TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Should a religious basis be reason for dismissal of a law by high courts in secular countries?

Should high courts in secular countries, such as the US supreme court dismiss clearly religiously based laws, such as the "Defense Of Marriage Act" (which forces Abrahamic views of marriage on government institutions and regulations) since such laws effectively turn purely religious views into secular law since the secular constitutions of secular nations advocate against theocracy?

I would answer "yes" to this question but am interested in potential backfiring of such a rule if people can come up with this. So debate away...

P.S. I know there are people who reject secular government altogether, this debate is not for them. The starting point of this discussion is that secular constitutions exist and are accepted by a majority of the population as well as supported by various ethical and logical arguments.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 5 2013: The laws only strength comes from being blind. It should not care about your colour, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation in rendering a summary
    Likewise the law itself is based on statements like the constitution (or the Magn Carta or what have you) that is a "vision statement" of the concepts and principles the society is based on.
    Law comes from these documents or is measured against these documents and accepted or rejected based on its own merit.
    Therefore you should not reject a law outright because of its origins, nor should you accept it outright because of it origins.
    If a law that has a religious origin but is a good law then it should be enacted.
    If it has a relgiious origin but excludes, biases a recognizable group or inhibits some freedom that would be otherwise allowed then it should be struck down.
    I believe the defense of marriage act is a gigantic piece of shit that needs to be burnt.
    • Jan 6 2013: "If a law that has a religious origin but is a good law then it should be enacted.
      If it has a relgiious origin but excludes, biases a recognizable group or inhibits some freedom that would be otherwise allowed then it should be struck down."

      I agree, but my idea was about laws that are entirely grounded in religion, if they were "good" laws for secular reasons as well then they would not be entirely grounded in religion. Maybe what I wrote wasn't clear but the idea was that a law could be dismissed if there were no secular arguments for it. Laws that have both religious and secular arguments for them don't have to be dismissed.
      • Jan 6 2013: Yes. That is what I was implying. A law that is entirely ground in religion should, in a secular society, not even be considered, whereas one that has some secular arguments, reworked until it removes the religious biases out of it and only the secular parts remain.
        • Jan 7 2013: Right, so do you agree that a law being entirely grounded in religion should itself be a reason for dismissal of that law by a high court?
      • Jan 7 2013: Yes. In a secular society, religious law has no place.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.