Legislating Religious Morality

[Ave Maria]

Hey everyone. I notice a lot of legislating religious morality here in the USA. People want abortion banned, they want a ban on homosexual marriage, they don't want euthanasia to be allowed, etc etc etc. What do you think about those who want to legislate religious morality? Honestly, it sickens me. We shouldn't be forcing our morals upon others. Yes, laws against killing and stealing is legislating morality but I think everyone would agree that that is universal morality. So what do you all think?

 

[AngelusSax]

I'm not entirely convinced it's always legislating morality. It may be legislating against immorality.

No law can make a person love his neighbor like he'd like to be loved himself, so we have to have a law to prevent (ideally) a man from killing his neighbor. (Well, the law punishes it, it can't really prevent the initial murder, I suppose).

I think that's the principle. Legislation against immorality. And many people say it's okay to do, because righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people, according to Proverbs.

 

[Ave Maria]

I'm not entirely convinced it's always legislating morality. It may be legislating against immorality.

No law can make a person love his neighbor like he'd like to be loved himself, so we have to have a law to prevent (ideally) a man from killing his neighbor. (Well, the law punishes it, it can't really prevent the initial murder, I suppose).

I think that's the principle. Legislation against immorality. And many people say it's okay to do, because righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people, according to Proverbs.

Yeah but do we really have the right when to say when something is immoral and when it isn't? I mean, what gives the government the right to say that sex before marriage, abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, or other things are immoral?

 

[AngelusSax]

Well, for the advocates of the anti-immorality-legislation, the typical source for their claimed authority is the Bible.

Do we have the right to decide morality? No. Do we have the right to repeat the morality said by God in the Bible? Yes. Do we have the right to legislate that morality?

Well if it protects human life (as the anti-murder laws are designed to do), probably.

 

[flicka]

Laws made for the benifit of society yes. Laws made to the detriment, no. You can argue both ways on abortion and homosexuality depending on your POV. That's the problem.

 

[Philosoft]

I'm not entirely convinced it's always legislating morality. It may be legislating against immorality.

Well, that's kind of clever, in an adolescent Yoda sort of way. I mean, really, either way someone is determining which things are moral/immoral and enacting legislation to permit/prohibit them. Six of one, a half-dozen of another.

 

[Philosoft]

Well, for the advocates of the anti-immorality-legislation, the typical source for their claimed authority is the Bible.

Do we have the right to decide morality? No. Do we have the right to repeat the morality said by God in the Bible? Yes. Do we have the right to legislate that morality?

Well if it protects human life (as the anti-murder laws are designed to do), probably.

Laws like that have extra-moral justification, however. The philosophical purpose of state prohibition against murder is not primarily to ensure moral order, but to protect a fundamental right. That rights sometimes coincide with morals is probably not an accident, especially from a historical/developmental point of view.

 

[HeatherJay]

The past should serve as a reminder that morality can't be effectively enforced through the judicial system. Prohibition and illegal abortions did very little to curve those behaviors...they did however cause rebellion and made criminals out of fairly normal, decent members of society.

It really depends on where you stand on the individual issues, I suppose. But, I myself, do not think that abortions should be illegal, even though I feel that abortion is wrong in most cases. Also, I don't think that homosexuals should be denied basic rights afforded to other couples, even though I do believe that homosexuality is a sin. I don't think that passing laws to ban those decisions and behaviors is going to do a thing to stop people from deciding to have abortions or have relations with someone of the same sex. All it's going to do is flood the jails even more, put more of a strain on taxpayers, and give the self-righteous who honestly feel they've done their 'Christian duty' a warm fuzzy feeling. The betterment of society would be questionable.

Personally, and I really hope no one gets offended by this as it's just my opinion, I think that many Christians fight so hard for legislation to ban these things or make them illegal because they're too lazy to pick up their own cross and go out and change the hearts and minds of people. Jesus didn't 'force' anyone to comply with His will. He went to the poor, destitute, outcast members of 'proper' society and offered them hope through love, mercy, and grace.

