I mentioned in an earlier thread that I'm going on an intercultural dialogue trip to Turkey to engage with Muslims associated with the Nur movement. One of the questions, I'm interested in discussing with them is their view of law. What is law, where does it come from, what is its purpose. This seems to be one of the important differences between some versions of Islam and modern 'western' cultural assumptions and one of the reasons for the tensions between secular democracies and religion.
We have a pretty diverse group here, some professional experts in the field, so I thought I'd throw out the question here to see what people think. What is law? What does it do? Where does it come from? What is the connection between law and religion? What is the connection between law and morality?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I see it as a cultural and phylisophical FOUNDATION of all that is civil, or that which makes up a civilization.

"Do this, or the consequence will be..."

Outside of that, the infrastructure (or Judge, Jury, Executioner) has to then be established to carry out, and preserve, that which makes up the infrastructure's foundations.

The rest is for discussion...

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

A legal codification of cultural morals.

Is law a component of civilization in the sense that pre-literate societies don't have written law and put authority in a person (tribal leader) as opposed to a written legal code?

Could it be the other way around from B's view? That morals are a product of the legal system as opposed to the legal system being a product of morals? I seem to have run into a fair number of Muslims who have held a view like this.

What about the theists here? Is law connected in any way to the Supreme Being?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Christians believe that all law ultimately derives from God. The Ten Commandments being given directly to Moses is the obvious example. There are numerous other biblical references that all laws can be traced back to God. ( Obviously written before the Ethanol controvery)

I would expect that Muslims have a similar understanding.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I think legalistic interpretation of written religious texts is a 2-stage enlargement of my previous assertion. Take Moses, for example -- the lawgiver.

I doubt if any of the 10 Commandments were truly novel when God set them in stone for Moses. In fact, Genesis is full of examples of what God considers moral and immoral, those judgments were apparently unwritten and were handed-down through oral tradition. In Genesis, God's morality was the unwritten law.

Later in Exodus and especially Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the priestly class wrote the laws "setting in stone" the moral teachings. I believe that an oral tradition of law allows more clan and tribal flexibility in interpretation. A written law is still subject to interpretation but instead of arguing what God meant when he spoke through Moses or Joshua (which is risky due to heresy issues in getting the God quotes wrong), legalistic priests were safe to argue the letter of the law, which is what we do today in courts.

In this view, the Christian reliance on revelation is a step backward in interpretation of the law. Taken to it's extreme (as with St Peter's revelation about food), any law can be discarded through prophetic dreaming, it just takes some form of prestige to push through the new revelation from God.

It is only in the recent 500 years or so that civilization has become secular -- increasingly accepting the theory that morality is possible in humans who do not fear God --- atheists. This is a novel innovation, IMO. Before secularism every culture had their own set of god(s)-given morals and folks not living under the local god were probably lawless. Back then it was always a surprise to travelers who discovered that a people could have a just society of laws but be completely wrong about god(s).

I suspect it is a safe argument across cultures and religions and time. For example, the Laws of Manu.

B

Law is the set of rules developed to protect people from each other.

__________________
2008 E350 4matic / Black/Anthracite

------------------------------------
Gone but not Forgotten:
2001 E430 4matic, 206,xxx miles, Black/Charcoal
1995 E320, 252,xxx miles, Black/Grey
1989 260E, 223,00 miles, Black/Black

How does morality differ?

They enable our society to function.

So going on what Bot was saying in our modern secular society we have replaced the law of God, with the law of the Government.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

How do you fit together this general theoretical understanding with law in a modern democratic secular society? I'm thinking you don't believe that the government should require everyone go to church on Sunday (or Saturday if we follow the 10 commandments). What about speed limits? Do you think they can be traced back to a divine origin? What about stoning rebellious teenagers or forbidding the sale of pork?
In other words, do you think there is or should be any connection between the legal system under which we operate in the US and divinely revealed legal systems?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Or we don't call the law of government the law of God anymore so that we can keep the law malleable to some degree??

Is the Supreme Court the legal equivalent of Muslim religious lawyers interpreting the Sharia or Rabbis interpreting Jewish law?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Morality is voluntary. Law is mandatory.

Morality is the influence and law is the codification of human/cultural desires.

__________________
2008 E350 4matic / Black/Anthracite

------------------------------------
Gone but not Forgotten:
2001 E430 4matic, 206,xxx miles, Black/Charcoal
1995 E320, 252,xxx miles, Black/Grey
1989 260E, 223,00 miles, Black/Black

Legality is mandatory only to the degree that one maybe caught. Doesn't prevent illegal activity, just makes lawbreakers careful.

Same with morality. God will getcha in the end.

I think this describes many religious views of morality but in my view, modern secular moralities are quite different insofar as there is no threat of punishment or employment of reward in the afterlife. Virtue has to be its own reward to the secular theorist.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Good points. Morality (secular) has as it's downside (or punishment), public disapproval, maybe?

Take Larry Craig, for example. Even had he not pled guilty, the morality of his constituents probably would have punished him at the polls. I could not imagine an potential challenger would miss that opportunity and so, folks would (will) be "tap-tap-tapping" about his incumbency, "Nevermore".