Certainly many secular laws are the same as laws that some religions also lay down.
However, I don't really understand what you're suggesting that means.
If you mean "religions have affected secular law in the past," yeah, but so what?
If you mean "religions have sometimes promoted laws that are good for secular reasons," again, yeah, but so what?
If you mean "religions are a source of laws that are good for secular reasons, so we should keep getting our secular laws from religion" they're also a source of laws that are bad for secular reasons, and we have other sources of good laws; we can afford to (and should) discard this one which gives such mixed results.
If you mean "men should be allowed to have many wives but women shouldn't be allowed to have many husbands," hell no!
I'm just not sure where you're going with this, but having covered some obvious possiblities, I'll pause for now.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-02-21 12:53 pm (UTC)However, I don't really understand what you're suggesting that means.
If you mean "religions have affected secular law in the past," yeah, but so what?
If you mean "religions have sometimes promoted laws that are good for secular reasons," again, yeah, but so what?
If you mean "religions are a source of laws that are good for secular reasons, so we should keep getting our secular laws from religion" they're also a source of laws that are bad for secular reasons, and we have other sources of good laws; we can afford to (and should) discard this one which gives such mixed results.
If you mean "men should be allowed to have many wives but women shouldn't be allowed to have many husbands," hell no!
I'm just not sure where you're going with this, but having covered some obvious possiblities, I'll pause for now.