geep

Successful religions might be Christianity, Islam and Hinduism (ranked by size according to Adherents.com). Examples of religions without well defined moral codes would be Unitarians (who avoid "dogma"), Paganism (accentuating ritualism over pragmatics) or most types of polytheism. I agree that the purpose of laws is societal self preservation. In my original post on this thread, I stated "Some of us out there would actually LIKE to see morality make a comeback in our "legal" system." Your response was "Equating Christianity with morality is the major flaw in your thinking." If laws and morals promote societal and/or self preservation and morals are learned from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to religion, then discussing morality without religion seems to deny full hearing of the subject. If George Bush derives his morals strictly from his religion, and I derive my morals from my parents and have no religion, then by removing religion from the discussion I have removed the validation of his morals, yet kept mine intact. If morals are a personal function which lend their similarities to society and cannot be judged to be correct, then his source of validation could also not be determined as correct or incorrect. I believe that religion does belong in a discussion of morals, but I agree that religion does not equal morals. If society is to be preserved then morals and laws are the vehicles for this preservation. I believe religion (not just Christianity) has endured partly because it had something to offer to the discussion of morals, but it does NOT monopolize the subject. Should we remove religion from our moral discussion of what we regard legally as right or wrong? Could we and still address these situations fully and honestly? Is tolerance (on either side of the religious issue- Pro or Con) more the question than morals themselves?