 

[jayem]

This is one of my favorite topics. It should not be phrased as legislating "morality." Any law regarding anything can be considered as promoting a particular moral position. What we're talking about here specifically is criminalizing private behavior. The question is, to what extent should the state try to control private behavior, and how successfully can thisbe done? Obviously there is not a total, absolute right to privacy. Acts which harm others, or involve children, or are not consensual may justifiably become the business of the state. I personally lean toward the libertarian, and think that the state should not try to criminalize the private behavior of consenting adults, except in some unusual circumstances which I mentioned. I don't think personal drug use should be a criminal offense. Now if one has a car accident which injures someone while under the influence, or neglects one's children, or steals to support one's habit--then these are legitimate crimes which should be prosecuted. (But I think sale of drugs is a public matter which the state can regulate.) I don't think a pre-viable fetus is a "person" in the legal sense, and thus, I don't see an early term abortion as murder. I think this is a private medical matter between a patient and physician, into which the state should not intrude. Public behavior is a completely different story, where the state should have much more leeway. The gray areas where public and private overlap can be problematic, and have to be resolved on a case by case basis. But my general feeling is that government should stay out of people's private lives. Yes, some people will make bad choices, and do bad things. But it's not a perfect world, and there is not a perfect answer to every problem. IMO, an excessively intrusive state is the worse evil.

 

[CSMR]

Yes, laws against killing and stealing is legislating morality but I think everyone would agree that that is universal morality. So what do you all think?

Unanymity plays almost no role in politics. Those people who legislate against abortion and homosexuality believe these are universal morality. It would be wrong to legislate against homosexuality if it were only prohibited for Chrstians. However it is wrong universally. Others believe differently - that's why there's politics.

 

[Brimshack]

I think most laws have an element of moral content, whether it be positive or double negative (as suggested above). But I think it's important to remember that moral values should not be a sufficient condition for passing a law. Rather a law ought to be directed at preventing demonstrable harms to members of the community in which they apply. Many of our more vicious debates are actually about the boundaries of these communities and our specific obligations to persons/creatures of questionable membership (feti, animals, foreign citizens) and I see no genuine religious content to these debates. (Honestly, I don't think Conservative Christians have helped anti-abortion politics by unnecessarily basing their appeals on sectarian theology. Were they content to stop abortion rather than making sure everyone knows they are doing so for Jesus they might have a more credible stance and the debate might actually become something other than a muscle flexing contest. But anyway...) In other areas such as homosexuality, there simply is no demonstrable harm at stake, and I couldn't care less what religious convictions people have on the matters. It's not that having religious convictions about the value of amlaw invalidates the law; it is that such convictions do nothing to justify it. And laws without sound justification should not be passed.

 

[Philosoft]

It would be wrong to legislate against homosexuality if it were only prohibited for Chrstians. However it is wrong universally. Others believe differently - that's why there's politics.

Hmm. If I understand, you're saying essentially that a purely religious objection to homosexuality is legislatable if and only if it is a component of the belief that all homosexuality is wrong, not just Christian homosexuality. Can I ask why that distinction is the key to legislatability?

 

[CSMR]

Hmm. If I understand, you're saying essentially that a purely religious objection to homosexuality is legislatable if and only if it is a component of the belief that all homosexuality is wrong, not just Christian homosexuality. Can I ask why that distinction is the key to legislatability?

No. Firstly I don't know what the term "purely religious objection" means. Also what makes legislation wrong is not belief but fact. I said: if homosexuality is (objectively) wrong for only one set of people (christians) then it would be wrong to legislate against it for everyone. If it is wrong for everyone then it might be ok to legislate against it.

