Morality is the science of right and wrong. Law is the science of how best to mediate right and wrong. Religion is the science of how best to adhere to the principles of right and wrong.
All laws are morality based and all originate with some quantifiable tenet of morality. The law seeks to adjudicate whenever and only whenever rights are violated. All rights are individual rights. If I do not have the power I cannot delegate that power and thus there exists no supposed collective right. Perfect law intervenes perfectly and only to the degree necessary to insure that recompense is made in full for rights violated. The law is therefore the repair crew foreman of rights that sees to it that the repair is made, and the breach is healed.
Religion is the etiquette coach that teaches us how we might best stay within our rights and thus live in harmony with our fellow man and with God. It also teaches us how to operate in the areas in which the law cannot venture, areas of choice that do not threaten the rights of others. Questions like how much time to spend at home vs. at work, whether to marry, when to marry and whom, how many children to have if at all, what vocation to pursue, how to interact with deity, how best to help our fellow man…
Religion cannot enjoy exemption to the science of law. When law defines the point at which rights are violated, religion cannot excuse any violation. Religion has no rights, individuals have rights. (thus no religious right to violate the law which is the enshrined absolute moral authority and thus arbiter of the same)
Law must not itself become a violator of rights and must thus deal in exact measures of recompense. Further it must never act on its own accord lest it shall be in error and necessarily defunct lest it be enshrined as a tyrant. It must therefore rely solely upon witnesses who will swear out their testimony and be held liable for it and punished accordingly if found bearing false witness.
Critique these notions...
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
Re: Critique these notions...
I wonder why the founding fathers never stopped the government from acting as a separate entity, as if it could reason or feel or think, as if it were possessed of rights. There should never be a court case the United States vs. XXX, or Utah vs. XXX. I understand that those names act as a proxy for all and thus we are able to enforce theft or treason etc... from all, but I do believe that such a course is productive. I believe that those aggrieved parties should act as plaintiff on their own accord as in a class action suit where they would have to sign their name directly (and not have anyone attacked in their name by proxy). Witnesses should be punished severely for bearing false witness.
I tell me children all the time that "the government" isn't a person, it doesn't have feelings, a heart, eyes, a brain (that's an easy one to illustrate) etc... It's just people, we're all just people, acting together to preserve our individual inherent rights. It is confusing to them because the government is controlled by people and consequently it is possessed (exactly the right word to use here) of passions, eyes, ears, etc... Those people in general are hidden behind the skirts of Lady Liberty and thus protected from accountability for their witness and acts.
Likewise police officers should never be allowed to act on behalf of the city, state, or nation. They should never enforce the law unless willing to bear witness themselves and be held to the same standard for bearing false witness as everybody else.
I think that police officers should be process servers. If my neighbor steals from me and I can prove it, I swear my oath to a judge, he then issues a summons and the matter comes before him. The police officer would deliver the summons. If I saw an assault in progress, it wouldn't matter if I was a cop or not. We all have the same rights, duty, privileges, responsibility in as much as we are all alike. And so a police officer that intervenes would be acting individually. All witnesses would swear out their testimony and the matter would be brought before the judge and tried. Any and every arrest would be a citizens arrest and would meet the same burden as bearing false testimony. If I arrested somebody and did so in a manner that violated the other persons rights, then I would be liable for that recompense. In the case of the assault I would then have to use my judgment as to whether it was worth it to detain the person myself or with others that agreed to do so. It would be an impromptu posse as legitimate as it's cause, no more, no less. We would not act as judge, a judge would. And if we did, we would be held accountable so long as anybody cared to complain.
It would require and promote an active citizenry much better than the system we have now which is at turns tyrannical, nepotistic, and yet severely apathetic.
If rights are always individual and never collective, and they must be so because we didn't come from God as a group, then the law cannot pretend otherwise and the best law is that which enforces those rights on an individual (true) basis.
I tell me children all the time that "the government" isn't a person, it doesn't have feelings, a heart, eyes, a brain (that's an easy one to illustrate) etc... It's just people, we're all just people, acting together to preserve our individual inherent rights. It is confusing to them because the government is controlled by people and consequently it is possessed (exactly the right word to use here) of passions, eyes, ears, etc... Those people in general are hidden behind the skirts of Lady Liberty and thus protected from accountability for their witness and acts.
Likewise police officers should never be allowed to act on behalf of the city, state, or nation. They should never enforce the law unless willing to bear witness themselves and be held to the same standard for bearing false witness as everybody else.
