[Antoninus]

Man's rights are man's rights, the role of government is simply to protect them and to leave morality to men.

No, you're confused. Man's rights descend from Natural Law as ordained by God. There is no right to act in a way that's morally evil. No right to abortion. No right to sodomy. No right to adultery. No right to pornography. A government that protects such false "rights" is one that does great harm to its citizens and which will eventually become overtly tyrannical. An immoral or amoral republic can not exist for any great length of time before devolving into tyranny.

The American Republic was not founded with a morally relativistic Constitution. It was founded upon Natural Law and if that is taken away, I guarantee you, our republic will fall. Why do you think groups like the ACLU are so keen to undermine our public morality?

[steve-b]

There is no right to act in a way that's morally evil.

No right to steal $50,000,000 to spend on idiotic social engineering boondoggles.

[timm22]

There is no right to act in a way that's morally evil. No right to abortion. No right to sodomy. No right to adultery. No right to pornography. A government that protects such false "rights" is one that does great harm to its citizens and which will eventually become overtly tyrannical. An immoral or amoral republic can not exist for any great length of time before devolving into tyranny.

Does this also mean there is no right to persuade others to join the wrong religion? No right to disrespect one's elders? No right to be slothful, gluttonous, or immorally proud?

What criterion do we use to determine if something is "morally evil"?

[You Dirty Rats]

Man's rights descend from Natural Law as ordained by God. There is no right to act in a way that's morally evil. No right to abortion. No right to sodomy. No right to adultery. No right to pornography. A government that protects such false "rights" is one that does great harm to its citizens and which will eventually become overtly tyrannical. An immoral or amoral republic can not exist for any great length of time before devolving into tyranny.

In other words, the way to avoid tyranny is to establish your personal view of morality. I'll pass.

[ThinkDifferent]

There is no right to act in a way that's morally evil. No right to abortion. No right to sodomy. No right to adultery. No right to pornography. A government that protects such false "rights" is one that does great harm to its citizens and which will eventually become overtly tyrannical. An immoral or amoral republic can not exist for any great length of time before devolving into tyranny.

So government must imprison unmarried adults who have sex, because otherwise we'd have tyranny. Thanks for clearing that up.

[durasell]

No, you're confused. Man's rights descend from Natural Law as ordained by God. There is no right to act in a way that's morally evil. No right to abortion. No right to sodomy. No right to adultery. No right to pornography. A government that protects such false "rights" is one that does great harm to its citizens and which will eventually become overtly tyrannical. An immoral or amoral republic can not exist for any great length of time before devolving into tyranny.




Holy cow! You're actually serious!

[Andonius_99]

I didn't mean to imply any form of moral relativism, one only need look at the state of modern day Europe to see what moral relativism achieves. That said, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "rights" are in this day and age.

According to the left, it's moral to do whatever feels good or absolves you of responsibility. I disagree wholeheartedly with the assertion that one isn't responsible for their actions, but morality tells you that. The idea that government should legislate what is or isn't moral is wrong. You can't legislate morality any more than you can legislate speech. To legislate morality is to negate and dissolve the very freedom that we all enjoy.

Many on this forum warn about slippery slopes of all kinds, but tend to turn a blind eye when the person doing the legislating have an "R" next to their names. This country is about freedom, and right now, I think we need freedom from government more than anything else. People can control themselves, let them; but don't have the government try to give people a moral compass. The left tries to legislate what is moral and what isn't, is the right headed in that direction now as well?

[CSM]

"There is no right to act in a way that's morally evil. No right to abortion. No right to sodomy. No right to adultery. No right to pornography."

Outside of the abortion issue you list above, the rest are not directly harmfull to anyone that is not involved and consenting to the activity. Are you actually claiming that there is no inherent right to sin? If so, why did God give man the gift of a free will? What value is the gift of heaven when man is forced to adhere to God's will?

Is not the reward of a place in heaven a reward for freely giving your soul to God? If you are forced, by government mandate, to follow God's will, is not that choice taken from you? If you have no choice, how can you be rewarded?