The Democrat Party legislates immorality. Good luck putting that horse back in the barn....
We legislate morality all the time. It is immoral to steal and rape and murder and any number of things.
New Novel ‘Terrifies’ Readers, Suggests ‘President Palin’ Could’ve Turned us Into Christian Nation
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3061305/posts
Government cannot legislate morality. Even God cannot legislate morality without removing freewill.
Government can legislate an environment for man that allows him to live morally.
I’m chuckling as I type this. I thought morality was already legislated with the Ten Commandments.
Government needs to stay out of it.
You can’t legislate morality and force people to live moral lives .
We are where we are at because people refuse to repent .
You can try to pass all the laws you want but until the people change their minds nothing will matter
Proof can be seen on the abortion issue alone and how many people who are members of the churches that scream the loudest about it have abortions and promote it
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
...morality is about right and wrong, and all laws declare one behavior right and the opposite behavior wrong...
A code of morality is what a man imposes on himself to live a rewarding life; a person on a desert island desperately needs a code of morality to survive. When there are multiple people, he needs an upgrade to that code which governs his behavior towards others, whether there is a government or not.
Governments are instituted to protect men from being harmed by others who do not have a sufficient code of morality; they do this by declaring laws and sending out men with weapons to use violence to enforce their laws. As pointed out by the Founders, if men were angels, there would be no need for governments; some people are bad, and some bad people try to join governments.
However, 3000 years of history suggest Governments cause chaos when they attempt to protect men from the consequences of their own actions.
Trivial example: nanny Bloomberg believes that drinking large sugary drinks leads to obesity, thus is immoral; he then also believes that government should suppress this immoral behavior by sending out men with guns to prohibit the sale of large sugary drinks. Just as sure as God made little green apples, if the law had not been declared contradictory to the NY Constitution, there would have been a raid by a SWAT team to measure how much rootbeer was in a cup, and a careless trigger finger would have brought tragedy. So what conclusion do we draw: too much rootbeer, immoral; but God will not protect us from the consequences of making it illegal. This has in fact happened with SWAT teams were sent out to enforce a prohibition against the sale of raw milk.
Egregious example: a supermajority of the population of the US in the early 1900s concluded that drinking alcohol (ethanol) was immoral because it led some men to drunkeness and violence; they were led by the vast majority of God fearing believers, who quoted the good book on why ingesting alcohol was immoral. Three Quarters of the States passed a Constitutional Amendment to make the distribution and sale of alcohol illegal, and authorized sending out men with guns to use violence to suppress the trade of alcohol.
By any standard, it was an unmitigated disaster, with unintended consequences of destroying life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the perversion of the entire criminal justice system ... consequences we are still living with today (e.g., infringements on the 2ndA).
So what lessons do we draw from this experience: using alcohol to excess, immoral and evil; passing laws to prohibit alcohol, EVEN MORE EVIL.
The national experience of [alcohol] Prohibition has poisoned the well of discourse for anyone who advocates, or during a debate is maneuvered to advocate, that anything immoral should be illegal. When confronted with this arguement, the vast majority of people will remember Prohibition, and react with contempt, and meaningful discussion is over.
Since there is an element of truth that “some immoral behavior should be illegal”, legal analysis should emulate economic analysis: if you want to understand the full impact of making something illegal, you should look at all consequences of the action, both short term and long term, for all actors impacted by the action.
I often hear Christians claiming that we ought to just “preach the gospel” and not get involved in politics. This is not only a false dilemma (we are commanded to do both); ironically, such an attitude serves to stop the gospel. How so?
Romons 13 i am confused by why Paul said it in the manner that he did, i guess he had his reasons
In later years they also murdered Peter and Paul, and legend has it that all of the other Apostles were murdered in the same way except for John.
Rulers hold no terror???
.