Actually you are making my point. TCQ was stating that social conservatives make laws based on harm of individuals or society and I was disputing that in the sense that many seem to be made based on whether they are evil or sinful, not whether they show a demonstrable harm to society.
______________________________________
Glad we agree on that. I will say that you cannot find a sin that is not demonstrably harmful to someone.
______________________________________
And although I agree with many of those points, rules prohibiting behavior based on sin is a matter more for the individual or Church rather than rules that should be enforced by government.
_______________________________________
Since all sin hurts people, I disagree. However, most sins are so minor, common and persistent that they are not worth resources to enforce laws against, and since we are all sinners, and we all don’t want to be hounded by anyone with a grudge or anyone with a badge who is having a bad day, I think Christian and non-Christian will be in agreement on a host of things that should not be outlawed but are still sins to a Christian. When you get to murder (read abortion), prostitution, drugs, and the like, you will find most Christians supporting laws against because they are so destructive, so there is a certain amount of cost/benefit analysis involved. The difference I suppose is that the Christian conservative is less likely than an atheist libertarian to worry that he doesn’t have a right to outlaw some destructive behavior. The Christian has a basis for his view that it is wrong.
“Since all sin hurts people, I disagree. However, most sins are so minor, common and persistent that they are not worth resources to enforce laws against, and since we are all sinners, and we all don’t want to be hounded by anyone with a grudge or anyone with a badge who is having a bad day, I think Christian and non-Christian will be in agreement on a host of things that should not be outlawed but are still sins to a Christian. When you get to murder (read abortion), prostitution, drugs, and the like, you will find most Christians supporting laws against because they are so destructive, so there is a certain amount of cost/benefit analysis involved. The difference I suppose is that the Christian conservative is less likely than an atheist libertarian to worry that he doesn’t have a right to outlaw some destructive behavior. The Christian has a basis for his view that it is wrong.”
So how then do you reconcile
“You shall have no other gods before Me.”
With
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
Presumably, worshiping a “false god” or maybe even the Devil himself would be a mortal sin to a Christian (i.e. not one of those minor things that wouldn’t be worth the effort to enforce) ...... yet not only is it NOT against the law.... but it is a Constitutionaly enshrined right.
One of our highest laws says that you are free to worship Zeus, Minerva or even Old Scratch himself.
It would seem to me that your basis for how laws should be established would place you in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights.
It’s one of the reasons many libertarians (such as myself) view Social Conservatives with a great deal of trepidation.