It is necessarily a selfish principle, one that negates individual rights and demands sacrifice from its members. It views morality from an experiential perspective, not from the light of faith and enlightenment, and adopts the utilitarian principle in the determination of right and wrong.
Nevertheless, society has survived and continues to gain strength through centuries of tumultuous policy shifts, providing the much need stability and moral ground to survive amoral assaults. The law it adopts is a tapestry of many shades of gray. It cannot always be a solid set of rules written in tablets, but rather an amalgam of lessons, reflections and paradigms unique to a given era and specific to a particular people caught in a convoluted web of situations from which it draws its strength through reason. The imperative that faces courts in these times, therefore, is to strike a balance between fulfilling the moral duty of the judiciary to "give everyone his due" and to come up with learned and scholarly decisions that look back to the lessons of the past to deal with new and changing situations and circumstances of the present and the future.
"For practice to be subject to the criminal sanctions, it is not ...
was primarily grounded on moral principles, with kings using the moral strength of the church, if not gods, to elicit submission and respect from their subjects. In most ancient cultures, the political ruler was also the highest religious leader and sometimes considered divine. Under republican government, religious officials were appointed just like political ones.
Morality refers to the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of right and wrong used within individual conscience. It is systems of principles and judgments shared within a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct morality. Issues arising from morality used to be resolved by the church or religious leaders until this was assailed in the wake of widespread abuse (Gert, 2005).
With the introduction of the concept of separation of church and state, the role of religion in legal matters has been part of a long debate throughout much of history, especially since the Age of Enlightenment. Religious opponents of secular government contend that while the state should not establish a particular state religion or require religious observance, it still must be infused with spiritual ethics and values in order to operate "properly." They argue that the teachings of religion are the basis of law and civil society, and that a society which discourages the promulgation of those beliefs cannot function. Furthermore, they submit that religious groups ought to be involved in politics to assure that laws are passed which reflect what they perceive as universal truths (Gert, 2005).
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
On the other hand, some people desire the legal separation of church and state to keep "superstition" out of government. For example, many