Religion Free Governance - Neutral New Zealand

MI Mathew Innes Public Seen by 428

Could we please find a method that removes religion from Law and Order and any governance that would give any bias towards those whom believe in something and can or could discriminate against others whom do not hold the same beliefs. It must remain neutral. I do not believe that placing your hand on a bible in court gives any reassurance to the public that that person will or will not tell the truth under oath. if it was a lie detector and could accurately determine the truth from a lie, perhaps that would be a better option than having faith in peoples statements.

There would also be a need to include a Neutral position. Innocent, Guilty or "Neutral." not every party involved or present can be labeled by just negative or positive.


Colin England Mon 7 Aug 2017 11:15PM

I am old enough to recall the days when NZ literally shut down at the weekend especially Sunday.

I recall some of that as well. It was a little extreme but I've since come to the conclusion that we need such 'closures' to help re-build our community. Not as extreme as it was but simply a time period when we can all take a break. Matariki would probably be a good time for it. Say a week long holiday where everyone has to take at least 4 consecutive days off.


Colin England Mon 7 Aug 2017 11:17PM

I'd go for the cancellation of all religious holidays and then say that everyone has 12 days every year for religious observances to be taken on agreed dates.


Jo Booth Thu 10 Aug 2017 6:48PM

I tend to agree on removing religion from observances - but run out of coherent alternatives when I try to build a morality or respect for authority based on emotions and feelings. Without an absolute, the rules don't matter, law doesn't matter.. it's just a point of view.

I might start my logic from a different base point- a transcendent authority - but it doesn't mean it's conclusions aren't as valid as others that follow reason.

So yes, I do see a place for reference to a higher authority when we are called to tell the truth - be that a bible or your mothers life or something else - there needs to be some universal common reference point outside our realtisvism, otherwise why should we tell the truth? 💜


Colin England Thu 10 Aug 2017 11:42PM

Without an absolute, the rules don't matter, law doesn't matter.. it's just a point of view.

Wrong. It's actually a matter of survival for our entire community.

Keeping the playing field level was a matter of survival. These small-scale, nomadic foraging groups didn’t stock up much surplus food, and given the high-risk nature of hunting – the fact that on any given day or week you may come back empty-handed – sharing and cooperation were required to ensure everyone got enough to eat. Anyone who made a bid for higher status or attempted to take more than their share would be ridiculed or ostracised for their audacity. Suppressing our primate ancestors’ dominance hierarchies by enforcing these egalitarian norms was a central adaptation of human evolution, argues social anthropologist Christopher Boehm. It enhanced cooperation and lowered risk as small, isolated bands of humans spread into new habitats and regions across the world, and was likely crucial to our survival and success.

Without some rules and consequences defining acceptable behaviour then our community collapses.

We don't need a higher authority to define that - logic can do it quite well and it's a logic that everyone can follow and agree with.

We do have to define the logic though but philosophers have been working on it for awhile.