Legislating morality

[faster_jackrabbit]

Something interesting was brought up in another thread, and I thought it was important enough to discuss separately.

Many christians support legislation, both at the national level and at the state and local level, that prohibits behavior they consider immoral or sinful or whatever.

This includes porn, unmarried sex (it is illegal in many jurisdictions, just not enforced), gay sex, gay marriage, booze, topless bars, and so on.

The way I understand the "free will" gag, sin was created and man was given free will to either sin or not sin. Isn't that the whole point, for him to choose whether to sin or not?

If you prevent someone from sinning by passing a law, are you not removing that person's free will to commit that sin? Or at least impairing it?

Some people, such as the dominionists, want to set up an actual theocracy. Wouldn't that remove free will entirely?

Would not god be angry that you are interfering with his plans for mankind?



edit: some people are apparently consfused about the term "legislating morality". This does not just mean creating laws based on morality. All laws that govern human behavior are based on morality.

This is a negative term that means legislating a particular moral code (the bible) on everyone, when not everyone accepts its validity.

 

[gengwall]

Hey - FJR, glad you split this out. This should be interesting.

My take - the founders intentionally set up the government so that religious morality could not be used as a basis for the law. They did this, I believe, because there is never any gaurentee whose religious morailty might be impossed. Although many of them probably had very strong religiously derived convictions about what was good and bad behavior, ultimately they did not even trust that their own convictions were necessarily God's. Better to leave religious morality to the family and leave societal morality to the government.

I also belive this was the only way they could perceive of having a free society. Not so much a society that allows free will (although I think it does that), but one where all are free to exercise their will. (OK, maybe those two things are the same). As long as there is no societal detriment (harm to either individuals or the society as a whole), then we are free to do as we please, at least as far as the government is concerned.

So, what does that mean. Basically, you can't make laws because it is what God wants or says is right or wrong. But, you also can't make laws because it is what society says is right or wrong if those laws are unbalanced in their treatment of people. But you can make laws against what society perceives as social ills as long as they are not discriminatory.

Some examples - topless bars. There are certainly demonstrable societal ills that topless bars contribute to. They are also places of public accomodation so they do not have any inherent right to "privacy". (Note, this is different than private "gentlemen's" clubs which do have more freedom and privacy rights). The fact that God is also probably really against topless bars is irrelevant in this case. They can be regulated and legislated against without invoking any religious reasoning.

Gay sex is an entirely different story. It is true that God is against Gay sex. It is also true that one could make a societal case against gay sex. But gay sex takes place in private and therefore is outside the reach of regulation. If you legislate against Gay sex, then, because of "equal protection", you could legislate against any kind of private, consensual, heterosexual sex. Maybe a state or city would want to pass a law that you and your wife can't have sex on Sunday mornings because it is harmful to society that it might keep you and your family from going to church. Well, we all can certainly see how unconstitutional that is and we all agree that government can not have that kind of intrusion into our private lives. Sorry, to say to my Christian friends, but the argument for gay sex is exactly the same.

Every major issue can be broken down this way. And the SCOTUS cases that have dealt with some of the more famous issues, Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold, even Roe to a certain extent, All break down along this type of analysis. And they all contain one overriding presumption: it doesn't matter what you think God has to say about it. Apply your theology all you want in the home (and I thank the founders every day that we have the freedom to do that). But it has no place in governmental policy and law.

Now, some will come back with the tried and true argument that murder is banned in the ten commandments and so it is clear that some of the law is based on religious morality. And they are correct that a view to the bible and biblical morality was inherent in the common law. But they miss the fact that any of these fundimental laws stand on it's own without the bible reference. Laws against murder and stealing have a clear societal benefit. We don't need the ten commandments for them.

The other point that is missed in this argument is simply, why then are not all of the ten commandments enshrined in the law. How come there is no law forcing mandatory church attendence? How come there is no law banning taking the name of the Lord in vain? How come there is no law requiring parental respect (boy, I wish we could make that mandatory)? You see, not everything in the ten comandments affords equal protection or rigth to liberty. Not every thing in the 10C has a sound societal benefit or a sound basis for application. Indeed, legislating some of the 10C's would be very detrimental to society. Can you imagine how wrong a "parental respect" law would be? Are there any Christians out there that really think the government should require children to respect their parents (or even define how "respect" is measured)? I should hope not. But that is the dilema we face if we dogmatically use the ten commandments as the basis for our argument.

