Replies

"That's where virtue comes from, and virtue is what made this Republic great."

I agree.

But what are we to do when virtue goes away -- when people define for themselves what is right and what is wrong? Do we stand by and watch the Republic die, in order for a minority of selfish, self-centered, immoral, hedonistic adults to have their way?

Or does the majority draw a line in the sand over which we, as a society, will not cross?

John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." The re-institution of virtue into our society will make moot the plethora of laws that have arisen to counter the movement towards immorality.

But what are we to do when virtue goes away

When virtue goes away, evil people use government to enforce their own wishes. Good people must then take the government back and shrink it down to its proper role (keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, resolving disputes between competing property-rights claims).

But what are we to do when virtue goes away -- when people define for themselves what is right and what is wrong?

Hey, you've got support for your view:

Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of religion and belief. Under democracy, a man can believe anything he wants and choose any religion he wants and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah... This is a matter which is patently perverse and false and contradicts many specific [Muslim] legal texts, since according to Islam, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed, as stated in the Hadith reported by Al-Bukhari and others: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' It does not say 'leave him alone.'...
Democracy is based on the principle of 'freedom of expression,' no matter what the expression might be, even if it means hurting and reviling the Divine Being [i.e. Allah] and the laws of Islam, because in democracy nothing is so sacred that one cannot be insolent or use vile language about it....
--Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Or does the majority draw a line in the sand over which we, as a society, will not cross?

The problem with drawing such a line is this: to draw it, more often than not you have to bend and twist the Constitution, bastardizing the concept of original intent, in order to justify drawing it. By doing that, you give your opponent the justification for bending and twisting the Constitution and original intent to justify their platform. Either the Constitution means what it means or it doesn't.

But what are we to do when virtue goes away -- when people define for themselves what is right and what is wrong?

It is actually amoral for a person to decide what is right or wrong for him/herself as long as no force or fraud is inflicted on another person. Morality does not involve a person alone. A man on a deserted island alone has no morals. Morals come into play when more than one person is involved.