Legislating What?
by Thomas Jeffries on 11/04/2008 at 1:34 PM
Now that it's almost over, the thing that's surprised me the most about this election season is the lack of independent thinking displayed by many voters, in particular those who claim to subscribe to a Judeo-Christian worldview. Time and again I've been struck by believers who simply regurgitate some perceived need for "hope" and "change," yet aren't able to articulate any specifics with regard to these lofty sounding ideals.
I hadn't realized just how pervasive this kind of thinking was until last week, when I showed up at a friend's house for a night of chili and video-game bowling. As the election was just a few days away, the evening's conversation eventually turned to politics.
My first instinct was to avoid any discussion of the candidates, as I didn't want to turn a night intended for harmless fun into a charged debate. But when one of the guys, a seasoned Christian who works for a local nonprofit ministry, started explaining the reasoning behind his voting philosophy, I found it hard to remain silent.
The discussion shifted to the value of human life and the role that politicians play in either protecting it or devaluing its importance. I brought up the importance of a president's philosophy on judicial nominations and looming legislation like the Freedom of Choice Act.
And that's when it happened.
"Come on," he said. "You can't legislate morality."
I could hardly believe what I was hearing. Now, I don't know who first coined the phrase, or how long ago, but I do know that it has managed to live on ever since. I probably heard it for the first time nearly 20 years ago, and for a moment or two, it seemed to make sense. But the more I thought about it, I realized that if you can't legislate morality, then we might as well throw out many of the most important rules in human history.
Laws forbidding murder, rape and theft are all based in morality -- in particular the Ten Commandments. Lying (to a jury, for instance) and cheating (say, on your taxes) are also matters of biblical morality. Sure, we have plenty of laws that have little to do with Judeo-Christian values, but those are the issues that tell us where we can park our cars downtown during business hours or how public funds are divided between maintaining playgrounds and upgrading roads. The most vital issues pertaining to matters of personal property and public safety are inherently moral and always have been.
Now, there will always be those who say the phrase isn't meant to be taken literally, that the true meaning is more esoteric. "You can't legislate morality," they argue, "because laws won't change people's hearts."
So what then? Do we abandon laws based in morality when they're no longer popular? Do we legalize drugs, prostitution, sex with children, euthanasia? You might say that such things could never happen, but we all know better. They've happened before, and they're happening now. If not in America, such laws are already in place in other parts of the world. Where does it end?
History tells us that we've been here before. Just read the Book of Judges, which describes a time when Israel departed from the standards of conduct found in the law. The result? "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
You can't legislate morality, you say? Not only can we, but we must.
1. Janelle said the following at 2:12 PM on Nov 4:
Your friend is right: morality cannot be legislated. No amount of laws and punishments can make people do the right thing when they are bent on wrong. They will spend all their time looking for loopholes.
But that's no excuse to stop putting moral laws in place. We have to act morally whether we (or anyone else) likes it or not. We must institute laws that stop people from hurting themselves or from hurting others. But if we never show them why it's wrong, we have failed. This is a two-part operation.
Parents do this with their children. Kid breaks the rules, dad sends him to his room, and about fifteen minutes later comes in to talk about why the child is being punished. It's one of the ways children learn good morals. They are convinced both by the discipline and by the father's clear explanation and his example.
2. Simon said the following at 2:13 PM on Nov 4:
My take on "legislating morality": It's _immoral_ to legislate against something that does not consist of aggressive force or fraud. That's because legislating ultimately requires the use of force, in response to the act that was legislated against. Even if no actual force is used in enforcing the law, the threat of armed police coming to your door, breaking it down, and dragging you away at gunpoint is there. This is, by definition, aggressive force, unless the act it's being used against is aggressive (murder -- including abortion, rape, theft, assault, etc), in which case it becomes defensive force and thus not immoral.
No matter how immoral the act in question is, as long as it does not consist of force/fraud, it is still immoral to legislate against it, by the above line of reasoning. This includes laws against gambling, porn, alcohol, drugs, gun ownership, you name it.