 

[Philosoft]

No. Firstly I don't know what the term "purely religious objection" means. Also what makes legislation wrong is not belief but fact. I said: if homosexuality is (objectively) wrong for only one set of people (christians) then it would be wrong to legislate against it for everyone. If it is wrong for everyone then it might be ok to legislate against it.

Ah. Makes sense now, thanks.

 

[Ave Maria]

No. Firstly I don't know what the term "purely religious objection" means. Also what makes legislation wrong is not belief but fact. I said: if homosexuality is (objectively) wrong for only one set of people (christians) then it would be wrong to legislate against it for everyone. If it is wrong for everyone then it might be ok to legislate against it.

Thing is, it's not wrong for everyone. Therefore, it should not be legislated.

 

[Philosoft]

Thing is, it's not wrong for everyone. Therefore, it should not be legislated.

I think that's the part he conceded earlier was debatable.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Holly,may I first say that I agrre entirely with Heather Jay`s reply.I would even bring one more reason why we have to listen and abide by the Law`s legislations.The very important reason being:"it could,and most likely would,turn into a witch - hunt"Human beings can be so utterly brave and likeable,and also ruthless and without any love at all.Sincere greetings from Emmy,a sister in Christ.

 

[seebs]

Hey everyone. I notice a lot of legislating religious morality here in the USA. People want abortion banned, they want a ban on homosexual marriage, they don't want euthanasia to be allowed, etc etc etc. What do you think about those who want to legislate religious morality? Honestly, it sickens me. We shouldn't be forcing our morals upon others. Yes, laws against killing and stealing is legislating morality but I think everyone would agree that that is universal morality. So what do you all think?

I think legislation should be based on practical necessity for a functioning culture. The goal of a government is to provide the citizens with enough safety and freedom to make their own moral decisions.

Imagine, if you will, a person who is consideriing an Evil Act. He has made the decision, in his heart, to take this action. By Christian moral standards, he is now guilty; he may face Hell if he doesn't repent.

If there is a law against the action, he may well refrain, out of fear of punishment. His mind has not been changed; there's simply no point in him further considering the moral question, because it's impractical.

If there is no law, he may commit the act, or may not. He has to make the decision. It's not a moot point; it's a real and relevant one. He may be persuaded of the wrongness of the action.

One of these outcomes has a chance to save his soul; one of them condemns him out of hand, in the name of protecting others. That is, of course, even assuming that his "Evil" action would harm others.

It is a dangerous line to walk. Fear of force does not create morality.

 

[crashedman]

Hey everyone. I notice a lot of legislating religious morality here in the USA. People want abortion banned, they want a ban on homosexual marriage, they don't want euthanasia to be allowed, etc etc etc. What do you think about those who want to legislate religious morality? Honestly, it sickens me. We shouldn't be forcing our morals upon others. Yes, laws against killing and stealing is legislating morality but I think everyone would agree that that is universal morality. So what do you all think?

First of all, you cannot legislate morality. You cannot pass a law stipulating 'love each other OR ELSE!'

Regardless of what you might think, women are going to have abortions if they were raped or feel that they are not physically or mentally fit to be able to carry a child, and people will want to die if they are terminally ill. It is basically their right to choose, and I respect their choice to do so. Unless you have walked in their shoes and been able to feel the pain and trauma that they have, it is none of our business to heap judgement on them.

Yet, take a look at our 'thou shalt not kill' history. Christians have killed more people in the history of the world than any other religious faith/belief has. Our ancestors killed black people and Indians because they weren't of our religion. They were FORCED to accept the Christian religion or be shot!

How many of us have sent our young men off to countries like Vietnam, Japan, Germany and Iraq to have their heads blown off or be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of their life whilst struggling to maintain their sanity?


Crashedman

 

[Carico]

It is simply a sad fact of life that laws cannot change the maturity level of society. The predominant values in today's society are bodily gratification, period. That is the value of infants. No amount of laws will make people understand any more than they can understand. It's simply a reality that the maturity level of society is what will decide what is legislated because the majority rules.