I disagree. Religion has two components to it: moral law and ritual. You can have morality absent ritual. Our great US Constitution is one example. These are called Universal Moral Laws, which is something that Immanuel Kant explored. In fact, libertarianism (or paleo-conservationism) is closely aligned with UML. "The Law", written by Frédéric Bastiat, attempts to merge the legal and philosophical of Universal Moral Law, and had a great impact on Western thinking in the 19th century.
First, I never took a position on the existing of God. Let's just get that out of the way. :)
Second, morality is nothing more than a code of conduct. Religions have their code, online forums have their code, and societies as-a-whole have their code (laws). They can exists absent a religion. In fact, for a society to progress toward true freedom and individualism, laws must be universal in-so-much as they define a common code of conduct that maximizes individual liberty and punish encroachments on another person's freedom/life/property. Otherwise, you end up with Salem Witch Trials. These laws are based on common mores. The problem arises when laws are no longer Universal Morality. You end up Climate Change laws, anti-Big Gulp, Sharia Law, etc.
Each person has their own set of moral values, but Universal Morals are the only ones that should become law. How does that happen? Smart people like our Founding Father wrote a legal framework that creates a representative republic, which does it's best to restrain non-universal morals from becoming law, and a the Constitution and SCOTUS does it's best to ensure we adhere to maximum individual liberty. Is it perfect? No. Nothing is. But, open discussion and free speech allows bad ideas to be confronted by good ideas, and reasonable people tend to push toward reasonable laws.
EDIT: Thank you for asking these questions!!!!
Let's take the Ten Commandments, as an example, and using the Non-Aggression Principle (do no harm to others).
| Commandment | Universal | Reason |
| ------ | ------- | ------- |
| Thou shalt have no other gods before me | NO | |
| Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image | NO | |
| Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain | NO | |
| Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy | NO | Violates one's right to not observe. Forced association. |
| Honour thy father and thy mother | NO | |
| Thou shalt not murder | YES | Murder violates one's right to life. |
| Thou shalt not commit adultery | MAYBE | If marriages are a legal construct, then a marriage is a contract, and an adulterer may be in violation of that contract. If, however, marriage is a religious construct (which it should be), then no because it's a religious ritual. |
| Thou shalt not steal | YES | Theft is a violation of another person's right to property |
| Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour | YES | Fraud |
| Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's house/wife/slaves) | MAYBE | As far as property, YES, but when speaking about wife/slaves/etc, then NO because individualism prohibits one person from owning another |
But, if you think about, you prove my point. The "shared concept of God," as you put it, is a bunch of individuals with individual moral values, coming together and agreeing on a set or values/laws to guide their life. Laws of society is just an expanded version of that, promoting those morals that are acceptable to a larger audience.
The rules of religion don't make you a moral person. The rules of religion exist because they where the values of people BEFORE the rules were written. The moral laws are a result of moral people, not the other way around. Moral people created moral law (obviously, the moral people had to come together and agree on a set of moral laws, hence the laws/rules came second); moral law didn't create moral people. This just proves my point that morality exists OUTSIDE of religion. If fact, religion wouldn't exist without there first being moral people.
I disagree. Religion has two components to it: moral law and ritual. You can have morality absent ritual. Our great US Constitution is one example. These are called Universal Moral Laws, which is something that Immanuel Kant explored. In fact, libertarianism (or paleo-conservationism) is closely aligned with UML. "The Law", written by Frédéric Bastiat, attempts to merge the legal and philosophical of Universal Moral Law, and had a great impact on Western thinking in the 19th century.
First, I never took a position on the existing of God. Let's just get that out of the way. :)
Second, morality is nothing more than a code of conduct. Religions have their code, online forums have their code, and societies as-a-whole have their code (laws). They can exists absent a religion. In fact, for a society to progress toward true freedom and individualism, laws must be universal in-so-much as they define a common code of conduct that maximizes individual liberty and punish encroachments on another person's freedom/life/property. Otherwise, you end up with Salem Witch Trials. These laws are based on common mores. The problem arises when laws are no longer Universal Morality. You end up Climate Change laws, anti-Big Gulp, Sharia Law, etc.
Each person has their own set of moral values, but Universal Morals are the only ones that should become law. How does that happen? Smart people like our Founding Father wrote a legal framework that creates a representative republic, which does it's best to restrain non-universal morals from becoming law, and a the Constitution and SCOTUS does it's best to ensure we adhere to maximum individual liberty. Is it perfect? No. Nothing is. But, open discussion and free speech allows bad ideas to be confronted by good ideas, and reasonable people tend to push toward reasonable laws.
EDIT: Thank you for asking these questions!!!!
Let's take the Ten Commandments, as an example, and using the Non-Aggression Principle (do no harm to others).
| Commandment | Universal | Reason | | ------ | ------- | ------- | | Thou shalt have no other gods before me | NO | | | Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image | NO | | | Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain | NO | | | Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy | NO | Violates one's right to not observe. Forced association. | | Honour thy father and thy mother | NO | | | Thou shalt not murder | YES | Murder violates one's right to life. | | Thou shalt not commit adultery | MAYBE | If marriages are a legal construct, then a marriage is a contract, and an adulterer may be in violation of that contract. If, however, marriage is a religious construct (which it should be), then no because it's a religious ritual. | | Thou shalt not steal | YES | Theft is a violation of another person's right to property | | Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour | YES | Fraud | | Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's house/wife/slaves) | MAYBE | As far as property, YES, but when speaking about wife/slaves/etc, then NO because individualism prohibits one person from owning another |
Non-Aggression Principle.
But, if you think about, you prove my point. The "shared concept of God," as you put it, is a bunch of individuals with individual moral values, coming together and agreeing on a set or values/laws to guide their life. Laws of society is just an expanded version of that, promoting those morals that are acceptable to a larger audience.
The rules of religion don't make you a moral person. The rules of religion exist because they where the values of people BEFORE the rules were written. The moral laws are a result of moral people, not the other way around. Moral people created moral law (obviously, the moral people had to come together and agree on a set of moral laws, hence the laws/rules came second); moral law didn't create moral people. This just proves my point that morality exists OUTSIDE of religion. If fact, religion wouldn't exist without there first being moral people.