Religious vs Secular Laws

Any law that is based on human rights is a religious law.



This is our founding document.

I consider our creator to be the physical earth and sun, is that your creator?

Truth is "self evident" and requires no holy book or judge to affirm its validity.

The earth and sun are evident.

also, equality is in a domain above a judge's jurisdiction.

Judges defend equality, they do not legislate it.

novus ordo seclorum

Everything you are saying is religion. You are stating that your idea of the "creator" has set forth some truths that are in a "domain above a judge's jurisdiction".

If secular laws went against equality... would you choose equality, or secular laws? I your answer is that you would choose "equality" then you are saying that laws should be based on your religion.

Equality is a right not a law.

So what Cobbler?

Are rights, like equality, something that you have because legislation gave it to you? Or are these rights something that comes from religion?

You seem to be arguing on both sides of this question. If you claim you have these rights even if you haven't been given them by a legislature... then you are making a claim to religious laws. Secular laws are made by legislatures.

I agree with you on this but Many argue that that the Declaration of Independence was just rhetoric by the founders to still up the people for war. I think they were men of honor who valued and fully believed the sentiments in it.

The Constitution was an attempt to codify those beliefs into law, hard as it is to do that.

I am not getting hung up on the creator part.

Any belief that humans have inalienable rights is a religious belief (whether there is a creator involved or not). There is not logical, rational or scientific reason to believe that humans have any rights.

In scientific terms that is 100% correct.

So what game are we playing when we expect government to be purely secular and still protect those 'rights'?

The term is "secular religion".

There is a set of beliefs that almost all members of the modern American society accept as absolute truths, even though there is no scientific or rational basis for them. We accept them (often without any thought) because they are part of the culture we have lived in since our birth.

In this way our modern secular belief in human rights is no different than any other religion of past societies.

So how do we justify excluding other religions from schools, government policies, etc. if we allow this one?

I am not sure if I understand the question Leadfoot. Are you asking how a culture with one religion justifies excluding other religions from government policies?

This seems like human nature, at least it is pretty common throughout history.

True that.
Just thanking you for pointing out this 800 pound contradiction in society.

I see this all through one concept, that Islam will not have a true idea of what the world wants, thinks, or believes until there is Freedom of Conscience. Most comments on here strongly religious or strongly anti- answered by that right.

To convince people and to respect their convictions is what the Biblical Faith is about and what the USA was founded upon. Our freedom originated in people fleeing the Old World so they could live and worship and think as their conscience demanded.

I simplify, but not much. After years that is my answer

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 General Assembly resolution 217(III) A as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Any law based on human rights is a religious statement whether by a believer or not. THINK. You are making a statement about you, the 'fact' in the world that you know immediately and best of all.

whether by a believer or not.

These are nonsense statements of yours

So then if you 'consider' you make no distinction between any thoughts you have, whether they go beyond considering to fact.

Are you aware that even children know that what is not self-evident can become so, like those puzzles where there is a face hidden and once you find the face you can't NOT see it, it becomes self-evident. You say the opposite, that we can only see what we see now.

Equality has to be in a judge's decision BECAUSE it is above all purely human views, incl the judge-as-person.

And the law recognizes many rights that it does not convey. Hence many of our God-given rights are in legislation, to make public note that they are recognized but not conveyed.

A sadly conceived and poorly-written post

The contrast is false. Both refer to a 3rd common source.
Is Murder a secular or a religious law ? BOTH ! Your setup is wholly wrong.

"Thou shalt not murder" is a secular law that has been usurped by religion in order to control the masses.

Nonsense Cobbler!

In the Stone Age and before, all laws were religious laws. Religious laws were around for thousands of years before the first secular laws were invented.

Thou shalt not steal" is also a secular law except in Sherwood Forest.