3. Jonathon said the following at 2:21 PM on Nov 4:
Agreed!
4. Bertha said the following at 2:27 PM on Nov 4:
"Do we legalize drugs, prostitution, sex with children, euthanasia?"
San Francisco is actually voting today to decriminalize prostitution and prop 5 in CA softens punishment for drug use, so yeah it's happening already.
5. obewan said the following at 2:28 PM on Nov 4:
I think people who want to abort would react differently on the "morality" issue than say toward murder should abortion become illegal. That is the point people who say you can't legislate morality would make. Look at what happened with the 55 mph speed limits? It was a law that was largely ignored. Unfortunately, there are probably many in our country that would view abortion with the same level of seriousness. Doesn't mean we should give up trying to overthrow Roe V. Wade. Just means we should recognize how people might react at the end of the day.
6. Ronnica said the following at 2:36 PM on Nov 4:
Oh, oh, oh, this is so well-done! I had essentially this same argument in a series of posts I made last week on whether or not Christians can vote pro-choice. Sure, it sounds good to say you can't legislate morality. In some sense, you can't. But then you think about the fact that Judeo-Christian values undergird our entire legistlative system. People don't mind you legislating morality, as long as it is things that they personally don't struggle with.
7. Laura said the following at 2:47 PM on Nov 4:
I voted for people who I believe can govern, not just legislate. We've had a severe shortage of that ability on both sides of the aisle for quite awhile now.
8. Joshua said the following at 2:51 PM on Nov 4:
I see and understand the point regarding legislating morality but I'm not sure about the main point of this post. We must? As a Christian, I am called to obedience to God's Word. God's Word also tells me I need to obey government authorities (where it does not conflict with God's Word). However, does legislating a moral law mean that people will not break it? I don't think so. If abortion was illegal, people would still have abortions.
However, it must be stated that everyone who is not a believer DOES what is right in their own eyes. What other standard is there? We can legislate morals, but why? Unbelievers are still going to hell even if they follow the laws of the land. As a Christian, our priority should be on sharing the gospel rather than any political agenda. If Christians gave 1/10th the effort to sharing their faith instead of convincing people to vote or pushing a political agenda, what a better country/world we would live in.
I've heard it said before, if people are going to reject Christ, then they should go sin as much as possible because this life is all that they get to enjoy. Harsh view, but how can we argue when taking eternity into the perspective?
9. Matthew said the following at 3:23 PM on Nov 4:
I'm with #2, there shouldn't be a "moral" law against anything unless aggressive force or fraud is involved. So people who say "you can't legislate morality are wrong."
But they're also right, as other commenters have pointed out. Only the Holy Spirit is effective in changing hearts. I fear that in this election (and many elections before) many Christians put political power as the ultimate means of protecting the unborn when there are many other things that are as important (or more important) in this regard. I have, in a roundabout and sarcastic way, enumerated them on my own blog.
These same people who are skittish about "legislating morality" are probably also just fine with using the government to enforce God's moral decrees about poverty (which is another discussion for another day, and I certainly don't think that such a thing is entirely abhorrent.)
So yes: we do legislate morality, and we ought to include the unborn especially in our political consideration (other things, like gay marriage, not so much IMO.) But we serve a great and powerful God who has far more power than any President, and He gives us grace to do many other things than just vote. Let's have a conversation about those.
10. Tom Neven said the following at 3:30 PM on Nov 4:
More important, the purpose of government is not to legislate morality; it's to legislate behavior. Even if the thief still covets my car in his heart, clearly a biblical sin to be judged by God, he is deterred from or punished for doing so because of the law's intent to preserve order.
To think otherwise is to confuse the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man. (Joshua #8 take note.) Read Augustine's City of God for a much deeper take on this.
11. IMO said the following at 3:41 PM on Nov 4:
"More important, the purpose of government is not to legislate morality; it's to legislate behavior."
That's a great point, Tom!
