An attack on secularism?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I got linked to this interesting story through the BBC.

To sum it up, one of the top figures in the Scots law system has got a campaign underway to distribute Bibles to various figures in the law system, with leafelts encouraging them to let Christian values influence their decisions. The guy who came up with this idea is himself a former elder of the Free Presbyterian Church, a very (very) hardline Calvinist, Pope-is-the-antichrist type of Protestant (the best kind ).

As a very secular person myself*, I think I will need to hear more of the details before I can come to a conclusion on whether or not this move is acceptable according to secular principles.

On the one hand, if the Bibles are just going to be free for anyone to use at their own discretion, and are not being distributed by a state-run/influenced organisation, this is completely fine with my idea of secularism, which is simply the institutionalised separation of church and state (as opposed to making every individual person separate their faith from their politics, that was never what secularism was about IMO, but this can be discussed).

On the other hand, the part involving the relation of Biblical law in the coronation oath to the judges is clearly very un-secular, although this issue existed before the Bibles were being distributed.

Anyway, my main question is this... Do you think that it is acceptable for Biblical principles to be used by judges or juries in the legal system, according to secular principles?

Should people be free to draw their morality from whatever source they wish, be it religious or otherwise, and allow this to interfere with their temporal business?

Or is this just a Christian form of Sharia Law?

Thoughts.

*and, as a side note, gets very upset when secularism is contrasted with religiosity, as if the two are somehow opposites

[jabarto]

I don't see this as breach of secularism, strictly speaking, but I sure as hell don't like it. The Bible is not the source for any legal system I'm aware of, and I hate it when people claim that it is. Also, while the whole wichhunt thing is probably an exaggeration, I can't see much good coming from this. Christians aren't the most tolerant people I've ever encountered and I imagine that would show in the legislature if this gets taken too seriously.

[Beskar]

encouraging them to let Christian values influence their decisions.

That is an attack on secularism. Keep that religion out of that court-room.

Also, judges are supposed to be above themselves, as arbitrators of the law. It is not their place to dictate the law as they wish, they merely enforce it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

So the Bible is the new Reader's Digest, then? Anyway, it depends on how the campaign is run. I mean if the Arch-Protestant is doing this in his official capacity, then time to suspend or at least discipline him. If he is doing this as a private expression of his opinion then that is okay, if somewhat awkward for those who are on the receiving end. Because in either case the proper thing to do for those receiving these bibles is to refuse them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That is an attack on secularism. Keep that religion out of that court-room.

Also, judges are supposed to be above themselves, as arbitrators of the law. It is not their place to dictate the law as they wish, they merely enforce it.

Isn't the law is only used to determine the nature of the conviction, while the judges set the sentence themselves?

In which case, we are leaving the sentencing to the personal convictions of the judge. It is only natural that their own morality will determine the harshness/leniency in certain situations. Why it is any less appropriate for a judge to draw his morality from the Bible, as opposed to other concepts of morality (say the Darwinian evolutionary view on it etc)?

So the Bible is the new Reader's Digest, then? Anyway, it depends on how the campaign is run. I mean if the Arch-Protestant is doing this in his official capacity, then time to suspend or at least discipline him. If he is doing this as a private expression of his opinion then that is okay, if somewhat awkward for those who are on the receiving end. Because in either case the proper thing to do for those receiving these bibles is to refuse them.

He is doing it as the leader of the Scottish Bible Society, so not in his official capacity. Although he appears to argue that the Bible provides the root of Scots Law, and in doing so suggests Protestant principles are institutionalised into the legal system, which would certainly not be secular. So I suppose the action itself is OK in terms of its secularity, but the motive isn't.

Although bear in mind he may well be right from a legal point of view, the Scottish legal system developed alongside the idea of the 'two kingdoms', which is not really secularism or a theocracy. It makes the church and state separate but equal, each with institutionalised powers in their own sphere. England isn't secular either though, it just uses the Erastian model, where the church is subordinate to the state.

While this all sounds a bit crazy in the 21st century, this guy is no fringe figure. He is one of the top figures on the Scots law scene, and the Queen herself is the patron of the organisation that is distributing these Bibles.

[ajaxfetish]

as opposed to other concepts of morality (say the Darwinian evolutionary view on it etc)?

Is there really a Darwinian evolutionary view on morality? What is it? I'd imagine if one were to look for a secular alternative to religion for morality, the place to look would be philosophy (specifically ethics) rather than biology.

Ajax

[Beskar]

In which case, we are leaving the sentencing to the personal convictions of the judge. It is only natural that their own morality will determine the harshness/leniency in certain situations. Why it is any less appropriate for a judge to draw his morality from the Bible, as opposed to other concepts of morality (say the Darwinian evolutionary view on it etc)?

Well, there is no morality in the 'Darwinian Evolutionary' view as it is nothing at all to do about morality, it is about evolution of the species, not magic man making things appear out of thin air.

Secular Humanism is pretty much the 'moral code' that all should aspire to and those in scientific and intellectual circles adhere to, which those in religious and those not in a religious can understand and follow its tenets.

Even then, Judge doesn't use his personal convictions in law, he uses the convictions of the land, as depicted by our system of 'common law'.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't see this as breach of secularism, strictly speaking, but I sure as hell don't like it. The Bible is not the source for any legal system I'm aware of, and I hate it when people claim that it is.

Prima facie, I disagree and would suggest that the Bible (and the judeo-christian morality it embodies) have had a significant influence on Western Law. How do you disprove that claim?

[jabarto]

Prima facie, I disagree and would suggest that the Bible (and the judeo-christian morality it embodies) have had a significant influence on Western Law. How do you disprove that claim?

Because Western law is derived from Germanic law, not the Bible. That's a bit of an overimplification, of course, but the point remains that our legal system has far more to do with naked face-painted barbarians than it ever did with the Bible.

[Beskar]

You forget Roman Law, which was originally pagan, before the Christian part was added to it. (and argubly, dressed Christianity up in Pagan colours)

The whole integration of Religion happened since/due to the "Great Awakening", before that, there wasn't this focus.

[rory_20_uk]

If it follows Scottish law, it is irrelevant if it happens to follow the Bible / Koran / Daily Mail. You can probably find something in the Bible to support almost anything be it gay bashing, depriving women of most of their rights or even the slaughter of minorities. Just read the right bits and add "interpretation".


BTW, which Bible are they using? There are so many, and all different to each other.

[The Celtic Viking]

Do you think that it is acceptable for Biblical principles to be used by judges or juries in the legal system, according to secular principles?

Do you really need to ask whether a theocratic principle is in line with secular principles or not?

Prima facie, I disagree and would suggest that the Bible (and the judeo-christian morality it embodies) have had a significant influence on Western Law. How do you disprove that claim?

Well, it isn't up to us to disprove that claim: it is up to you to prove it. So, go ahead: prove it.