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!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I won’t be much help because I would support legislating morality anytime a super majority agrees and a simple majority could reverse the law. I believe any issue of morality that has the support of almost everyone would be a legitimate law. Laws against murder rape robbery come to mind.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Morality is legislated anyway. Arguing otherwise is absurd, morality is legislated every day. It is WHOSE morality that is important. Slander, libel, theft, murder, and any number of U.S. crimes were pulled directly from British common law which got it's foundation in the Magna Carta which in turn can be traced back to the bible.

The position you have been given is IMO indefensible.

[DannyTN]

#2 What is the definition of "religious morality".

If the intent is to regulate behavior in society, that's one thing. But if the intent is to make man's heart pure, that can't be legislated.

All the laws in the world won't change man's heart.
The 10 commandments were given to man to increase man's knowledge of sin. Nobody was ever saved by following the 10 commandments because nobody ever did.

[DannyTN]

#3 It conflicts with freedom.
#4 Whose morality? Whose religion?

[coloradan]

In a place that has 51% white supremists, 39% whites, and 10% blacks, there would be a majority vote for Jim Crow laws, which the white supremists would argue are moral and just. What then?

[DannyTN]

If a person does good because he is required to. He may not realize is spirtual condition is evil. Failing to recognize that, that man may never seek salvation.

Therefore, in order that man may be saved, he needs to be allowed to fall enough so that he can recognize that he has fallen.

[Quix]

I'm of the opinion that to determine a matter--we need to know:

(1) WHAT IS THE RELEVANT GOAL?

(2) WHAT IS THE CRITERIA, STANDARD USED TO MEASURE WHETHER ONE HAS REACHED THAT GOAL OR NOT?

(3) WHAT IS THE RELEVANT CONTEXT?

One might assume that the goal was to have an orderly, stable society.

Then the issue becomes--does one want the policeman inside each person or outside walking the beat?

If the policeman is to be outside walking the beat--there will never be enough policemen. And if there are, who polices the policemen?

If the policeman is to be inside each person--then it is impossible to legislate this. Legislating such only tend to make people RELIGIOUS. And as Christ illustrated in His outrage at the pharisees--the super religious can be the most terrible and destructive forces in the culture.

Honorable behavior comes only from an honorable heart. And typically, we cannot change our own hearts. But God is able and willing to change our hearts AS WE CONFESS our flaws, inabilities, imperfections and willful sins and CHOOSE to follow Him day by day as best we can, with His help--in a LOVE RELATIONSHIP with Him.

The MOST honorable and orderly society will arise out of sufficient numbers of its citizens having a LOVE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD wherein they seek to do God's Will selflessly with God's help, walking moment by moment hand-in-hand with Him.

Otherwise, RELIGION whether legislated by church authorities or laws legislated by civil authorities very easily end up clubs to beat one another about the head and shoulders and particularly to coerce and steal from one another with ever more elaborate and clever manipulations of the law.

Our founding fathers said for good reason that only our society could only survive if it had a moral, spiritual citizenry.

[supercat]

#1 Reason, God gave man free will.

Excellent reason. Let me add another: if earthly punishments are used to attempt to discourage behavior, this may shift people's focus away from avoiding the behavior and toward avoiding being caught. If people manage to avoid being caught by earthly authorities, they're apt to believe that they're getting away with their behavior. The message they should be getting, but which earthly attempts at enforcement will not convey, is that there's no "getting away with" anything in God's eyes.

[RAT Patrol]

We cannot legislate religion. We can legislate morality. In general, however, we protect freedom, we protect religious rights -- which in turn supports morality -- and we rely on the general social structure of society to support moral values. Legislation does not need to force morality if the structure of government protects the bill of rights, especially religious freedom.

[hoot2]

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

"render unto caesar what is caesar's"
"render unto GOD what is GOD's"...
politicians n governments don't have "morals"

[DannyTN]

Is there such a thing as secular morality distinct from religious morality?

Most societies agree that murder or theft violates rights of members.

But not all societies agree on polygamy, divorce, substance abuse, etc. Some of these are left in the area of civil contracts and he could argue that laws in this area are "religous morality" and unnecessary.

[RAT Patrol]

I don't know. I think the protection of religious freedom is a support of morality. Our ffathers realized that a free society can only survive if it is willingly moral.

[DannyTN]

Use history. Majority religion is not necessarily true religion.
Was is true religion when the Roman Catholics told Galileo the earth was flat? No, Galileo acknowledged the truthfullness of scriptures but held the interpreters in error.

[Quix]

Christ said that anger in our hearts is = to murder.

Sooner or later, if we are angry long enough with someone, we will murder something about or connected with them even if it is "only" the relationship; their reputation etc.

I think your point about it being survival only is a mostly hollow one. Folks don't think that far ahead when the pleasure of the moment beckons. . . and less so when their pride, egos etc. are involved.

[AKA Elena]

I think of this in two ways ... I cannot obey any law which infringes on my religious belief ... but in the first place LAWS were based on the societal mores that make society liveable and protect each person ... this truth evolved from the first establishment of LAW in society.

Since the ten commandments were a coverage of all basic aspects of the interaction of Society ... and other tenets of earlier religions were basically the same thing ... unless that society was an amoral one, history shows that those societies which flaunted aberrant behavior and licentiousness were quickly vanquished or lost their power to keep a place in the world and each of these were lost in the pages of history, many times through the degradation of the people themselves.

I cannot imagine how ANYONE can betray one's own integral sense of right and wrong ... nor can I see any justification of basic morals changing from the beginning.

Laws evolved following natural law itself and time cannot warp that basic and intrinsic Natural law. Sorry I could not make this a more clearly stated response, but ...

[RAT Patrol]

The error in claiming "we cannot legislate morality" is to imply that morality is bad. The brilliance of our founding fathers was their ability to conceive of a society that was both free and moral. They chose morality.

[warped]

ALL law is legislated morality. Why was it decided that murder should be illegal? Because it's immoral. Why can't I rip the clothes off of any hot woman I see? Because it's immoral. See - legislated morality. The problem you run into is when the morality is downplayed, and there is no longer a basis or foundation for the laws and moral structure those laws support.

[the_doc]

You've got a lousy position to try to defend. Law has always been grounded in moral issues.

The phrase "religious morality," as distinguished from mere "morality," just makes the argument more confusing.

[DannyTN]

Use Islam.

Islamic countries are ruled by the majority religion. And look at how women are treated there. One anyone in America say that is moral?

[DannyTN]

Use History.

It was the majority religion or perhaps the King's religion that most of the pilgrims fled. They came to the US to worship God in their own way. A simple majority doesn't make it right.

Therefore there are concepts such as the sanctity of life and property rights, that transcend religions.
But more specific legalization of religious life is anti-American.