12. Thomas Jeffries said the following at 4:14 PM on Nov 4:
Some will bring up the false quandry between obeying God or obeying government, but Romans 13 clearly explains that God has established civil rulers as His servants on earth. "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience" (Romans 13:5).
Admittedly, this sounds pretty harsh, especially when many civil rulers are actually hostile to biblical principles, but we are nonetheless bound by Scripture to submit to their authority. In fact, one can easily surmise that at the time he wrote this, Paul and the early church were under the pagan rule of the Roman government. Thus, even when suffering under rulers who persecuted believers, Paul continued to insist that civil government was God-ordained.
The exception to this, of course, is that Christians are not compelled to obey a particular law that is diametrically opposed to God's Word. For example, when King Herod gave orders to kill all the young boys in the vicinity of Bethlehem, Mary and Joseph didn't deliver the infant Jesus to the nearest police station (Matt. 2:13-18). But when the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus into betraying himself as an enemy of Rome, He undoubtedly suprised some by affirming the law that required the Jews to pay taxes to a hostile Roman government (Matt. 22:15-22).
13. Alex C. said the following at 6:29 PM on Nov 4:
I once got into a debate with a liberal friend over this issue, and they basicly answered in the same way that Simon in post #2 did; that the goverment should only make a particular action illegal if that action causes direct harm to others or infringes on their rights. Going by that, the only "morality" that the goverment can legislate is "don't hamr other people".
14. J. Tucker said the following at 6:32 PM on Nov 4:
Bertha (#4),
While the legalization of prostitution was on the ballot in San Francisco this election, Proposition 5 does not "soften" punishment on drug use. It gives judges the OPTION to modify the jail term and probationary periods for guilty, non-violent drug offenders in exchange for OR in addition to drug rehabilitation programs. Far from decriminalizing drugs, it actually provides a punishment that will help people end their drug dependencies.
I only hope that some Christian ministries take advantage of this opportunity and offer Christian counselling to these drug offenders. After all, drug users need to love of Jesus to help change their lives.
15. Nate said the following at 6:47 PM on Nov 4:
Scripture tells us that governments are appointed by God to keep order in a society. So even evil governments ultimately serve God's plan. If a government passes and enforces laws that are in line with God's Word, the society will function better. True transformation of the heart, however, belongs solely to Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. So people who say you can't legislate morality are partially right, but they are completely unpragmatic. I think that the statement actually means, as the third grader on the playground said, "I'm going to do what I want!" and "You can't make me!" I'm having trouble remembering at the moment, but I think a concussion followed. (Fictional story based on actual events.)
16. Jenny said the following at 4:53 AM on Nov 5:
I think your friend meant that government ought not to legislate PERSONAL morality, which is quite a different thing from morality as a whole. I personally believe government should refrain from passing laws that encroach on others' personal freedom of life- hence, I support gay marriage because supporting it does not encroach on anyone else's freedom. However, abortion does encroach on the freedom of a person- namely, that of the fetus who has no say in the matter- and should be illegal. Child porn should be illegal because the child has no say in the matter. Drugs should be legal because it is solely influencing the drug-taker and not directly affecting any others.
17. LouiseinPA said the following at 6:44 AM on Nov 5:
You know, I agree with your point about the legislation of morality. However, I strongly disagree with your statement implying that most Obama supporters only have some vague idea of what "hope" or "change" means. Yes some may not understand the issues but certainly there are some who vote Republican based on the fact that they think Obama is a Muslim, terrorist, etc, or any number of false ideas.
18. Ken said the following at 8:06 AM on Nov 5:
The saddest part of all this was how many Christians got caught up in the politicking.
I saw messages like how stupid McCain/Palin supporters were from people in my church.
Like you ask, what happend to independent thought?
And it doesn't stop with politics, the ignorance of Scripture and Doctrine is astounding.