I think that police officers should be process servers. If my neighbor steals from me and I can prove it, I swear my oath to a judge, he then issues a summons and the matter comes before him. The police officer would deliver the summons. If I saw an assault in progress, it wouldn't matter if I was a cop or not. We all have the same rights, duty, privileges, responsibility in as much as we are all alike. And so a police officer that intervenes would be acting individually. All witnesses would swear out their testimony and the matter would be brought before the judge and tried. Any and every arrest would be a citizens arrest and would meet the same burden as bearing false testimony. If I arrested somebody and did so in a manner that violated the other persons rights, then I would be liable for that recompense. In the case of the assault I would then have to use my judgment as to whether it was worth it to detain the person myself or with others that agreed to do so. It would be an impromptu posse as legitimate as it's cause, no more, no less. We would not act as judge, a judge would. And if we did, we would be held accountable so long as anybody cared to complain.
It would require and promote an active citizenry much better than the system we have now which is at turns tyrannical, nepotistic, and yet severely apathetic.
If rights are always individual and never collective, and they must be so because we didn't come from God as a group, then the law cannot pretend otherwise and the best law is that which enforces those rights on an individual (true) basis.
-
genesal
- captain of 100
- Posts: 191
Re: Critique these notions...
First of all Law is not science and religion is not science either. Law deals with facts not knowledge. Religion on eternal truths (at least the correct religion) even though many are polluted and misinformed.SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:Morality is the science of right and wrong. Law is the science of how best to mediate right and wrong. Religion is the science of how best to adhere to the principles of right and wrong.
All laws are morality based and all originate with some quantifiable tenet of morality. The law seeks to adjudicate whenever and only whenever rights are violated. All rights are individual rights. If I do not have the power I cannot delegate that power and thus there exists no supposed collective right. Perfect law intervenes perfectly and only to the degree necessary to insure that recompense is made in full for rights violated. The law is therefore the repair crew foreman of rights that sees to it that the repair is made, and the breach is healed.
Religion is the etiquette coach that teaches us how we might best stay within our rights and thus live in harmony with our fellow man and with God. It also teaches us how to operate in the areas in which the law cannot venture, areas of choice that do not threaten the rights of others. Questions like how much time to spend at home vs. at work, whether to marry, when to marry and whom, how many children to have if at all, what vocation to pursue, how to interact with deity, how best to help our fellow man…
Religion cannot enjoy exemption to the science of law. When law defines the point at which rights are violated, religion cannot excuse any violation. Religion has no rights, individuals have rights. (thus no religious right to violate the law which is the enshrined absolute moral authority and thus arbiter of the same)
Law must not itself become a violator of rights and must thus deal in exact measures of recompense. Further it must never act on its own accord lest it shall be in error and necessarily defunct lest it be enshrined as a tyrant. It must therefore rely solely upon witnesses who will swear out their testimony and be held liable for it and punished accordingly if found bearing false witness.
Secondly all laws are not based on morality - some are to make us pay (like taxes), some are based on safety and some are to curb rights, point is there a other kinds of law not based on morals or morality.
The time will come when the U.S. will turn to Theocracy which will be Heaven to behold. What you ask is a Theocracy? Islam is one but the U.S. will adopt one which all laws are enacted and executed in righteousness and whose officers possess that power which proceedeth from the Almighty. CHRIST will be the head of the government and all laws will emanate from Him.
-
Epistemology
- captain of 100
- Posts: 701
Re: Critique these notions...
Morality
Morality is a reference to sensing what is right vs what is wrong, behavior.
There are 2 general types of moral concepts.
1. Morality defined as an independent standard of right and wrong.
This means we look to the objective standard to evaluate behavior to decide whether it is right or wrong.
2. Morality is a relative sense of right and wrong.
This means we look at behavior on an case by case, individual, or social level, to determine what is right or wrong.
Religion
Religion is the source used by many individuals to discover what is right or wrong.
The Law
The Law is supposed to be the governing body for a society of people to help protect and govern the people in this society so the people may live in a civilized, free environment without the worry that other people will use uncivil acts to infringe upon the people.
What happens is, people (whether religious or not religious) will look to the law to decide what is right or wrong. Or in other words, what is morally right or wrong. What should be the case is that people should use the law to decide if behavior is lawful or unlawful, not morally right or wrong.
Morality is a reference to sensing what is right vs what is wrong, behavior.
There are 2 general types of moral concepts.
1. Morality defined as an independent standard of right and wrong.
This means we look to the objective standard to evaluate behavior to decide whether it is right or wrong.
2. Morality is a relative sense of right and wrong.
This means we look at behavior on an case by case, individual, or social level, to determine what is right or wrong.
Religion
Religion is the source used by many individuals to discover what is right or wrong.
The Law
The Law is supposed to be the governing body for a society of people to help protect and govern the people in this society so the people may live in a civilized, free environment without the worry that other people will use uncivil acts to infringe upon the people.
What happens is, people (whether religious or not religious) will look to the law to decide what is right or wrong. Or in other words, what is morally right or wrong. What should be the case is that people should use the law to decide if behavior is lawful or unlawful, not morally right or wrong.
