Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
You are now turning the debate to the origin of laws, not their current constructions. That is not the same.
In our country, there is a clear separation between religion and government. Occasionally a religiously minded group may express itself politically, but that is not the norm. That doesn't mean there is no intersection, but it is minimal.
People may advocate for laws based on personal beliefs, but our society by and large does not legislate to comply with religious beliefs.
Speeding and traffic laws are enabling constraints, meaning they are invoked so that people can orderly travel along the roads to enable the motorists. They are constraining because they limit the drivers' options, but enabling because without them chaos would result.
Our law is not about truth but about relative order and protection of the public. There is a place for truth in the lives of each individual. We do not believe governmental discourse is the place for discussion of eternal truth. Governmental discourse is about power and money.
|
I asked about the original law ,since you pointed out that your law makers mostly rely on the pre-existing law ,so i would like to have your answer about how the very first law makers approaches worked out?
however at each epoch ,there would be some completely new issues to deal with by law makers.
with referring to your description about the secular government ..i think it might be fair to reach out to this conclusion that , "you wouldnot mind to have some faithless/unprincipled law makers and unscrupulous law executors who would oftenly lie to people and mess up with thier lives, as long as they bring you money and power ".
Thanks for guiding me welcome the concept.