19. Chris said the following at 9:09 AM on Nov 5:
Thomas Jeffries writes:
Admittedly, this sounds pretty harsh, especially when many civil rulers are actually hostile to biblical principles, but we are nonetheless bound by Scripture to submit to their authority. In fact, one can easily surmise that at the time he wrote this, Paul and the early church were under the pagan rule of the Roman government. Thus, even when suffering under rulers who persecuted believers, Paul continued to insist that civil government was God-ordained.
So were the signers of the Declaration of Independence going against Scripture? Many of their reasons for breaking away were purely civil in nature.
20. Rachael said the following at 10:43 AM on Nov 5:
The assisted suicide issue was on the state ballot...sad...I hope it won't go through. Still, God's in control, though.
21. Mike Theemling said the following at 11:01 AM on Nov 5:
Some interesting responses that I'd like to comment on:
I like Nate's comment that Thomas Jeffries explained that all governing authorities are established by God. There is no caveat mentioned that we are free to engage in civil disobedience if the laws are not completely compatible with Christianity. The only exception is when one law commands us to directly violate a God-given commandment (e.g. If we were told we were not allowed to pray or read our Bibles). This of course does that mean that all governments are equally "good" (e.g. some might be better at handling corruption than others), but it does mean that we are to submit (a very unpopular word in America) to those in authority.
Regarding "regulating morality", the classical argument of "if it's not hurting anyone so why make it illegal" is flawed because it assumes that individuals live in a vacuum when in fact any person who lives in a society has an effect on it.
For example, one might say that we should legalize illicit drugs because A) people will do them anyway, B) it will save resources used to enforce drug laws, and C) it's a "victimless" crime. Regarding A), that's a terrible reason to legalize something and has little basis in determining whether something is right or not. People still commit murder, rape, theft, and a myriad of other crimes that people know are illegal. Does that mean we should stop our efforts to prevent/punish the crime? Regarding B) (saving resources), although effort to enforce drug use will go down (as it's now legal) that effort saved will most likely just be diverted in other areas instead. Perhaps into more enforcement of people under the influence of drugs while operating a vehicle. Or more people going into the ER because of a drug overdose and thus will crowd out other people. Finally, it is far from a victimless crime. It can result in domestic violence, financial ruin (which may lead to committing crimes), and an encouragement for others to use drugs.
The point here is that I would argue so long as one lives as a part of a society, one's actions will always have an impact upon that society. Even with a suicide, the police still need to devote resources towards investigating the act to ensure it wasn't a homicide made to look like a suicide.
That is why it's important to understand that there's more to a law than just what it says. A law reflects the values of a society, and how one is expected to act within that society.
22. Matt from DC said the following at 11:45 AM on Nov 5:
Simon in #2,
The legislation of morality has nothing to do with your axiom that "It is immoral to legislate against something that does not consist of aggressive force or fraud." Are you saying that the definition of aggressive force is "[someone] coming to your door, breaking it down, and dragging you away at gunpoint"?
Tell me by what authority do you define immorality as the legislation of non-violent/non-fraudulent acts. If you say by reason then consider municipal ordinances. The laws of a city or town that they decide covering a range of situations like animal control, public nuisances, junkyards, recycling, liquor control, health regulation, and zoning. What reason do you have to deny a town's right to self government? Or, said another way, if a town chooses officials, writes laws, and votes them into effect please explain how that is immoral? Sure, they can agree upon and pass laws that are immoral, but you say that the existence of laws beyond ones against aggressive violence and fraud are immoral in and of themselves.
If your bar for legislation is aggressive force which you define as break down doors, dragging people into custody, and gun waving then what about lethal force that is not aggressive? In your system a person could peacefully skip around feeding people who do not know better cyanide pills. In your system date rape is legal. No one was aggressive right? They were just drugged and abused or worse.
You end by insulting reason and calling millions of people immoral. Making authoritative claims with no support and circularly arguing based on your own single point is not reason. Also, don't you see that you have called all who support by approving of or not rebelling against any legal restriction on gambling, porn, alcohol, drugs, or gun ownership immoral?