I could go on and on.

 

[momalle1]

Hey - FJR, glad you split this out. This should be interesting.

My take - the founders intentionally set up the government so that religious morality could not be used as a basis for the law. They did this, I believe, because there is never any gaurentee whose religious morailty might be impossed. Although many of them probably had very strong religiously derived convictions about what was good and bad behavior, ultimately they did not even trust that their own convictions were necessarily God's. Better to leave religious morality to the family and leave societal morality to the government.

I also belive this was the only way they could perceive of having a free society. Not so much a society that allows free will (although I think it does that), but one where all are free to exercise their will. (OK, maybe those two things are the same). As long as there is no societal detriment (harm to either individuals or the society as a whole), then we are free to do as we please, at least as far as the government is concerned.

So, what does that mean. Basically, you can't make laws because it is what God wants or says is right or wrong. But, you also can't make laws because it is what society says is right or wrong if those laws are unbalanced in their treatment of people. But you can make laws against what society perceives as social ills as long as they are not discriminatory.

Some examples - topless bars. There are certainly demonstrable societal ills that topless bars contribute to. They are also places of public accomodation so they do not have any inherent right to "privacy". (Note, this is different than private "gentlemen's" clubs which do have more freedom and privacy rights). The fact that God is also probably really against topless bars is irrelevant in this case. They can be regulated and legislated against without invoking any religious reasoning.

Gay sex is an entirely different story. It is true that God is against Gay sex. It is also true that one could make a societal case against gay sex. But gay sex takes place in private and therefore is outside the reach of regulation. If you legislate against Gay sex, then, because of "equal protection", you could legislate against any kind of private, consensual, heterosexual sex. Maybe a state or city would want to pass a law that you and your wife can't have sex on Sunday mornings because it is harmful to society that it might keep you and your family from going to church. Well, we all can certainly see how unconstitutional that is and we all agree that government can not have that kind of intrusion into our private lives. Sorry, to say to my Christian friends, but the argument for gay sex is exactly the same.

Every major issue can be broken down this way. And the SCOTUS cases that have dealt with some of the more famous issues, Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold, even Roe to a certain extent, All break down along this type of analysis. And they all contain one overriding presumption: it doesn't matter what you think God has to say about it. Apply your theology all you want in the home (and I thank the founders every day that we have the freedom to do that). But it has no place in governmental policy and law.

Now, some will come back with the tried and true argument that murder is banned in the ten commandments and so it is clear that some of the law is based on religious morality. And they are correct that a view to the bible and biblical morality was inherent in the common law. But they miss the fact that any of these fundimental laws stand on it's own without the bible reference. Laws against murder and stealing have a clear societal benefit. We don't need the ten commandments for them.

The other point that is missed in this argument is simply, why then are not all of the ten commandments enshrined in the law. How come there is no law forcing mandatory church attendence? How come there is no law banning taking the name of the Lord in vain? How come there is no law requiring parental respect (boy, I wish we could make that mandatory)? You see, not everything in the ten comandments affords equal protection or rigth to liberty. Not every thing in the 10C has a sound societal benefit or a sound basis for application. Indeed, legislating some of the 10C's would be very detrimental to society. Can you imagine how wrong a "parental respect" law would be? Are there any Christians out there that really think the government should require children to respect their parents (or even define how "respect" is measured)? I should hope not. But that is the dilema we face if we dogmatically use the ten commandments as the basis for our argument.

I could go on and on.

^^^What he said, and I'll add a bit.

I like this sentence, "Basically, you can't make laws because it is what God wants or says is right or wrong.", but need to add, you can't make laws based on what you perceive God wants or says is right or wrong. While I agree with your basic statement, even people of the same religion don't agree on the exact meaning.

As for the murder thing, I don't think murder being illegal has anything to do with the bible, it's just common acceptance that murder is wrong, always has been, long before the bible was put together, and in places where the bible has little value.

No, I can not condone legislating my values on anyone else.

 

[MethodMan]

Something interesting was brought up in another thread, and I thought it was important enough to discuss separately.

Many christians support legislation, both at the national level and at the state and local level, that prohibits behavior they consider immoral or sinful or whatever.

This includes porn, unmarried sex (it is illegal in many jurisdictions, just not enforced), gay sex, gay marriage, booze, topless bars, and so on.

