Help: I Need Some Moral Reasons Why We Should Not Legislate Religious Morality

self ^ | 2-7-2003 | self

[Notwithstanding]

I got shafted and need to argue this side in a debate. HELP!

[LiteKeeper]

Try this on for size The Foolishness of Preaching the Gospel

This is an excellent presentation of the debate between John MacArthur and James Dobson on the issue of preaching the Gospel to change the wickedness of man versus using political legislation to accomplish that end.

[blackbart.223]

"Christians do have the right to organize and influence government the same as everyone else as long as they are careful not to impose tyranny on others. It is a tightrope to be walked with wisdom."

Bump. You show more wisdom than most of the rest of us.

Bart

[Libertarianize the GOP]

A Constitution can only slow an overwhelming majority down, not prevent their actions. In the end it is not much different than a super majority requirement.

[coloradan]

The same can be said of the right to keep and bear arms ... though the numerical requirements are a bit different.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

If you noticed I never offered a specific numerical requirement to achieve the super majority and I would allow a simple majority to overturn the law. It would be easier to restore freedom than to deny it.

[ggekko]

The rise of the Welfare State has occasioned repeated and egregious encroachments on the Eight Ammendement. The Eighth Ammendement is derived alsmost directly from one of the Ten Commanments ("Thou shall not covet..") .

As you correctly note the rise of the National Security State has occasioned encroachments on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th ammendements. These encroachments have been gradual and have usually been advanced during times of national crisis.

In my view, these issues have become muddled over time in legal circles because of the rise of Oliver Wendell Holme's school of legal positivism which is now taught at almot all of the elite law schools. This legal doctrine abjures the idea of inalienable rights endowed by God to all human beings. Under the Holmes doctrine the State replaces God as the originator of rights.

Given the current state of affairs I would find an Islamic takeover of the US legal system to be a remote possibility but I would worry about futher surrenders of legal autonomy under Welfare State or National Security exingincies. The Natural Law doctine would have been an intellectual bulwark against such seizures of power but it has largely been supplanted at this point in time.

[America's Resolve]

Pakistan has legislated religious morality. they even have a blasphemy law on the books. Blaspheme Muhammad and you go to jail for several years.

Afghanistan legislated religious morality. And had its people living in fear for years. Destroyed two beautiful statues. Had many of its people (Hindus) wearing the equivalent of yellow stars, just like the nazis.

Saudi Arabia has legislated religious morality. And it has the religious police - the mutawa - to enforce it. Not bowing to mecca five times a day will get you beaten. Do it too often and you'll go to jail and torture.

In most arab countries, adultery is considered immoral and the penalty under law is stoning to death. Actually, one of the distinctions that was made at Clintons impeachment was that what he did may have been immoral, but not illegal, therefore he should not be impeached.

Morals change over time. 100 years ago, abortion was considered immoral. Now its an industry. Premarital sex was considered immoral. Now its the favorite pastime in high schools.

The Inquisition legislated religious morality. The result was witch burning, torture and others of the worst crimes imaginable. They were stamping out heresy, blasphemy, usury and all kind of other moral terpitude, they just went overboard (and ultimately it ALL goes overboard) and the cure became worse than the disease.

Just some random thoughts :)

[Marie]

If God gave us free will, who is Man to take it away?

[saradippity]

I would be very careful to be sure of what you are actually debating. From the two topics you mention (conscientious objectors and worship related drugs)it seems probable that the term "religious morality" refers to practices within the religious entity.itself.

If you would represent your position poorly and your position took hold across the country,it would be possible to legislate that transexuals must be hired in teaching and ministerial positions in any church despite their beliefs,or that wine could not be used at communion services,or that the right to free speech superceded some particular church's position on "creation" and consequently the preacher could not be released,or that abortionists cannot be prohibited from receiving communion.

I think the only position to take if this is the case is that legislating religious morality is morally wrong because limits the freedom of an individual,or groups of individuals to worship God in the way they choose.This in no way exempts any member of a religious organization who violates existing laws from arrest,conviction and punishment.

[pariah]

Here's the short answer: At our country's founding, we wanted to avoid the religious wars that were tearing Eurpope apart. Going backwards now would be a recipe to disaster.
Let me also mention Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Speech. The basic legal principle of our country should be (and used to be) that one can do as one pleases so long as it doesn't tread on the inalienable rights of others.