The legislation of mortality is about curtailing my freedom so that it does not harm my neighbor. God's moral laws are where morality comes from and are summed up as "Love your neighbor". You seem highly concerned about the expression of your freedom and unaware that the consequences of your legal system would be the destruction of most people's freedom.
I, for one, do not agree with you.
23. obewan said the following at 12:19 PM on Nov 5:
Mike Theemling Writes:
">>People still commit murder, rape, theft, and a myriad of other crimes that people know are illegal. Does that mean we should stop our efforts to prevent/punish the crime?<<"
-------------------------------------
The punishment aspect would become the crux of the problem should abortion become illegal. Since it is murder, who would get the penalty? The doctor, the mother, or both? Would the penalty be life in prison or the death sentence? I would predict that there would be a few landmark cases at first to plead hardship or the mother's case. If a light sentence followed, it might serve as precedent to water down other murder cases even. The issue of fairness might come into play even. Why should one murderer get life or the death penalty, while the other one gets only 5 yrs or something like that. Our courts might become even more clogged than they already are. Who knows, maybe the abortion rate would be low enough that it might not be a major issue though. For now, I would rather focus on extending mercy and forgiveness through support of crisis pregnancy counseling centers and adoption support ministries.
24. Emily said the following at 12:19 PM on Nov 5:
Jenny! (#16) THANK YOU! This is my instinctual feeling too. I wonder if it's Biblical. Ted Slater mentioned in one of the other threads, 1 Peter 2:13-15, which really gives me something to think about. Thoughts?
25. Leah said the following at 5:20 PM on Nov 5:
Oh, Amen. Except it's not just Christians, it's SO many others. They wanted Obama in office for "change". Not because they agreed with his policies. That's dangerous.
(NB: not saying that I don't support Obama/do support McCain, just saying the attitude behind the vote is dangerous).
26. Alex C. said the following at 1:20 AM on Nov 6:
Reply to post #22:
I think you may be misinterpreting what Simon in post #2 said. His line about ""[someone] coming to your door, breaking it down, and dragging you away at gunpoint"" was talking about how laws use the threat of force in order to prevent crimes. (for example: we pay our taxes because we know that if we don't, we'll be audited and sent to jail.) EVERYTHING the goverment does, ANY law that's passed, constitutes a use of force in some way, and some would say that its immoral to use force to prevent an action that harms no one. This page (http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Government) I think explains the idea very well.
The examples you brought up (animal control, public nuisances, zoning, etc.) could fit the theory, since many of those types of laws could be rationalized as preventing indirect harm (force) against people (for example: a zoning law that prevents a plant from being opened right next to a residential area would be protecting that area from being harmed by the pollution that plant might generate)
"then what about lethal force that is not aggressive?"
I think you got too hung up on that word agressive. the keyword isn't "agressive" but "force". Killing someone with a cyanide pill would be just as much an act of force as shooting them with a gun or something, because both acts harm the person in the same way and end their lives.
27. Mike Theemling said the following at 2:34 AM on Nov 6:
obewan,
You raise a good point concerning standardized punishments for crimes. I too have discussed with friends what should be the appropriate punishment for abortion (the woman who does it and the person who performs it) if it were illegal on the basis of it being "first degree murder". Some argue that the woman was coerced into the decision. Regardless, coersion in other crimes generally does mean the person gets off scot free.
The American justice system can be very inconsistent with regards to punishments. Two people commiting essentially the same crime in two different states can get two very different sentences.
Part of the problem too is that abortion can be very hard to prove in courts. One must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, A) A woman was knowledgably pregnant, B) She intended to abort the fetus, and C) She willingly did so.
Still, that doesn't mean necessitate that abortion is not worth dealing with. It's very difficult to also prove rape but that doesn't mean that we should not have laws against it or to prevent it.
28. Rebecca said the following at 9:55 AM on Nov 6:
This is not an accurate statement: "Drugs should be legal because it is solely influencing the drug-taker and not directly affecting any others."
