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

self ^ | 2-7-2003 | self

[ninenot]

It is nonsense to say "You can't legislate morality."

I believe that the meaning of that phrase is that one cannon 'legislatively force' another to do what is right--that is, one cannot legislate 'positive' morality.

However, 'negative' legislation re-inforces common moral law, as you state.

[Uncle Miltie]

Because Sharia sucks...

[coloradan]

Re: #133, #134.

Cat got your tongue?

[I_dmc]

Offhand, one thing comes to mind. God's plan is all about freedom of choice. We are to choose between a life of light or a life of darkness. Therefore, attempting to legislate religious morality is contrary to God's plan. Those who came here for religious freedom were escaping lack of choice, and immediately set up the same lack of choice (on their terms). Ironic, huh?

[Magoo]

Didn't you take up an argument to justify reasons not to allow simple and super majority imposition of moral beliefs as law?

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?

From:

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.

and end up arguing over:

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." And here you are now whining about Jim Crow laws.

What was the point of all this and how it relates to legislating religious morality or any other label for morality? Maybe you guys should shake hands, I think most of this was context twisting.

[Nephi]

You're welcome and thank you, too.

[Abogado]

This may help.

There are necessary “societal rules” and there is “religious-based morality.” Although both are historically intertwined – the common prohibitions that survival-based “morals” teach citizens is the foundation of all successful societies. For example, it is a universal fact that societies who fail to prohibit their citizens killing of their own offspring fail to survive and prosper. Look around, with the exception of abortion, no society fails to prohibit the killing of children. This is an example of “morals” based on survival instinct. I.e., necessary “rules” of society dictated by our species instinct to survive. There are many other such examples of basic “morals” that can be found in virtually every “religion-based moral” in history.

This is a difficult concept to grasp, but I will attempt to clarify it. All societies require “rules” to survive, function and prosper. Long-term religions traditionally incorporate the “rules” of society - codified and enforced as “morals.” Amongst those are the “morals” such as “no member of the society may assault, murder, rob, or defraud another member of the society.” Thus, “religion-based morality” more often than not is the codification of the “historically-based rules” necessary to the survival of the society.

Now expect an opponent to point out the non-survival-based societal “morals” of most religions. They have a legitimate point. Organized Religions are man-made entities. Like other man-made entities, they generally promote their own survival and prosperity. They also contain people in positions within the religious entities who have personal agendas they promote via their influential position as societies’ morality teachers. Accordingly, a significant amount of “religion-based morality” is actually self-serving rules for promoting the survival of the religion and the individuals operating the religion. However, this does not negate the fact that the basic rules for society survival are found within most “religious-based morality” teachings.

Nonetheless, “religious-based morality” is preferred over societal enforcement of “rules.” The reason is common sense. In the former, the motivation to comply with society’s behavior requirements is internally driven and constant. However, for the latter, to effect the necessary behavior restrictions requires the external use of society’s police presence to enforce the basic “rules.”

[Cultural Jihad]

Nonetheless, “religious-based morality” is preferred over societal enforcement of “rules.” The reason is common sense. In the former, the motivation to comply with society’s behavior requirements is internally driven and constant. However, for the latter, to effect the necessary behavior restrictions requires the external use of society’s police presence to enforce the basic “rules.”

Exactly. We need much more than mere human laws in order to have a functioning, healthy society. The law cannot compel compassion. The law cannot force anyone to stop and help another. We should be encouraging those virtuous mindsets which foster life, happiness, and self-reliance, while discouraging those of vice which foster their opposites.

[coloradan]

Cultural Jihad is famous for his straw men arguments in his vain attempts to bash libertarians, hence the dredging of an irrelevent L.P. plank onto this thread.

[dark_lord]

All laws are based on morality - from traffic laws to laws against murder.

Not so.

Malum Prohibitum - An act which is immoral because it is illegal; not necessarily illegal because it is immoral. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).

Malum in se - An innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include adultery, theft, and murder. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).

[tpaine]

--- a significant amount of "religion-based morality" is actually self-serving rules for promoting the survival of the religion and the individuals operating the religion. However, this does not negate the fact that the basic rules for society survival are found within most "religious-based morality" teachings.

Nonetheless, "religious-based morality" is preferred over societal enforcement of "rules." The reason is common sense. In the former, the motivation to comply with society's behavior requirements is internally driven and constant. However, for the latter, to effect the necessary behavior restrictions requires the external use of society's police presence to enforce the basic "rules."
147 -Abogado-


Exactly. We need much more than mere human laws in order to have a functioning, healthy society. The law cannot compel compassion. The law cannot force anyone to stop and help another. We should be encouraging those virtuous mindsets which foster life, happiness, and self-reliance, while discouraging those of vice which foster their opposites.
148 -cj-
_________________________________


Good grief. You two are openly advocating the subverting of our constitutional law in order to foster a theocratic based state, and to 'force one to stop and help another'.
- In other words, socialism.

[MrLeRoy]

Being conservative means we are big on justice, and prejudice is an injustice.

Conservatives are big on forcibly imposing justice on voluntary agreements? Would it be conservative to mandate that individuals have friends of other races?

[jimt]

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." And here you are now whining about Jim Crow laws. Do you favor the repeal of civil rights legislation? Being conservative means we are big on justice, and prejudice is an injustice.

CJ, as usual you are misrepresenting the position of the LP. Civil rights laws prohibiting government discrimination are fine - laws preventing the free exercise of the right of association between individuals are not. Jim Crow laws are clearly a case of government being used to discriminate against blacks.

Try telling the truth for a change.

[jimt]

Here's a potential argument for the position you've been asked to support.

People form governments to protect their rights. Laws should therefore deal with violations of rights. Virtually everyone, religious or not, will agree that they do not want to be raped, robbed, murdered, assaulted, defrauded, etc. It's just and proper therefore for laws to prohibit these activities.

Most religions quite properly define these activities as sins, immoral, prohibited behavior, etc. They're accepted by the irreligious as well, making them a universal morality.

However, most religions have many other prescriptions for the behavior of their believers. Baptists, for example, don't believe in dancing. Mormons don't use coffee or tea. Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork.

Many of the religious prescriptions conflict with those of other faiths. If they are not a matter of law, then their good (or bad) consequences accrue only to the followers of the particular faith. But if they're codified in law, they infringe on the rights of others to act in ways that violate no one's rights.

An unanswerable question in an attempt to codify religious morality is "Which religion?" If Mormons are the majority, should they be able to prohibit sale of coffee and tea? If Baptists are the majority, should dancing be outlawed? Is Muslims are the majority, should all women wear burkhas?

Law is properly the province of universal morality, not religious morality. There are many good and fine things that can come from following a faith. This does not mean faith should be law.

[coloradan]

#153 and #154: Well stated.