An attack on secularism?

[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'.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

You are not addressing the issue here. When the system gives the judge leeway in determining a sentence, why is it not acceptable for him to be influenced by Biblical principles? You would say it would be OK for him to be influenced by any non-religious source of morality I expect. Why is a belief suddenly not OK when it involved God?

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

Scottish law was overhauled in the wake of our Reformation in 1560. The biggest single influence came from the Dutch, since we had close commercial and religious ties with them (with them being another Calvinist country). And as I said earlier, we developed the idea of the 'two kingdoms' church/state model, and commisary courts were implemented to replace the old canon law used through church courts, and bring the law into line with Protestant principles.

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.

Scots law doesn't come from Germanic law, most legal influence was from Gaelic Ireland, since the first kings of Scotland were descended from the Irish settlers of Dal Riata on the west coast. It was only after David I invited the Norman nobles in from 1124 that Germanic law had any influence. Irish law tracts do have pagan roots, but there was also a lot of Christian influence from a pretty early date compared to the rest of western Europe.

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'.

Well in the God Delusion Dawkins argued that our 'morality' has an evolutionary purpose, I thought a lot of atheists would buy into that.

As for the judge, as I said the law just determines the nature of the conviction, the judge himself is given leeway in the sentencing, and the system places trust in his own morality to deliver a fair sentence. Why is secular humanist morality OK, but Biblical morality not? Secularism means the institutionalised separation of church and state, not state-enforced atheism.

[The Celtic Viking]

You are not addressing the issue here. When the system gives the judge leeway in determining a sentence, why is it not acceptable for him to be influenced by Biblical principles? You would say it would be OK for him to be influenced by any non-religious source of morality I expect. Why is a belief suddenly not OK when it involved God?

Because then it would be religious - ergo, in direct conflict with secularism. You do know what secularism is, don't you?

Scottish law was overhauled in the wake of our Reformation in 1560. The biggest single influence came from the Dutch, since we had close commercial and religious ties with them (with them being another Calvinist country). And as I said earlier, we developed the idea of the 'two kingdoms' church/state model, and commisary courts were implemented to replace the old canon law used through church courts, and bring the law into line with Protestant principles.

Is this supposed to be an argument for why biblical morality has had "a significant influence on western law"?

Well in the God Delusion Dawkins argued that our 'morality' has an evolutionary purpose, I thought a lot of atheists would buy into that.

"Buy into"? Really? Sounds like you think it's not true. Tell me, which tribe do you think would fare best, all else equal: one that thought killing each other was okay, or one that thought it was not okay? Hint: humans as a social species have always (and especially when living in smaller tribes) depended upon each other for survival.

Why is secular humanist morality OK, but Biblical morality not? Secularism means the institutionalised separation of church and state, not state-enforced atheism.

Wow. Just... wow. State-enforced atheism would be if the state tried to stop the people from believing in any god. That is not the same thing as not allowing religious people to force their religious values onto other people. Sheez.

[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.