[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.

[Physicist]

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

Because you can never be sure who constitutes "we".

[Antoninus]

Oops! Sorry, I didn't realize that you HAVE to take this side in a debate. Wow, that stinks. I think I'd just take a dive.

[MonroeDNA]

Don't confuse religeon with believing in God.

Our rights are God given, but no religeon is required. You don't have to subscribe to a religeon to be moral.

[Kay Ludlow]

All we can realistically legislate is behavior. We can't legistate what people think. Morality is the guide to what we THINK, there we can't legislate it. We can only legislate behavior, which can come from immorality OR ammorality - it doesn't matter when you legislate behavior what the cause is.

[Nateman]

With Faith any evil is possible since no proof is required for a given value's acceptance as a standard. A true morality must be based on truth, or on the "Real World". You need reason to judge the right from the wrong, feelings and whim won't cut it. Unless your choice of values can win out in a "Court of Reason" with logic and facts to uphold the outcome, you've have got nothing but a "Witch Trail" with only superstitions passing verdict.

[RLK]

Most law is religious morality. Laws against murder, for example, are essentially religious doctrine. In various other parts of the world people kill each other all the time and even eatch each other. If I were to ask the average person why we should have laws against murder, he would have a difficult time giving me an answer.

[MonroeDNA]

People who search deep in their hearts realize that God is always urging us in a certain direction. Religeons form when people attempt to codify these faint, persistent winds.

Unfortunately, people always put their own spin on it, and fail in a bunch of ways. Usually they come up with a bunch of rules.

I think the ten commandments is a really, really good shot.

But please don't think that morality comes from religeon. It doesn't. Morality comes from listening to God. Religeons come from people.

[MissAmericanPie]

Love of God and obedience to God is self determined and a free commitment or it means nothing. A Christian can warn of the consequences and the removal of God's blessings towards societies and nations that reject Him and reject morality, but to legislate another's behaviour is tyranny. So is forcing citizens to participate via their taxes in the murder of tax funded abortions, but that is the other side of the coin.

The tyranny of those without morals grows because they place no such restrictions to repect opposing views on themselves that they demand from others. This becomes more obvious every day as they scream over more conservative views coming to the forefront and display their intolerance after weasling for years that their crack pot ideas should be tolerated by the moral. 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.

[Arthur McGowan]

ALL laws enforce SOME moral command. Laws against bank robbery are based on the Seventh Commandment. Laws against rape are based on the Sixth Commandment. Laws against homicide are based on the Fifth Commandment.

It is nonsense to say "You can't legislate morality." That's not an argument. All laws legislate morality.

The real question is When is a law destructive of the common good? A law that cannot be enforced, or would require a police state for its enforcement, would be destructive of the common good.

Thus, "you can't legislate morality" is a bogus argument against outlawing abortion. Since abortion is homicide, outlawing it is clearly in the interest of the common good. Anyone who wants it to be legal has to demonstrate that abortion laws are destructive of the common good, as, say, a law requiring every citizen to recite the Rosary every day would be destructive of the common good.

A person who wants abortion to be legal has to argue that outlawing it is destructive to society. "You can't legislate morality" is nothing but a dishonest slogan.

[Jael]

Ok, you mean like murder and stuff should be ok?

[APBaer]

Pardon me if I savor the irony of your situation.
From your frequent posts you have appeared to be as fervent as as any Taliban as you have tried to force your views of what is moral on others.

From that I can see how you would now feel "shafted" in having to argue this side of the issue.

[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.

[Ol' Sparky]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[liberallarry]

Ask yourself how laws are now made and how that would change if "religious morality" became law.

It seems to me that what's at issue is minority rights - and I don't mean just racial or ethnic minorities. In a free society you want to give people as much latitude as possible, consistent with some central core of values. Under a theocracy that central core is greatly expanded to conform to the tenets of the dominant religion.