Loomio

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.

CE

Colin England Thu 27 Jul 2017 10:27PM

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.

You don't have to swear upon the bible. You can simply affirm

Our courts haven't been based around the bible for quite some time.

if it was a lie detector and could accurately determine the truth from a lie

I don't know of any lie detector that accurate.

IA

idiom axiom Sat 29 Jul 2017 3:13AM

Neutral counts as innocent. Even pretty guilty still counts as innocent until its definitely guilty.

JB

Jo Booth Fri 4 Aug 2017 11:57PM

How can you have law and order without a moral absolute? The very concept of laws and boundaries came from religion...

CE

Colin England Sat 5 Aug 2017 6:37AM

A very faulty basis for any laws.

Logic, on the other hand, can actually provide a fairly solid moral basis. It can, and does, point to how things should be. It's how philosophers try to determine a 'right' path.

JB

Jo Booth Sat 5 Aug 2017 12:55PM

Are you saying faith / religion is not logical?

CE

Colin England Sat 5 Aug 2017 10:15PM

It does seem to be more emotionally based than logically.

But what I'm really saying is that religion isn't a viable basis for laws as there's no consistency to its rules often resulting in contradiction.

MI

Mathew Innes Sun 6 Aug 2017 11:24AM

No its not logical. Its a man made product using your ego or voices in your head to justify your actions which is pathetic. If you believe in god you eliminate yourself from being worthy of anything in reality. If the internet party has a belief in a god its lost any credibility it had with me beforehand.

TH

Tane Harre Mon 7 Aug 2017 8:50AM

For anybody saying we have separation of Church and State, please watch the start of this. It is our Parliament.

CS

Colin Smith Mon 7 Aug 2017 9:48AM

@taneharre : I think some of that performance comes from being part of the rules that go with being a British Colony. If I recall correctly David Lange wanted to do away with the nonsense at the opening of parliament and he ended up being threatened with military action if he proceeded.

It is a hangover from Britain and is to do with the royalty allowing the people to run the country but they would have control over the armed forces. (An very historic stand off between royalty and the people in England).

It is intended to demonstrate that the monarchy have control over those that govern. Those that govern allow this to show they are loyal to the monarchy. So attempting to stop this happening is effectively giving the finger to the monarchy and undermine their authority.

Anyway:
All political decisions need to be based in science fact not science fiction.

It is improving:

I am old enough to recall the days when NZ literally shut down at the weekend especially Sunday. I can recall the disgust from tourist who arrived in NZ for only a few days to find the whole place closed. No tours, no open restaurants or bars - nothing. You made sure you picked up your crates of booze for the weekend and then loaded up at the bar for the 6 o'clock swill. Essential services were the only people who were allowed to work those days.

If I recall correctly they had just allowed cinemas to open on Saturdays when I arrived in NZ.

Easter trading is still the last bastion yet to fall.

TH

Tane Harre Mon 7 Aug 2017 10:07AM

Weirdly I fully support the closing down of the country on some random day (Sunday will do). Everybody gets to be off at the same time. Builds social cohesion I think.

The one that currently annoys me is the holiday system. If I am Christian it isn't too bad. If I am Muslim all my days of are on Christian days...same for everybody else. Why can't we just have an allotment of public holidays which you can decide on at the start of the year?

CE

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.

CE

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.

JB

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? 💜

CE

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.