But what about our freedoms? By giving the government power to legislate morality, you are destroying the concept of freedom. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, unless you are God (which the government certainly is not). At what point do we stop voting because the government knows better? American conception and protection of freedoms and rights are critical to America's success, prosperity and power. And that of its people.
Furthermore, there are many theological and philosophical and logical arguments against legislating morality. Without freedom, there is no good and evil. You can't help but choose good, so its meaningless, because someone else chose for you. Where's the value in your action? Where's free will? I like Judeo-Christian morality. That is the code I personally fllow, and I value it for what it does for me and for others who choose to follow it, and for making the world a better place (as I see it). People can have the same values and different priorities, right? So who is to say whose priorities are higher? You? I am sure there is someone who is just as religious as you, within your sect of Christianity (as I presume you are Christian), who would vehemently disagree with you over what are priorities. Which of you should legislate?
Socialism is a set of morality too (and I would hazard to say a religion, even though pinkos hate me for saying that). They shouldn't legislate their religion. We shouldn't legislate ours. We must legislate universal goods, like freedom, tolerance (though not love), rights and duties. Not individual codes of morality. Because I won't live in a Muslim or socialist morality in America (if I wanted either, I'd go to Saudi Arabia or Sweden respectively), so why should they live in mine?
But my point was that the government already legislates morality. Simply in declaring things like robbery and insider trading illegal, for example, it's legislating morality.
People can have the same values and different priorities, right? So who is to say whose priorities are higher? You?
Why not me? Aren't you telling me right now that you think your priorities are higher?
I am sure there is someone who is just as religious as you, within your sect of Christianity (as I presume you are Christian), who would vehemently disagree with you over what are priorities. Which of you should legislate?
The one who prevails at the ballot box.
We must legislate universal goods, like freedom, tolerance (though not love), rights and duties. Not individual codes of morality.
Who says we must legislate these things? And on what basis do you call them "universal goods"? Certainly some Muslim societies don't value tolerance the way we do, so how have you come to the conclusion that tolerence is good? Isn't that your morality? (Are we perhaps operating on different definitions of the word "morality"?)
I should make it clear that I don't want a theocracy in this country. I think the Constitution is a brilliant, miraculous document. I'm just saying that everyone brings their morality to bear--in the way they vote, in the way they live their lives. You do when you say we must legislate tolerance. I did when I voted for Bush because I think he's a moral man and Kerry isn't. Socialists and other lefties did when they elected Bernie Sanders to Congress in Vermont.
All I'm saying is don't ask Christians to leave their beliefs at home when they enter the political arena. No one else does.