jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (12 posts)

Constitution or religious scripture

  1. supremeupbeat k profile image68
    supremeupbeat kposted 22 months ago

    Constitution or religious scripture

    What is more preferable for a citizen; the constitution his/her country or a religious scripture? I personally think the constitution of my country is more significant. 'Necessity is the mother of invention'. Once we needed a legal book that could control the chaos of society and made a balance. Thus religion came in fray. Now constitution is a need of today. It plays a vital role controlling a society like a religious scripture did early. Civilization advances and need changes. Good things in religion need to be retained while bad things need to be replaced by benevolent substitutes.

  2. bradmasterOCcal profile image31
    bradmasterOCcalposted 22 months ago

    Both the constitution and religion have the goal of reigning in the people to make them as good as they can be. Government and God control people. The government controls them with rules, and laws to keep them in line or go to jail. Religion is the long term control of people by saying they will go to Hell if they don't follow their God.

    Both of these mechanisms are created by humans, and humans have good and bad attributes. They change the rules of gov and religion to suit themselves.

    1. supremeupbeat k profile image68
      supremeupbeat kposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      yes, do you think a religion should be a static law?

    2. bradmasterOCcal profile image31
      bradmasterOCcalposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      No, religion should not be any law, that is why we have government.

    3. supremeupbeat k profile image68
      supremeupbeat kposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Moral law?

  3. Link10103 profile image75
    Link10103posted 22 months ago

    Constitution, or whatever would be the equivalent in other countries. Though you will have people argue that the laws of their country are based on their holy books. If that's the case, it doesn't make sense that separate laws exist, but I digress.

    Holy books rarely ever seem to be open for change. Since it's clear they don't get things right the first time, that's not a good trait to have in changing societies.

    1. supremeupbeat k profile image68
      supremeupbeat kposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      yes, there should be a provision to change absurdities in religion. With the flow of time, these need to be changed.

  4. Ericdierker profile image58
    Ericdierkerposted 22 months ago

    Interesting that the question makes it an either or concept. It seems to me that most countries have both. And in free countries there are variations of the religious scripture. This goes to the heart of what many have trouble relating to for different reasons. There in facts exists an ethereal spiritual realm that we experience. It is not quantitative or empirical and many just cannot accept that it exists.
    Constitutions deal with the concrete notions of Justice and rights and freedoms and powers. (strange to call those concrete but they are compared to the spiritual realm)
    So I do not believe there is an either or in a healthy society. There are both. When they compete for governance in a particular area of our lives then they are being misapplied. And that is very unhealthy.
    We could see the question properly applied to a given area. For instance what governs when dealing with abortion? Well the answer is that one governs our conscience and the other governs our conduct in society. What is permissible in one is not necessarily permissible in the other. If there is a conflict one can follow their conscience or the law, and both have benefits and consequences built in.
    Actually we very seldom have conscientious objectors to the law. Sure they make the news or are great for argument setting, but at least in this country they very very rarely happen and then usually things change a bit in both realms. Sometimes slowly.

    1. supremeupbeat k profile image68
      supremeupbeat kposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Spiritually legal answer and legally spiritual reply it is. Very good and positive thinking.

  5. Rich kelley profile image59
    Rich kelleyposted 22 months ago

    The chicken or the egg. Which came first? The constitution made by men that cling to their bibles and guns? The constitution made then men with bibles and guns change it to mean what they want? Those with government guns take away the bibles and guns so what they want the constitution to say prevails?

    Depending on the time in history and which side/sides you are in favor of one tends to support their belief of the constitution or their religion.

    In America, 'I' see the religion fading. Although the numbers claim to be high as far as percentage of 'religious', their actions are no different than those that don't believe. The ever breathing living document (the constitution) is evolving to suit the needs of the people that are being changed.

    Opposition is that the constitution is not living and breathing and means what it meant years ago. This idea seems to be loosing ground, in favor of those that want change to suit their belief, religious or not.

    Case and point, I see religious politicians violating the religion they boast about to get elected more and more each day. I see power and position of authority superseding their supposed religious beliefs. But just my perspective.

    On the other foot I see the non-religious doing the same thing with their supposed positions in life to maintain the same power and positions.

  6. manatita44 profile image83
    manatita44posted 22 months ago

    When I was a child, people were talking about God and when I grew up people were still talking and arguing about the God of millennia. Religion is the study of the innate nature of man; of the Soul and it's mysteries.

    You will find that Jefferson and Lincoln and many others were influenced by this. Any Constitution must needs be a set of principles or ideals which is inherent in man. We like them for the same reason that we like Christ; or a baby or a Seer. They speak of something which is inherently beautiful or Divine; the goodness of man and a way to live his life in a better or moral way. We feel an inner need for this.

    Why do we want this? What is the meaning of life? You will find that it is always an inner answer. First the seed is sowed and planted, then the harvest comes, not the other way around. Much Love.

  7. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 22 months ago

    There must be a separation between religious institutions and the state for a stable society.
    When a sin is a crime, religious authorities gain unacceptable political power to kill people they don't like by calling them apostates.
    When a crime is a sin, you risk people losing their private lives/families/social circle for questioning immoral authorities and oppressive social pressure to obey mandates.
    And you get insanity such as atheists hacked to death in Pakistan while the police do nothing per Islamic law, Hindu teachers in Bangladesh sent to jail for teaching Hindu students about Hinduism, all so secular leaders feel more secure by saying all their actions are unquestionable because it is in service to Allah/God.