Alcohol is legal, but how many people are affected by drunk drivers, or by parents who are alcoholics? Unless you live on an deserted island, your behavior and choices have effects on others. Any person whose normal judgment is impaired has the potential for societal harm.
The goal of secular law is to maintain a peaceful and orderly society. Also, the Bible tells us that The Law is to show us what sin is. I'm sorry, but the reasoning that people will do morally corrupt deeds anyways, is not good reasoning not have laws that dictate basic morality.
I think we take our blessings for granted in America. We have a very peaceful society compared to much of the world. For most Americans, we do not live in daily fear of imprisonment, torture, harassment, or being killed by our government or by our neighbors.
29. John said the following at 11:13 AM on Nov 6:
Janelle,
No, his friend was wrong. Legislation IS codified morality. When a law is written it IS morality being legislated.
Saying, "you can't legislate morality", is like saying, "you can't breathe air".
You're making an illogical statment.
The heart, however, cannot be changed by laws. Only Jesus can change the heart.
If abortion is murder and God commands us to defend the defenseless but we continue to allow it to happen, aren't we guilty of a sin?
30. Matt from DC said the following at 7:33 AM on Nov 7:
Alex C. from #26,
You may be right. I considered it before and while I was writing. Our positions would be too similar for comment if that was so. If I am wrong then I will gladly accept that. However, since I don't know him I can only go by what he wrote. He did not write generally about force. He said his example defined it. He didn't say he was making broad generalizations. He said he was making a line of reasoning. Points he wanted us to connect to reach a conclusion. It looks like we'll be waiting for a reply to settle this.
Have a great weekend!
31. EM said the following at 11:49 PM on Nov 7:
Interesting discussion.
I've often said that you can't legislate morality BUT you can legislate penalties for immoral behaviors that harm others.
Morality IS a matter of the heart and Paul makes the case over and over that the law is incapable of changing the human heart. But, what the law is good at is showing up the sinfulness of our hearts - for how would we know that it is wrong to covet except that the law says: "do not steal."
Thus, we should not assume that a law can make people moral but we know that the law, by penalizing certain immoral behaviors can - and does - reduce the likelihood that people will behave in certain immoral ways. Thus, rape can be legally proscribed but lust cannot. Hatred cannot be banned but murder can. Racism (heart issue) cannot be stopped by a law but discrimination on the basis of pigmentation (outward evidence of the heart issue) can.
Legislating morality is silly. Legislating penalties for immorality is sane - and necessary.
32. Anakin Niceguy said the following at 11:53 AM on Nov 8:
For those of you that want to legislate morality, I like to know whose morality shall be legislated.
The Catholics when they want to outlaw contraceptives? (But that would make the Protestants mad.)
Some of the Protestants who want to pass blue laws and keep you from working on Sunday or ban alcohol? (But that would Catholics and other Protestants mad)
Or let's outlaw immodest clothing under public exposure laws!
How far do you want to take this? As it is, whenever people try to justify "legislating morality" in bringing up supposed examples that everyone agrees on, it usually goes like this ...
Laws forbidding murder, rape and theft are all based in morality -- in particular the Ten Commandments. Lying (to a jury, for instance) and cheating (say, on your taxes) are also matters of biblical morality
The problem is that all of these issues of morality have do to with the protection of life, liberty, property. Thanks, Tom Jeffries. You just made the case for those of us who believe in limited government. Even abortion, pedophilia, and euthanasia can be understood in these contexts. If not, why not? That's why we have "age of consent" and "living wills".
Drugs, gambling and prostitution are already legal in some jurisdictions. I don't hear you wanting to ban alcohol (which has been arguably more destructive than Nevada brothels, the lottery, and marijuana). I think the reason we still have wine, beer, and liquor in our communities is because some church leaders still want these things.
In the Boundless podcast, somebody said that church and family have their responsibilities that government cannot really fulfill. This was said in reference to social justice issues - poverty, etc. As a devout Christian, I most certainly believe that.
