(December 21, 2018 at 6:25 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(December 21, 2018 at 5:58 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: This is getting silly. There is no sensible distinction between what Jim and John are doing. If there were - under your petty usage - it would be impossible for anyone to 'follow' the law.
Boru
Laws based on religion are called theocracy. That is the difference.
Laws based on common interests can be agreed upon regardless of personal bias.
If the law is the agreed speed limit on a given highway is 55mph and a Jew and Muslim and Christian and Atheist all come to that same conclusion, then the "law" is common. You don't need to "practice" going 55mph, and base that on a old book. You either do or you don't stay under the posted speed limit.
No, laws based on religion are not called theocracy. A government in which a religious body is the source of authority is a theocracy, but that's not the point. One can be a lawyer in a theocratic society. This, in fact, pretty much destroys your argument. If John does what he does in a theocracy, he's still 'practicing' law, not 'following religion'.
It's pretty naïve to think that secular laws are agreed upon regardless of personal bias.
You really should look up the following words: Practice, follow, theocracy, law, religion.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
