Quote:
Originally posted by Kat
I agree with Lea, there is a difference between the law and religion.
Things like murder and stealing are illegal because if people feel they have no recourse for justice ,then a civilization will dissolve into anarchy. The law's aim is to maintain society and keep the peace.
Religion on the other hand is a philosophical lifestyle. Whereas law doesn't require certain rituals or beliefs, religion does.
Both have things in common ,but they aren't the same thing even if they may overlap in places. If Law is unjust, then it can be readily changed in contrast to religion which is more rigid. It's not a sin to break the law if it doesn't violate your religion, but it is a sin to do something contrary to your religion even if it is lawful. However, in the eyes of the law, sin or not, if you break it you will be penalized.
When it comes to morals, i guess it is more of a question of whose morals you are talking about. If you are a Christian and you encounter an atheist, you might think that person is immoral for not believing in God. The atheist however may be a humanist and believe that he is living a perfectly moral life. It is all a matter of perspective there.
Sin though is an entirely religious concept. Sin is defined as doing something contrary to God's will or violating a religious tenet. It is not merely being imperfect. An atheist cannot violate a religious tenet he does not believe in. If i steal, i am guilty of theft and it only becomes a sin if violates my or the society's prevailing religion. |
There is a difference between law and religion, yes. However, that is not of my concern here. I am not asking that. What I am asking, quite simply, is, if the nonreligious are not governed by what is or is not a sin then what are the governed by? ...and for the ones not governed by the law, then what are THEY governed by?
Well, the law's aim
should be to maintain society and keep the peace. I, however, seem to think the law's aim is to keep the ones in power in power and the ones subdued subdued, while itself being above the law.
If law is unjust, yes, it can be changed, however, the issue here is perhaps a subtle one. The issue is, during the time when the unjust law is not changed, and, supposing there is an individual of no religion then, for that individual, would breaking that law constitute a "bad thing" in his or her mind? If it would not, then, what is the basis of morality if it is neither the law nor religion for that individual or is that person amoral or immoral?