” Is any law regarding marriage a religious one? A libertarian might say yes; most others might say no.
I suspect that this is a continuum, not a strict line. On one side of this is clearly laws such as putting “In God We Trust” on our money, “blue laws” governing businesses that can stay open on Sunday, laws supporting the Church of England in Britain, and such things clearly attached to Christian theology. On the other are big laws such as murder and theft, and little laws such as driving on one side of the street or the other (it doesn’t matter which one, as long as we agree).
In the middle is a large gray area. Usury laws? Usury is against Christian commandments, and libertarians and big government people would argue that it is an intrusion into the marketplace; others would say it is a necessary protection for the consumer, and not religious at all. Holidays? Which ones? Health care? Is that a religious virtue, or a humanitarian one? Is there a difference?
I think you need to refine your question a good deal before we can start answering a lot of these kinds of questions.
Except of course that it implicitly discriminates (and probably intentionally given the geography) against those faiths that don’t have clergy (like Quakers). Requiring them to either be wed by a priest of another faith or settle for a courthouse wedding.
They are religious in origin, but they haven’t remained in place by reason of religion, if what I’ve seen is correct.
Here in Colorado, you can’t buy alcohol at all on Sunday, nor can you buy a car from a car dealer. These blue laws come up for challenges every once in a while in the legislature, and every time they do, representatives of car dealership and liquor stores lobby against them. No one really lobbies for them, so they go down in flames.
The lobbyists’ explanation for opposition is that liquor stores will have to pay to staff on Sundays if the laws are overturned, costing them money. They reason that people aren’t going to choose other beverages to drink on Sunday, they’re just going to stock up on Saturday. So, closing on Sunday doesn’t hurt revenue, but does save money on wages.