Question ????

[frog16]

Not sure where to put this . . . hopefully someone can explain this to me.

Whose morality is being legislated in today's world?

Officials who vote for homosexual rights do so because that position is consistent with their own morality. Their vote imposes thier conception of morality on everyone else, whether they agree or disagree.

So, I guess my main question is: Is it right for Christians to legislate biblical morality for a nation?

 

[selfinflikted]

... Their vote imposes thier conception of morality on everyone else, whether they agree or disagree.

I can never understand why people think that if homosexuals are granted equal rights, this will impose anything on anyone. IT DOESN'T. You won't have to agree with it, you won't have to go out and hump someone of the same sex, and you don't have to have a gay marriage. Granting us equal rights in NO WAY infringes on anyone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't know why people see this as an imposition, or "agenda" - that's just bull.

 

[Belk]

I can never understand why people think that if homosexuals are granted equal rights, this will impose anything on anyone. IT DOESN'T. You won't have to agree with it, you won't have to go out and hump someone of the same sex, and you don't have to have a gay marriage. Granting us equal rights in NO WAY infringes on anyone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't know why people see this as an imposition, or "agenda" - that's just bull.

What is with people reading a post and then responding as if the OP read the complete opposite of what it says? He is not talking about homosexuals; he is asking if it is right for CHRISTIANS to legislate their morality.

 

[CSmrw]

What is with people reading a post and then responding as if the OP read the complete opposite of what it says? He is not talking about homosexuals; he is asking if it is right for CHRISTIANS to legislate their morality.

What is it with people responding to posts that don't address the orginal post in the manner said people would have prefered?

Oh, and the answer is that Christians can legislate morality as long as it doesn't contradict the Constitituion and Bill of Rights. If it does it is up to the courts to strike it down or the president to veto it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Whose morality is being legislated in today's world?

Officials who vote for homosexual rights do so because that position is consistent with their own morality. Their vote imposes thier conception of morality on everyone else, whether they agree or disagree.

So, I guess my main question is: Is it right for Christians to legislate biblical morality for a nation?

Homosexuality isn't a part or principle of any particular religion (in fact...it has nothing to do with morality)

morals
n : motivation based one's ideas of right and wrong

As you can see morals, are things that are developed on an individual level...therefore, other's morals can't affect yours. If they tried to make a law stating that everyone had to approve of homosexuality, then there would be some dissent.

...there are homosexuals in every religious persuasion....making laws that grant them rights has nothing to do with religion. However, the bible has a direct religious affiliation, therefore violating the separation of church and state.

I hope I'm understanding your question correctly.

 

[Belk]

What is it with people responding to posts that don't address the orginal post in the manner said people would have prefered?

Oh, and the answer is that Christians can legislate morality as long as it doesn't contradict the Constitituion and Bill of Rights. If it does it is up to the courts to strike it down or the president to veto it.

It was not about what I would prefer. Point in fact I am pro gay marriage. It just seemed that selfinflikted quoted the OP then did a complete 180. I had the same thing happen to one of my posts and was attacked for a position that was the opposite of what I advocated. However perhaps I jumped to conclusions in this case.

 

[TooCurious]

As I understand it, government (or, at least, constitutional republics) exists for exactly one purpose: to protect the rights or their citizens. To this end, governments engage in a number of activities and enact a number of laws; for instance, we have a law against theft, because people have a right to property. In order to infringe upon a right, the government must have a compelling interest to do so for the sake of protecting a more important right. If the government infringes upon a right without such a compelling interest, the government has stepped outside the bounds of its legitimate authority, and any law that has been made in accord with this infringement must be struck down.

As such, no individual, group or religion's specific moral code has any place in legislation if it would unjustly infringe upon any group or individual's rights without a legitimate reason.

 

[DaRkWoLf]

So, I guess my main question is: Is it right for Christians to legislate biblical morality for a nation?

Personally, I dont think its right for anyone to legislate their, or their constituents morality, regardless of what it is.

TooCurious, +1.

 

[TheBellman]

ANY law which exists SOLELY for the purpose of legislating someone's morality is a bad law. Simple.

 

[billwald]

All law legislates morality except administrative stuff like designating the meanings of traffic signs.

 

[chalice_thunder]

Not sure where to put this . . . hopefully someone can explain this to me.

Whose morality is being legislated in today's world?

Officials who vote for homosexual rights do so because that position is consistent with their own morality. Their vote imposes thier conception of morality on everyone else, whether they agree or disagree.

Exactly WHAT is imposed upon a disagreeing Christian? Can you name something concrete?

So, I guess my main question is: Is it right for Christians to legislate biblical morality for a nation?

Rep. Barney Frank is legislating Biblical morality all the time. He fights for justice and equality. I fail to see how one can one-dimensionally define "biblical morality."

BTW - if biblical morality were indeed the rule of law, we would not be in Iraq. (for starters)

 

[chalice_thunder]

I can never understand why people think that if homosexuals are granted equal rights, this will impose anything on anyone. IT DOESN'T. You won't have to agree with it, you won't have to go out and hump someone of the same sex, and you don't have to have a gay marriage. Granting us equal rights in NO WAY infringes on anyone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't know why people see this as an imposition, or "agenda" - that's just bull.