Why stop there? Why not add pedophilia, rape, theft, (I could go on all day)?

Would not god be angry that you are interfering with his plans for mankind?

I think God will be much more upset at all the vile & disgusting behavior our laws already allowed because this is a country set up for religious freedom.

 

[gengwall]

Why stop there? Why not add pedophilia, rape, theft, (I could go on all day)?

Pedophilia involves abuse of authority and power (just like sexual harasement in the work place), rape is not consentual, theft violates constitutional right to liberty and property. These are no brainers. Make a similar case, please, against gay sex.

I think God will be much more upset at all the vile & disgusting behavior our laws already allowed because this is a country set up for religious freedom.

Which includes freedom to not have any religion if that is your choice. This country was not set up with the assumption everyone will have some kind of religion. It was set up so that if you do have some kind of religion, you are free to practice it. If you don't, you are free not to practice any.

 

[outlaw]

Pedophilia involves abuse of authority and power (just like sexual harasement in the work place), rape is not consentual, theft violates constitutional right to liberty and property. These are no brainers. Make a similar case, please, against gay sex.

Which includes freedom to not have any religion if that is your choice. This country was not set up with the assumption everyone will have some kind of religion. It was set up so that if you do have some kind of religion, you are free to practice it. If you don't, you are free not to practice any.

Nicely answered gengwall

 

[MethodMan]

Pedophilia involves abuse of authority and power (just like sexual harasement in the work place), rape is not consentual, theft violates constitutional right to liberty and property. These are no brainers. Make a similar case, please, against gay sex.

The thread title says "Legislating morality". What makes these immoral?

What is really at the heart of his question is what do we base that morality on.

Which includes freedom to not have any religion if that is your choice. This country was not set up with the assumption everyone will have some kind of religion. It was set up so that if you do have some kind of religion, you are free to practice it. If you don't, you are free not to practice any.

Exactly. And I can't force you to believe even if the Constitution allowed these kind of laws.

My counter point stands

 

[ottaia]

Let's make laws against all of this stuff. It has obviously stopped drug abuse, drinking, smoking, prostitution, etc...

If it is not forcible, with minors, a threat to public safety, why should we have laws against them?

 

[outlaw]

The thread title says "Legislating morality". What makes these immoral?

What is really at the heart of his question is what do we base that morality on.

Their legality is not based on morality

 

[jayem]

I think God will be much more upset at all the vile & disgusting behavior our laws already allowed because this is a country set up for religious freedom.

I hope you're not implying that religious freedom is something harmful.


Look, it's not a perfect world. In a free society, some undesireable things may occur. I think a KKK march, or Aryan Nations rally is pretty vile and disgusting. But society has to allow them to peacefully have their say. That's part of the price we pay for freedom. What's the alternative? China, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia?

The same laws that protect an adult book store also protect a religious bookstore. Any alternative is far worse.

 

[gengwall]

The thread title says "Legislating morality". What makes these immoral?

Well, I'm pretty sure FJR is using the title in a negative sense.

Pedaphilia, rape, and theft are not illegal because they are immoral (at least from a biblical perspective), but because they are antisocietal and and deny the constitutionally protected rights of others.

Prohibition is the classic example of why legislating morality doesn't work. And most people get that nowadays. Even those who are religiously against drinking. I haven't heard any fundimentalist, non-drinking, non-smoking, non-dancing, non-card playing, non-movie going Christians out there calling for laws banning drinking, smoking, dancing, cards, and movies. Everyone gets it on those issues. But other human activities that they have no more of a biblical basis to be against but apparently have much more personal disdain for, they are screaming for bans against. Thier position on the former issues is the proper one as well for the latter.

 

[MethodMan]

Their legality is not based on morality

Oh, What is it based on?

 

[MethodMan]

Well, I'm pretty sure FJR is using the title in a negative sense.[/color]

Pedaphilia, rape, and theft are not illegal because they are immoral (at least from a biblical perspective), but because they are antisocietal and and deny the constitutionally protected rights of others.

WHERE did these "rights" come from?

 

[momalle1]

The thread title says "Legislating morality". What makes these immoral?

What is really at the heart of his question is what do we base that morality on.





Exactly. And I can't force you to believe even if the Constitution allowed these kind of laws.

