[Voice in your head]

To begin analyzing the topic, you should start off considering the purpose of government. The purpose of government is to secure our rights. In simplest terms, that means deterring the use of force, fraud, and coercion against us and our property. People enter into societies for mutual benefit. Societies form government as means of realizing that mutual benefit. Government is an institution in which we vest our rightful use of retaliatory force to deter the use of force, fraud, and coercion against us. If government directs coercion against us and/or our property, then government is being used to create the problem which it was created to deter. Does the legislation of morality do this? If yes, then see above for an explanation of why not to legislate morality.

[Phil V.]

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

Try to find a moral Religious State . . . one where individuals and groups not belonging to the "correct" religion enjoy equality. When you discover that ALL Religious States disenfranchise the "infidels" you will have an acceptable answer . . . except for those who believe that disenfranchising the "infidels" is moral.

[RaceBannon]

Morality only comes from religion, else, it is not morality, it is opinion.

Morals assume the condition that what is held to as a belief, it is inviolate. Only something from God can be that.

There may be some small cases of where that which is inviolate can be broken, but only to the idea of that event being tragic, such as who gets thrown off the lifeboat when there is only food for one less person. The tragedy is fewer people can survive longer, but an innocent has to die in order for that to happen.

So, laws are what society declares to be inviolate in moral principle. That does not mean the singular event cannot escape punishment, the inviolate moral rule is still in effect.

If what you mean, though, is that a series of moral laws that are in effect do NOT make a population moral acting, then you are right. People only obey laws for fear of punishment or by agreement, but never all the people all the time, and never in the mind and heart 100% in any of those cases, the human mind may see the logic in obeying, but there will always be the tempation to break the law, either in word or deed.

That reality, that men will always have a thought or word that is against that moral code in idea, that shows that the precense of the law/moral code, did NOTHING to change the man inhis nature. That is why there needs to be laws, not becaue they make men moral, but because they define what is right and what is wrong.

[Hank Rearden]

"The Government does not own me."

You're welcome.

[Romulus]

Religious morality is not the same as natural law. The very act of legislation presupposes embrace of the idea of social order, which needn't have any specifically religious foundation to be grounded in natural law. Legislation does not exist in a state of howling anarchy; it can honor principles of subsidiarity and personal dignity without being specifically "religious". Thus, the rights to life, property, family, conscience, and culture all exist outside religion.

Religious morality -- the particulars of ecclesial moral doctrine -- ought not be legislated precisely because to do so violates natural law. Christians will add to this, that religious conformity enjoined by law is not faith but terrorism, and contradicts all we know of a God who is and reveals Himself through love, whose salvation is freedom because it's driven by love not law and because its ultimate promise -- triumph over death -- is the ultimate freedom.

[billbears]

So I guess we just wipe out that facts that several of the respective states after the signing of the Constitution had established state churches? And that some of those states required taxes, as much as 5%, to be paid to maintain those churches as late as the 1820s. And the fact that several of the respective states still require state leaders to have a belief in God Almighty before being sworn in?

In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights limits the federal government, not the states. Connecticut had an established church until 1818, and Massachusetts until 1833.

Is that the kind of religious morality that you're against legislating? Seems the Founders and the immediate generation following thought differently

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Nephi]

Laws based upon religious morality are not inherently wrong. Some will refer to laws against murder as "religious laws" and because of their mention in the Ten Commandments, few will disagree that it has a religious connection. This, however, is a sophomoric defense for "religious laws."

When one steals, assaults, rapes or murders another their will has been violated and that is offensive whether the victim is religious, or not.

Morality laws are those that are designed to protect an individual from his own poor judgement, or lack of "religion."

As a religious person, I believe that God granted us our agency not because He expected us to make only correct choices, but because He knew that we might learn from our mistakes.

Liberty allows one to make the wrong choice, ie tobacco, alcohol, prostitution, etc. Protecting liberty seeks to protect one from the poor choices/judgement of another, ie, driving drunk, driving stoned, etc.

This is what is disingenuous about the anti-drug/anti-terrorist TV ads. It is the anti-freedom drug policies that have created a black market in which terrorists can profit from the drug trade to fund their terrorism. Not unlike inner city gangs who fund their weapons purchases using the artificially created economy of the underground drug market.

It is simple. A law is just when it preserves liberty for an individual, or society, from being deprived by another's actions.

[Dumb_Ox]

This might be helpful: Should Human Law repress all vices?

[Uncle Miltie]

Because Sharia sucks...

[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?

[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.