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

self ^ | 2-7-2003 | self

[honorable schoolboy]

You can't debate this since the premise that there are two sides of the debate is false. All legislation is value laden, and it is impossible to disentangle values from religious belief. You could frame a debate such as,resolved: No legislation should be based on Judeo-Christian morality. or, resolved: No legislation should be based on pinhead liberal secular humanism. or, maybe even (though this is tough) resolved: No legislation should be based on the moral tradition of any of the 4 major world religions. But the debate you posit is a nullity. Another and related example of a poorly defined debate would be "no legislation should be enacted for other than purely objective scientific reasons". By the way, good luck. You should never have been suckered into this charade.

[greasepaint]

Use this as an example...the world.
People in countries with heavy moral legislation,
as individuals, have the weakest morals.
IE, in Islamic countries, (by Western standards) there
are laws against almost everything, yet the people
consider lying to be an art form.
Law has nothing to do with morality... look at
Congress, your state legislature, your city council,
if you are confused about this.

[ConservativeMan55]

When you hear about "the Culture War" know that this is what its all about.
Its a war of competing ideas and worldviews. One one side you have people who believe in living by a devinely inspired moral absolutes, or at the very least, they believe that following such a moral code represents the best way to avoid chaos and instability.

One the other side, you have people who insist that morality is simply a personal decision. Any attempt to enfore it is viewed as oppression.

Quite simply many liberals believe that efforts to adhere to and enforce behavorial rights and wrongs is simply the powerful in society attempting to force their views and judgements on the "victims" of society, rather than what it is: an attempt to maintain standards that have evolved and survived throughout human civilization and which produce a quality life.

Lets set the record straight. Morality is not defined by individual choice. Long before anyone was talking about "The Culture War" I had made that point in "The Thirty Five undeniable truths of life. Number 32 to be exact.

To understand what that means, lets examine a real-life example of one little skirmish in the ongoing Culture War. Singer Ice T records an album with one song clearly condoning, if not advocating the killing of cops, and another glorifying the violent sexual abuse of women. When other artists, music executives, and media wizards see nothing wrong with that, alarm bells go off.

The average person recognizes a problem. But anyone who dares to criticize the record or suggest that standards should be imposed is ridiculed and called an intolerant bigot.

Lets face it, there are things in life that every decent person with common sense knows are wrong. There are things almost everybody understands are right.

Most people have been raised and imbued with a sense of right and wrong. Some choose to reject those standards. Other simply never learn them early in life. But at some level, almost everyone, with the exception by definition of the criminally insane, recognizes right from wrong.

When liberals hurl epithets at you because you have pointed out the obvous error of their ways, just know that you have hit a nerve.

If you criticize their behavior and they call you a pig, a bigot, or a fascist, their consciences must be giving them problems; or else they acquired their liberal values by rote and without comprehension.

They claim to have a monopoly on the market of open-mindedness and tolerance, but in truth are often extremely closed-minded and intolerant.

Liberals love to knock down standards because to do so empowers them. Take the case of Leonard Jeffries, the chairman of City College of New York's black-studies department.

For years Mr Jeffries served in this job while he launched outrageous attacks against Jews and other groups of white people. He did it both in the classroom and outside the university setting.

He became such an embarrassment to City College that when part of a racist- anti semitic speech made by him was reprinted in the New York Post, school officials fired him.

Though Mr Jeffries successfully sued the college for his wrongful termination, a more important question remains: How did he get hired in the first place? And how did he survive in his position for twenty years? The reason we have hate-mongers like Jeffries in key positions is because of declining standards.

One of the reasons you abolish standards is so you can never say someone is doing a bad job. Without a standard by which to measure one's performance, one cannot under perform.

This is a way to build a powerful teaching union, and liberal political power on campus or in a government agency or in some other institution. Lots of people like Jeffries were hired after the 1960's simply to appease the mob mentality that was demanding more minority control over institutions of higher learning.

Why are these issues so important? Why are they worth fighting for? Because if there are no ultimate standards of behavior that descend from God, and if morality is merely an individual choice, then life itself has lost its greater meaning.

Its no big deal for you to take a gun to school and shoot some kid over a dispute about a leather jacket or a pair of sneakers. That is precisely what an overly permissive, excessively tolerant, nothing is wrong attitude leads to.

Of course liberals will argue that these actions can be laid at the foot of socioeconomic inequities, or poverty. However, The Great Depression caused a level of poverty unknown to exist in America today, and yet I have been unable to find any accounts of crime waves sweeping our large cities. In fact, I can't find reliable information that even documents a noticeable increase in crime during the Great Depression. Let the liberals chew on that.