My counter point stands

You answered the question yourself. The laws relating to rape, murder, theft and other things like that, have nothing to do with morality, they have to do with harming others. This thread is about legislating morality.

 

[MethodMan]

You answered the question yourself. The laws relating to rape, murder, theft and other things like that, have nothing to do with morality, they have to do with harming others. This thread is about legislating morality.

So, PM you address to me so I can move the harlot house/strip clubs right accross the street from you.

 

[gengwall]

So, PM you address to me so I can move the harlot house/strip clubs right accross the street from you.

Red Herring Alert

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Why stop there? Why not add pedophilia, rape, theft, (I could go on all day)?

I have no doubt you will.

I think God will be much more upset at all the vile & disgusting behavior our laws already allowed because this is a country set up for religious freedom.

What I keep coming back to is why does god get upset over sin? Why does god hate sin? If he does, why did he create it or allow it to be created? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just make it impossible?

The answer I get is always the "free will" gag. People must have free will.

When you pass laws preventing crime of any kind, you interfere with free will to commit sin.

Even if you pass a law against murder, you are interfering with someone's free will.

And then somebody dies. Does god care if people die? It doesn't seem so. Look at how many die in natural disasters. If god cared about people dying, he wouldn't allow that to happen. If god was truly benevolent, people would only die peacefully of old age, or not at all.

So people dying is not an issue. Therefore, it seems like the free will gag overrides everything. Since that determines who is saved or not, that should matter more than anyone's earthly life. So why would god want a law against murder?

 

[christalee4]

Why stop there? Why not add pedophilia, rape, theft, (I could go on all day)?

Time, human development, technology and science, and concepts such as democracy, freedom and equality have changed our society greatly from the days when the Bible was passed down in oral history and then written. What we might call pedophilia today was sanctioned marriage between young girls and older men back then. Our culture now understands that young girls are immature and not fit for marriage responsibility. Rape was an acceptable way of getting war brides during times of war and strife. Our culture now values women a little bit better and it's accepted that rape is a brutal act of violence that should be punished. Theft often occured when a king or another country took over, to acquire spoils. And hey, it's still happening today, but some people get punished for it, (the poorer, more inept thieves), and others don't (the richer and powerful ones with better lawyers).

Our standards of crime and punishment have changed; we don't sentence people to barbaric deaths by drowning, burning alive, or stoning for offenses such as witchcraft, heresy, adultery and homosexuality, even though these were offenses punished in such a way during Biblical times. Although there are theocratic Islamic countries who use barbaric tactics such as the above to enforce religious code in their government, hopefully our beloved America, the land of the free and the brave, won't allow a theocratic dictatorship to evolve. Because that is why we are allegedly fighting the other evil "over there", aren't we?

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

The thread title says "Legislating morality".

What makes these immoral?

This means using legislation to force your moral codes on someone else when they don't agree it is a moral issue.

There are many behaviors that virtually everyone agrees are immoral: killing, cheating, lying, rape, adultery, and so on. All of these harm another person.

There are other behaviors that affect only one person or a couple or a group of people who consent to the behavior: these include virtually all moral codes related to consentual sex between 2 or more adults of any gender. The only exception is adultery, because that is cheating.

Your holy book says that the second group is a sin and therefore immoral. Those of other religions and no religion disregard the authority of your holy book.

Therefore when you attempt to pass legislation regarding sex according to your holy book, you are forcing your moral codes on people who do not believe in them.

What is really at the heart of his question is what do we base that morality on.

Of course that's what it is. You base your morality on an ancient book that not everyone recognizes the authority of. Some of it we agree with. The rest is unnecessarily restrictive for the sake of being restrictive.

 

[christalee4]

Why stop there? Why not add pedophilia, rape, theft, (I could go on all day)?
I think God will be much more upset at all the vile & disgusting behavior our laws already allowed because this is a country set up for religious freedom.

I guess it all depends on what kind of religious freedom you mean, and who defines the rules. If a religious group grows in influence and power, and then acquires the means to change law to outlaw rights of others, such as to practice a certain religion, to be able to read certain books, or marry an adult of the same sex, aren't they denying freedom to others? Is the freedom you are talking about the freedom to take away freedoms from others? Like the theocratic governments in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan are "free" to impose their rules and hang homosexuals, Christian converts and adulterers. But certainly the people who differ with the ruling party have no freedom.