Editing Openai/681d3d2d-477c-8008-8c41-ff82c6ea48ea (section)

===== Religious Influence on Law =====

Another political dimension is the critique of religious influence in legal systems. Throughout history, many states have either based their laws on religious codes or allowed clerical authorities substantial power. The perspective in the text is wary of such entanglement, suggesting that secular law is preferable to theocratic or religion-based law. The political implication here is support for separation of church and state and for laws that are neutral with respect to religion.

When religious doctrine drives legislation, it can lead to laws that impose one group’s beliefs on everyone. For instance, blasphemy and apostasy laws, which exist in many countries today, criminalize speaking or acting against religious tenets. A 2022 analysis by Pew Research found that 79 countries (40% of those studied) still had laws against blasphemy as of 2019pewresearch.org<ref>{{cite web|title=pewresearch.org|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/25/four-in-ten-countries-and-territories-worldwide-had-blasphemy-laws-in-2019-2/#:~:text=A%20new%20Pew%20Research%20Center,global%20restrictions%20related%20to%20religion|publisher=pewresearch.org|date=2022-01-25|access-date=2025-12-12}}</ref>. In some nations, these laws are harshly enforced – for example, in Saudi Arabia a man was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2019 for tweeting criticism of Islampewresearch.org<ref>{{cite web|title=pewresearch.org|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/25/four-in-ten-countries-and-territories-worldwide-had-blasphemy-laws-in-2019-2/#:~:text=These%20laws%20were%20most%20common,as%20of%20the%20Saudi%20government|publisher=pewresearch.org|date=2022-01-25|access-date=2025-12-12}}</ref>. More gravely, at least a dozen countries prescribe the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy (often under Islamic law)secularism.org.uk<ref>{{cite web|title=secularism.org.uk|url=https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2025/01/extent-of-global-blasphemy-laws-revealed-in-report#:~:text=Extent%20of%20global%20%27blasphemy%27%20laws,the%20report%20found|publisher=secularism.org.uk|access-date=2025-12-12}}</ref>. Such laws, rooted in religious offense, clash with modern principles of free expression and freedom of conscience. They can victimize minority sects, dissenting voices, or simply those who change their belief. The user’s skepticism of religiously influenced law highlights these human rights concerns: when law serves faith instead of citizens, individual liberties are at risk.

Even in less extreme cases, religious influence can skew laws on social issues (like gender roles, sexuality, education, or family life) in illiberal ways. Consider debates over abortion, same-sex marriage, or alcohol sales: in some countries, religious lobbies have succeeded in keeping strict bans or mandates that align with their doctrines, even when large portions of the population disagree. The text’s position implies that such outcomes are problematic. Laws ought to be based on secular reasoning — public health, human rights, justice — rather than the dictates of any one religion’s scripture. This was a core argument of Enlightenment thinkers who advocated secular governance: it prevents any single faith from oppressing others and allows pluralism to flourish. Politically, embracing secular law means all citizens are equal under the law, whether religious or not, and policy is made through debate and evidence rather than by religious decree.

Historical and contemporary evidence supports this stance. Countries with strong secular traditions (France with laïcité, or the United States with its First Amendment) explicitly bar the establishment of religion in law, aiming to protect both the state from church interference and the church from state interference. This doesn’t mean religious people have no voice — only that their arguments must be translated into secular terms to become law (e.g. one may oppose theft because it’s harmful, not just because a commandment forbids it). The benefit is that laws can be evaluated on universal grounds. The user likely views theocracies or quasi-theocracies as cautionary tales: when clerics rule (as in Iran’s velayat-e faqih system) or when civil law defers to religious law (as in Saudi Arabia’s Sharia-based penal code), the result can be persecution of minorities, reduced women’s rights, and punishments (floggings, stonings) that violate global human-rights standards.

In sum, the political ramification is a call for neutral, secular governance. The text advocates that religion be a private matter – people are free to worship and believe – but the state’s laws should come from rational-ethical discourse accessible to all, not from revelation or sectarian tradition. This stance seeks to ensure that no religious group can wield the law as a tool of dominance, and that policy can be adjusted with changing evidence or social needs (something religious law, often seen as divinely fixed, struggles to accommodate). It’s a vision of a pluralistic society where one law, founded on reason and fundamental rights, applies to everyone equally.