Regardless of what you call them, they don't see the connection- or pretend to see the connection. So anyone who publicly expressed concern for decency in our society invites assault. Any expression of concern for solid values is mocked and ridiculed.

The thought that there should be standards of behavior and accountability in all walks of life is portrayed as absurd. Why do they react that way? They take the offensive because deep down they know they're wrong. They know they're engaging in activity that is base. In many cases, they are simply hedonists.

They won't accept any limits on personal behavior whatsoever. Thats what freedom means to them: no responsibility, no consequences, for anything. Its whatever feels good.

That is the underlying dimension of most of the aberrant going on in America today.

Liberalism is the political ideology that adds legitimacy and credence to these aberrant behaviors. It says "People have been victimized and oppressed in America and they are forced to act his way"

The things that once offended us don't anymore. The things that we used to find repugnant are now accepted.

Let me tell you, folks you don't want to live in a society in which the great majority of the people believe that ultimately they are accountable to an authority higher than the state. That is a recipe for national disaster.

How many times have you heard the hackeyed slogan "You can't legislate morality"? Liberals have twisted the intended meaning of this phrase to suit their purposes. It has been misused so often that the incorrect meaning is now accepted as the norm.

The phrase was originally adopted by conservatives of the sixties, such as Barry Goldwater, to describe the reality that people's attitudes, predjudices, character, and integrity cannot be altered by well meaning legislation.

For example this society can and did outlaw discrimination based on race. With the civil rights laws of the sixties-and fortified those laws with remedial enforcement mechanisms. Although the law did and does prevent acts of discrimination, it does not change the hearts of people. Though we have less racial discrimination, we don't have one less racist as a result of those laws.

The feel good generation of me-first liberals co-opted the phrase and use it as a credo to legitmize their advocacy of unlimited freedom without responsibility. Thus, when arguing in favor of abortion on demand, for instance, they chant reflexively..."You can't legislate morality"

Mere superficial analysis reveals the folly of their reasoning. Of course society can, and indeed it is morally imperative that it does legislate morality--if by that it is meant that the law proscribes certain immoral behavior.

In fact that is what our entire system of criminal law is--the codification of societal restrictions on human behavior that is accepted as being immoral. Our traditional criminal laws prohibiting murder, and other violent acts against persons or property, for example, are laws prohibiting, certain acts coupled with criminal intent.

These laws do not seek to change to personal morality of those who violate them, rather they seek to prevent the proscribed acts and punish the actors for their wrongs.

Interestingly it has been liberals through the years who have sought to use the criminal justice system for the purpose of rehabilitating the wrongdoers. So don't fall for this notion that society cannot enforce moral codes because of the misunderstood slogan "You can't legislate morality"

[ConservativeMan55]

The above came from Rush Limbaugh by the way.

[Ol' Sparky]

Every law comes from someone's version of morality. So, it's absurd to debate the topic.

[coloradan]

Fine, change the numbers to 67% or 76% white supremacists, or whatever your supermajority level is. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some places in the Deep South of the past that were 90% white supremacists and 10% black. You are evading the question: What then?

[Doctor Stochastic]

...Magna Carta which in turn can be traced back to the bible...

Biblical prohibition against kydells on the Thames?

[Spruce]

Reason number 1.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

[Cultural Jihad]

The message they should be getting ...

But that would be a theocracy, saying that the message should be based upon God. While it would be commendable, society doesn't particularly care whether a would-be bank robber fails to be born again and dedicate or rededicate his life to God and to good works and to charity and alms giving and pilgrimages and contemplative prayer. Society is pleased simply that the bank wasn't robbed, and leaves the motivations to him and his God.

A religious morality is one derived from any of the divinely-ordained religions, such as the desert religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as Hinduism. They all agree on significant moral issues. No one should be forced to worship God, or adhere to the different and particular customs and usages of a religion, but everyone is obligated to adhere to the kindness of religious morality, regardless of their lack of personal beliefs.

Even if self-interest alone is to be your guide for life, then consider the fact that a religious morality is far superior to a half-finished, half-informed humanist one because a humanist morality is the product of a merely human intellect, with no wisdom. The world is full of surprises, and not all of them are pleasant ones. A humanist morality which precipitated the AIDS plague and can afterwards only offer bandaid solutions, had no way of foreseeing its terrible advent.

