Secular law supercedes religious law…and that is based on the concept of measurable harm. This is the concept that you cannot inflict measurable harm on another person against their will
That’s a bold claim that it’s based on that concept, when there were and are plenty of laws that caused harm, and some of them are conspicuously based on Christian norms.
For example, both federal and twenty-six states’ law prohibit cannabis for recreational use while allowing alcohol. Some states prohibit abortion even in the case of danger to the mother. How was that harm measured?
Besides, why do you think that religious laws aren’t based on a belief in their moral utilitarianism? Just like modern laws don’t work on purely libertarian terms where one can’t limit another in any way except for self-defense, religious prescriptions also followed a perceived common good.
It feels like you’re trying to make the argument that if a system is somehow corruptible, then there should be no system at all. Is that how you view this?
Some states prohibit abortion even in the case of danger to the mother. How was that harm measured?
That’s not harm measured and therefore is a bad law. Just as your example of “then law should allow Muslims to kill just not to be a Christian-based law”.
Basically, laws should be entirely based on science and reason, two things that are the opposite of any and all religions.
That’s a bold claim that it’s based on that concept, when there were and are plenty of laws that caused harm, and some of them are conspicuously based on Christian norms.
For example, both federal and twenty-six states’ law prohibit cannabis for recreational use while allowing alcohol. Some states prohibit abortion even in the case of danger to the mother. How was that harm measured?
Besides, why do you think that religious laws aren’t based on a belief in their moral utilitarianism? Just like modern laws don’t work on purely libertarian terms where one can’t limit another in any way except for self-defense, religious prescriptions also followed a perceived common good.
It feels like you’re trying to make the argument that if a system is somehow corruptible, then there should be no system at all. Is that how you view this?
You’re mixing apples with pears there…
That’s not harm measured and therefore is a bad law. Just as your example of “then law should allow Muslims to kill just not to be a Christian-based law”. Basically, laws should be entirely based on science and reason, two things that are the opposite of any and all religions.