Divine Law Versus Government According to philosophers, there are four types of law that guide morality and behavior for humans. Eternal, divine, natural and civil laws all contribute to the quality of life for mankind, but these laws often get confused with each other. This paper will examine two instances of a clash between the civil laws of government and divine laws of religious conviction. Human beings have always inherently known the difference between good and evil. Natural law is universal and known to everyone. Natural laws have helped mankind refine this knowledge into morals or rules that ensured survival for humans (Natural). Eternal law is what keeps the universe in order. An example of eternal law is the law of gravity or relativity. Divine law on the other hand, is that which comes from the will of God and is closely associated with both natural and eternal law. The human phenomena of conscience and the instinctive concepts of respect and consideration are only a few of the positive qualities that have helped shape complex cultures with all the many different belief systems throughout the world. Every different society in the world has different laws and rules that guide the behavior of their members. A good example of the diversity seen in the world is the practice of covering one's head to show humility for Muslims and the abstaining from alcohol and tobacco for Mormons. Systems of government were developed to oversee laws enacted to help keep order for a stable society. Most people find comfort in the laws that govern them, but sometimes civil laws created by men appear to infringe upon the divine rights of citizens. The Greek Drama, “Antigone” is the story ... ... middle of paper ... ...gion in public, but unacceptable to try and convert others. When a government intervenes in a volatile issue, there are bound to be mistakes. There is no way for the government to please everyone and there will always be something that divides public opinion, whether it is religion, politics or even economics. Antigone and Roy Costner IV both felt their religious beliefs should take precedence over the law and they did what they felt was right. Respect for the religious freedom of every citizen demands that everyone has a level playing field. The edict of King Creon and the United States government’s involvement in the issue of prayer and public schools were both done for the greater good. In neither case was there an easy answer. Antigone and Roy Costner were compelled to act and they accepted the consequences of their actions.
When it came down to the government during the convention of May 1776, instead of protecting our rights they had passed them down causing us to be under common law. If one had denied the Christian faith and went against everything it believed in, such as, “there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military,” (Jefferson 176). This is what most people had thought about if you did not follow their religion. Thomas Jefferson believed that the wall between church and state should be very high in order to keep out and prevent hostile situations. Using an example from today’s news, many people get uncomfortable in the United Stated with the Muslim religion because of the previous horrific events that led to many cruel deaths in our history. By this, the way that we look at these people is forever changed because of the incidents and who knows if we will ever not be hostile with one another because of it. If church and state hadn’t been separated we may have not become a true democracy from what our developing country was seeming to lead towards. More people would not be as accepting of each other, and not that they are still not today, but I feel as if it may
With sounds of youthful laughter, conversations about the students’ weekends, and the shuffling of college ruled paper; students file into their classrooms and find their seats on a typical Monday morning. As the announcements travel throughout the school’s intercoms, the usual “Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance” becomes no longer usual but rather puzzling to some students. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.” Confusion passes through some of the student’s minds. With the reoccurrence of “God” in the backdrop of American life, the relationship between church and state has become of little to no matter for American citizens just as it has with American students. While congress makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, the term “freedom of religion” presents itself to no longer be the definition of “free”, while also having its effects on debates today. According to Burt Rieff, in Conflicting Rights and Religious Liberty, “Parents, school officials, politicians, and religious leaders entered the battle over defining the relationship between church and state, transforming constitutional issues into political, religious, and cultural debates” (Rieff). Throughout the 20th century, many have forgotten the meaning of religion and what its effects are on the people of today. With the nonconformist society in today’s culture, religion has placed itself in a category of insignificance. With the many controversies of the world, religion is at a stand still, and is proven to not be as important as it was in the past. Though the United States government is based on separation of church and state, the gover...
In 1789, the First Amendment established that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This meant the Federal and State Governments could not be partial or show support for any certain denomination or religious organization. However, throughout the history of the United States the controversial question over the relationship between church and state has always been called into question in establishing a one religion government. The main focus of the inquiry is to decide whether to keep the establishment clause or to tear it down and move towards a theocratic system. One side of the debate is the group against the separation of Church and State, who believe that if America was a more religious nation that it would become more moral as well as bring everyone in agreement with national decision making. Therefore the belief is that the United State would become more unified in an already corrupt system. On the other hand, the side for separation argues that the distance between established religion and national government is inherently necessary to keep maintain: religious tolerance, prevent biases, and prejudices, along with any sort of religious freedom in country that has thousands of different organized religions.
The men who founded the legislature of our country had seen first hand the difficulties that church and state partnerships could create in Europe. The consequences of this partnership are the main reason a secular government was created in the United States. During the colonial period, alliances between religion and government produced oppression and tyranny on our own shores. Many colonies, for example, had laws limiting public office positions to Trinitarian Protestants. While some colonies had officially established churches and taxed all citizens to support them. Dissenters faced many obstacles of persecution.