Religious morality is contained in these condensed Ten Commandments, and how much smaller our government would be if everyone adhered to those ethics:

---

Don't be cruel to yourself.
Don't be cruel to others.
Don't be cruel to God.
In other words: Be kind.

---

[Liberal Classic]

I ask the reader consider the words of John Locke:

The toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind, that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it in so clear a light. I will not here tax the pride and ambition of some, the passion and uncharitable zeal of others. These are faults from which human affairs can perhaps scarce ever be perfectly freed; but yet such as nobody will bear the plain imputation of, without covering them with some specious colour; and so pretend to commendation, whilst they are carried away by their own irregular passions. But, however, that some may not colour their spirit of persecution and unchristian cruelty with a pretence of care of the public weal and observation of the laws; and that others, under pretence of religion, may not seek impunity for their libertinism and licentiousness; in a word, that none may impose either upon himself or others, by the pretences of loyalty and obedience to the prince, or of tenderness and sincerity in the worship of God; I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment for the interest of men's souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth.

[DannyTN]

"Does the inspiration from where we get our "morality" matter?"

I think it matters very much. If your morality is not derived from the creator, I would argue that your morality is likely to be highly flawed.

The key here though is that in a free society we are going to approach issues with different moralities depending on where we obtain our morality (religions or philosophy) and how well we have thought through that morality or how well we have listened.

The question then becomes which morals should we legislate. Are there a subset of morals that are important to us all, such as murder, theft, assault, rape, that we agree should be legislated.

The harder question is are there morals that should not be legislated. Start with sins that are not overtly a violation of another's rights. Such as lust.

Can lust be legislated? There are things that you can legislate. You can outlaw pornography. And American society agrees that there are a poorly defined set of obscene things that should not be part of the public square.

You could probably argue that Islamic burka's are an attempt to legislate preventative measures to lust. I would argue burka's cover's God's beautiful creation and is morally wrong.

There is a point, where man's attempt to create model societies through legislation rather than through changes of the heart, goes horribly wrong. Burka's are an example. Does that invalidate all attempts at legislating society. Certainly not.

He does have a lousy position to defend.

[blackbart.223]

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

I guess that depends on what religion you base it on. Some of the worst atrocitys commited in history were by religious fanatics. The same holds true today.

[aruanan]

It isn't "the state." Freedom loving individuals don't want to be murdered. They jointly agree to a system of self-protection. It has nothing to do with "religion." It is self-survival.

He's talking about "legislation"; therefore, it is "the state". Besides, you entirely missed the point of what I said about virtually all types of morality being found within the province of one or another religion. I was saying that just because some moral precept is also found in one or another system of religious morality, this doesn't make that precept an example of "religious morality" to be avoided as a subject of legislation, either pro or con.

[ConservativeMan55]

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

On the contrary. Liberals are the ones saying we should not legislate morality. The question should read "Reasons why we should legislate religous morality."

[ggekko]

"prohibition against the government legislating morality.."

There is no general prohibition against legislating morality. Every legal system since Antiquity is an attempt to codify moral precepts. Whether it is Justinian's Code or English Common Law, the law seeks to proscribe unaccepatble human behaviors in society.

The American Constitution and Bill of Rights represent a codification of specific type of Christian Protestant and Judaic concepts concerning human morality and the accountability of State Power to Divine authority. Certain Enlightenment notions regarding the dignity of the individual were also grafted on in the form of the Bill of Rights.

In the hypothetical example of the Taliban Party coming to power what would prevent Islamic Law being imposed on the rest of the country is the codification of the Christian docrine of Free Will in several Ammendements to the Constitution. Sharia could only be imposed coercively and that would require a suspension of the Constitution in order for such a scenario to play out.

The American legal system, derived from Christian Protestant and Judaic concepts, is the true guarantor of authentic pluralism in society.

It is worth noting that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia also developed extensive and complex legal systems. At the Nuremburg trails the Nazis defended themeselves by asserting that evrything they had done while in power was legal under the German system. It was only after Porsecutors invoked the Natural Law doctrine (which presupposes a higher morality against which leagl systems can be judged) that convictions were obtained against the Nazis at Nuremburg.

[Cultural Jihad]

The failure of anyone to adhere to the kindness of religious morality in no way diminishes its excellence at fostering life and furthering happiness.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

And what is your alternative; the only alternative I can find to allowing a super majority to pass stupid discriminatory laws is to allow some dictator or aristocracy to over rule the majority. Unless I happen to be the dictator the best alternative is to trust the opinion of most all my neighbors or move to a friendlier neighborhood.

[ConservativeMan55]

I'll bump to that.