[nobdysfool]

I have to argue that the morals laws based upon the majority religion are NOT moral.

If I understand you correctly, the premise you must present is that it is immoral to pass laws based on a majority religion for the purpose of curtailing certain behaviors and encouraging other behaviors that are unique to the majority religion, i.e. no consumption of alcohol, no use of tobacco, mandatory attendance to the place of worship of the majority religion, so-called Blue Laws, censorship of reading and viewing material deemed unfit by the majority religion, etc. Am I correct?

You can eliminate the argument being defined as laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. by pointing out that those laws transcend any one religion, because no society can long endure if those kinds of actions are sanctioned or encouraged, or even just allowed. Those laws are not "moral" laws, per se, but common laws needed for a society to function. The issue of morality in laws must be seen as an attempt to force people to live by the moral standards of the majority religion, whether or not they choose to believe what that religion teaches, and in actuality those types of laws are passed so that the members of the majority religion don't have to deal with those who don't share their beliefs. It is born of an arrogance and a desire to control others who don't believe as the majority does. That attitude is immoral in and of itself, because it violates the majority religion's prohibition of prideful, arrogant and presumptuous behavior.

As for the Supreme Court cases, Any attempt to coerce an individual to violate his own morality to satisfy the needs of an opposing Morality, or to be forced to observe practices which are contrary to the person's stated beliefs is a violation of the majority religion's stated belief that "whosoever will" may come. It also violates the majority religion's viewpoint that outward actions are not what will redeem the person, but inward acts of the heart, and that the Supreme Diety is not fooled or swayed by the outward behavior of the people, no matter how it was accomplished. Legislating morality actually violates the very religion that instigates it.

Hope this helps...

[hocndoc]

me, too. A read later bump.

[Notwithstanding]

It won't be so bad - the professor knows where I stand and most people in the course understand that laws are always based upon morals. The issue is really whether the historical practice that the king's religion dictated the religion of the people is also part of our discussion.

We are simply trying to make sure we understand all arguments on all sides.

I am shafted only becuase it is impossible to legitimately argue that law is not essentially based upon morals and morality is driven by the religions in the culture.

[Notwithstanding]

your #93 - I like it

do you have source material (people I can quote other than "Romulus" on FR)?

[Notwithstanding]

I am required to argue for this side as an academic exercise.

I am very familiar with (and glad you point out) that the Constitution actually prohibited ONLY federal state religion similar to a "Church of England".

[Fester Chugabrew]

When we are faced with the statement "You cannot legislate morality," we must think beyond the surface of the words. What it means is, "you cannot change people's hearts by making new laws."

Religious morality goes deeper than what is written on the books. Civil morality applies to all peoples regardless of their religion, and simply keeps us from tearing each other apart. It is a way of dimly expressing what we all know apart from special revelation.

So, don't be afraid to give in, at least partially, to the statement "you cannot legislate morality." There is a sense in which this is true.

Hope this helps.

[american colleen]

See if you can watch "World Over Live" on your pc or catch one of the reruns... last night there was a professor from Loyola - Christian Brugger - who was interviewed regarding the encyclical on the voting responsibilites of the laity which was issued last week. They addressed this very topic -- in the context of people saying that the Catholic Church is trying to legislate behavior for the country. Professor Brugger was excellent.

[.30Carbine]

The link you post is an excellent presentation of the basics of the argument. John MacArthur is right.

My husband describes the continuum between the two men and their two philosophies as a sort of "echo chamber" that is also present within each one of us individually. I know this first-hand; I, too, bounce back and forth between the spiritual logic of "being in the world" and the spiritual danger of "being of the world."

I respect Dr. Dobson highly, and appreciate and contribute to his ministry. John MacArthur has the Truth on his side in the end however, because the path of the Focus on the Family ministry has evidently led to compromise.

[Roscoe]

In case you weren't aware, the L.P. has a plank which calls for the dismantling of our civil rights laws, essentially making it legal to say "We don't serve those of race X here."

Game, set, match!

[steve50]

The only proper use of legislation is to protect property, not one groups idea of what may be moral.

We know what Christ thought of enforcing moral law when he commented on punishment of the woman for adultery, how could it be said any plainer?