To understand what the Framer’s of the Constitution thought was an appropriate relationship between a government and a religious institution, we first should look at their own writings and speeches to understand what their belief on this issue had been. It is true that like most issues brought to the table at the Constitutional Convention, the issue of the religion in government had been a thoroughly argued topic among the Framers.
Throughout human history, the topic of theology has been a central aspect of everyday life. A common denominator of all modern-day religions is that they provide a set of rules which one is to follow in order to live as a good, moral being. When a deity (or a group of deities) commands followers to abide by specific moral standards though a vehicle such as prophets, religious texts or otherwise, this is called Divine Command Theory (DCT). Those who accept this theory believe that moral action coincides with what has been ordered by the deities, and immoral action would occur when one deviates from these orders. Despite this theory remaining relevant into the twenty-first century, it has still yet to solve one age-old dilemma. The Euthyphro Argument has stumped philosophers for years, but some Divine Command theorists believe they can overcome the massive obstacles it presents. In this paper, I will argue that it is impossible for one to resolve the Euthyphro Argument no matter how it is approached, and that the challenges it presents to DCT are insurmountable. To begin, I will first introduce the Euthyphro Argument and its two horns. Following this, I will summarize the best response a Divine Command theorist could possibly hold for the first horn of the Euthyphro Argument, and subsequently render it untrue. I will then repeat this process for the second horn of the dilemma. Once both of the original claims have proven to be unshakable, I will address the common attempt by Divine Command theorists to work around the issue by claiming it is not in fact a dilemma at all.
To all humans, the most important and influential thing is arguably your own morals. It decides the things you do, the things you say, and controls your overall desires and goals. Morals come from many places, such as nature versus nurture. Many of your morals come from your parents, be it because you learned what they taught, good or bad, or dislike what they taught so you chose the opposite, the rest is already consciously and basically instinctual. This is a very simple way to explain something very complex. In Appendix A, George Washington’s “Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation” there is a list of basic morals and behaviors that he believes everyone should be aware of and it is a very interesting read, especially if some of them you may have never considered. While the list can be outdated at times because of the progression of society and culture, a lot of these rules are still very important. In appendix B, there are a list of ‘cognitive bias’ or things that happen subconsciously that effect the way we view things or act. These two sets of information offer a very interesting perspective, especially when applied to each other. From these lists, I have picked a total of 15 rules that I believe to be the most important in becoming a self-aware individual who is
Dierenfield, B. J. (2007, April). The Battle over School Prayer. Retrieved March 12, 2011, from www.kansaspress.ku.edu: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/diebat.html
Natural law is a natural sense of what is right and wrong. Natural Law Theory states that laws are rational standards. Thomas Aquinas talked a lot about Natural Law Theory
For many years now, people have always wondered what ethical principle is the right one to follow. These individuals are all seeking the answer to the question that the ethical principles are trying to clarify: What defines moral behavior? The Divine Command Theory and the theories of cultural relativism are two principles of many out there that provide us with explanations on what our ethical decisions are based on and what we consider to be our moral compass in life. Even though these two theories make well-supported arguments on why they are the right principle to follow, it is hard to pinpoint which one should guide our choices because of the wide array of ethical systems. Therefore, what is morally right or wrong differs greatly depending
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Religious texts have been one of the main sources for laws and social customs since the conception of organized religion. Each religious text provides its followers with a code of conduct they are expected to apply to themselves, their actions, and their institutions. This code of conduct applies to the individual, as well as to the government and society to within which the people exist, and ultimately defines what a "just society" is in the context of that religion. Using stories and proverbs this code of conduct, and thus "just society", is not only set, but also shown in examples. In The Bible, the essence of a "just society" is laid out within passages that serve as "the laws", including Deuteronomy, and the Psalms, and in the stories, such as the stories of Job, David, Samuel, and the Family of Adam. The actions and nature of God in these stories are meant to be an example of the values and personality favored by God. In these passages, a structure for a just society is presented, and the values and examples, which are to be referred to and followed in the creation of this "just society", are discussed. However, even within these passages, there are discrepancies between the structure of the ideal "just society" and its values, and the following of these examples by the stories presented in The Bible. One of the most noticeable of these is the difference between the presentation of the ideal "just society" and values that are supposed to be implemented by the people, and the actual justice and values presented in the stories. This is particularly pertaining to the stories of the rulers appointed by God, and the vengeful nature of God himself presented in these stories.
In conclusion, while both the Natural Law Theory and the Divine Command Theory have aspects that I don’t agree on, both brought interesting ways to look at the world and the
To begin, many scholars have sought to explain society and law. However, the two phenomena cannot be separated. Society has never existed without laws and laws have functioned to create boundaries in society by determining what is regarded as lawful and unlawful. Lawful acts are those that submit to the customs and values of a society while unlawful acts do not. Additionally, human beings are typically ruled by two different types of laws: the laws created by man and natural laws. Together, they determine