But I also believe that legislating chastity, frugality, and sobriety stand or fall together with legislating charity. The government that stays out of our pocketbook needs to stay out of our bedrooms. It has no right telling us what to eat, drink, or smoke. As devout Christian, when I argue for the decriminalization of Saturday-night vices, I do not support these sins anymore than I support greed when I argue for deregulation or ask that government cut entitlement programs. As one founding father said, government governs best which governs the least.
I say that many of my fellow believers are really no better than big-government liberals. They want to use the State to impose their worldview on the rest of the populace (or just make them churchy enough to be acceptable). And even in this, they are arbitrary. Sex is controlled, but not public immodesty. Marijuana but not alcohol. Sheer inconsistency. Remember the Golden Rule and don't use a political philosophy that you don't want others using against you.
33. Matt from DC said the following at 1:51 PM on Nov 10:
Anakin Niceguy,
I want to start off by asking a question about your name. Which nice guy Anakin are you? The one from episode I, II, or the first part of III? I want to know because I am going to make my presence scarce when you decide to betray our order and murder us all. Or worse, are we in the latter half of episode III and you're just saying that to track us down and kill us?
I was following your point until the last paragraph when you went overboard with the name calling and generalizations. Brother, were talking about defending the defenseless. Sure, you bring up some interesting points, but we're talking about the legality of abortion.
Let's legislate God's morality on abortion.
34. Alex C. said the following at 6:10 PM on Nov 10:
Reply to #33: I thought this topic was about the concept of "legislating morality". At what point did it become a topic about abortion? Anakin's post is completely on-topic as far as I can tell. The fact that he didn;t talk about abortion specificly doesn't mean you should discount his points.
And I may be putting words into other peoples' mouths again, like I did in my last post, but I would guess that Anakin's view of goverment and law would still be consistent with making laws against abortion. If its ok to outlaw murder, because it deprieves a person of life, liberty, and property, then it should be ok to outlaw abortion too.
35. Anakin Niceguy said the following at 9:50 PM on Nov 10:
Matt,
You write:
"Brother, were talking about defending the defenseless."
If that is all people were talking about, then yes, I agree. Stopping abortion is predicated on the idea of protecting life.
However, when we go beyond discussions of protecting life, liberty, and property then we have a problem. We are flirting with the idea of the slow adoption of a state religion. But the Church is married to Christ, not to Caesar.
36. Matt from DC said the following at 1:40 PM on Nov 11:
Alex C,
I got that idea from this paragraph:
"The discussion shifted to the value of human life and the role that politicians play in either protecting it or devaluing its importance. I brought up the importance of a president's philosophy on judicial nominations and looming legislation like the Freedom of Choice Act."
That doesn't mean that we have to only talk about abortion, but that was the context of the discussion when the comment that the post is about was made in. That is why I said what I said.
Anakin,
I agree with you. Let's keep our government to protecting life, liberty, and property. I don't agree that we're moving toward a state religion, but I can understand that some come to that conclusion. I also am not confused about who my Lord is, but understand that some people's positions indicate that they might be.
37. John said the following at 6:00 AM on Nov 14:
Anakin,
You're confused semantically.
ALL legislation is codified morality.
You can't get away from it.
And to solve your dilemma of "who's" morality, that's simple, it's already been set up by the founders...our Republic.
If places want to outlaw liquor, they can. People vote, reps vote, law enacted or not.
It's up to the people, tempered by representatives.
Alcohol was made illegal before. Some people wanted it that way, convinced enough people to do it, it was passed and it didn't work.
Your argument should be focused on "what amount or type of legislation" best addresses different issues, NOT whether or not it's possible to legislate morality.
Does making alcohol consumption, production and selling illegal solve the problem associated with it? Nope. But that does not negate the fact that we do in fact legislate morality, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT LEGISLATION IS, codified morality.
It's not as clear cut and simple as you make it out to be (life, liberty and property). Although it is true that the government is way too involved in our lives and some, while lamenting this on one hand, promote it on the other. We all have to try to be more consistent.
38. John said the following at 2:31 PM on Nov 22:
And, to add further....