Once again the answer comes down to a simple, four-letter word:

FEAR

 

[TheBellman]

All law legislates morality except administrative stuff like designating the meanings of traffic signs.

All laws which exist SOLELY to legislate morality are bad laws.

 

[EndersConscience]

Will somebody please define morality for me, and how someone can possess it? Seems to me the issue is moot until we're all talking about the same vague abstraction, rather than several different vague abstractions.

In all seriousness, laws that legislate morality are emphatically neccesary! The law that makes it a crime in the United States to molest children (and the definition of a child in said law is a perfect example of the inherant divergence - read on) is a law written solely by the moral imperative - the legislating dilemma lies where individual's positions on these moral issues diverge. This is a dilemma that will Never be completely solved in a completely free society - The only solution that does not involve restricting those who disagree with us is to have everybody form their own nation and government. However, we do consider ourselves to be morally superior to child molesters, and mostly we agree on what constitutes a natural, moral law. We enact these laws with the societal expectation that they are simply not going to be adhered to by a small sect of the populace, and we rightly punish those who break these laws. Of course America should enact morally based laws, but the Church does not get to define morals, especially when conflict concerning the issue within the community can threaten to seperate it completely. In other words, if an issue is complex enough for there to be almost a 50-50 split, how the hell can they even get their act together enough to legislate on it (Referencing the episcopal church/gay rights battle)

ps. On most issues I agree with the Church. I personally tend to disagree the most on moral issues involving the body, and sex - something most modern religions have an absurd and ridiculous fear of.

 

[Loundry]

I fail to see how one can one-dimensionally define "biblical morality."

How? It is done through the power of raw and shameless assertion. "Biblical morality" is nothing but rhetoric for anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-drugs. The Bible is incidental.

 

[TheBellman]

Will somebody please define morality for me, and how someone can possess it? Seems to me the issue is moot until we're all talking about the same vague abstraction, rather than several different vague abstractions.

In all seriousness, laws that legislate morality are emphatically neccesary! The law that makes it a crime in the United States to molest children (and the definition of a child in said law is a perfect example of the inherant divergence - read on) is a law written solely by the moral imperative - the legislating dilemma lies where individual's positions on these moral issues diverge. This is a dilemma that will Never be completely solved in a completely free society - The only solution that does not involve restricting those who disagree with us is to have everybody form their own nation and government. However, we do consider ourselves to be morally superior to child molesters, and mostly we agree on what constitutes a natural, moral law. We enact these laws with the societal expectation that they are simply not going to be adhered to by a small sect of the populace, and we rightly punish those who break these laws. Of course America should enact morally based laws, but the Church does not get to define morals, especially when conflict concerning the issue within the community can threaten to seperate it completely. In other words, if an issue is complex enough for there to be almost a 50-50 split, how the hell can they even get their act together enough to legislate on it (Referencing the episcopal church/gay rights battle)

ps. On most issues I agree with the Church. I personally tend to disagree the most on moral issues involving the body, and sex - something most modern religions have an absurd and ridiculous fear of.

Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Moral considerations have absolutely no part in law making, and we certainly don't need to evaluate some behaviour as more or less moral in order to legislate. The ONLY reason for valid laws is that they protect some part of society. Laws against child molestation exist to protect children, who are a part of society. Whether you or I think child molestation is moral or immoral is irrelevant - it is detrimental to society, and so should be illegal.

 

[EndersConscience]

Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Moral considerations have absolutely no part in law making, and we certainly don't need to evaluate some behaviour as more or less moral in order to legislate. The ONLY reason for valid laws is that they protect some part of society. Laws against child molestation exist to protect children, who are a part of society. Whether you or I think child molestation is moral or immoral is irrelevant - it is detrimental to society, and so should be illegal.

How is protecting some part of society (not allowing the rape of children, lest we forget in our haste to redefine) not a moral issue? Please, define morality! Is it WRONG to molest a child? If we're going for the greater good of society, why is it that we don't simply eliminate all retired seniors? They consume without giving back, as do the mentally disabled, as do any number of individuals who we are morally, yes morally, obligated to provide for.

 

[TheBellman]

How is protecting some part of society (not allowing the rape of children, lest we forget in our haste to redefine) not a moral issue?

I don't see where it's remotely a moral issue. A society, like any organism, acts to protect itself. If it doesn't, it is destroyed.

Please, define morality!

I'll settle for the dictionary definition.

Is it WRONG to molest a child?

I believe it is; it appears that you believe it is, as well. Large amounts of people don't believe it is. Whether it is or not should not be relevant to whether or not it is illegal.

If we're going for the greater good of society, why is it that we don't simply eliminate all retired seniors?

Because doing so wouldn't be for the good of society.

They consume without giving back, as do the mentally disabled, as do any number of individuals who we are morally, yes morally, obligated to provide for.

Whether seniors "consume without giving back" I would strongly dispute; however, there are indeed some persons/groups who consume without giving back. Once more, whether we are morally obliged to provide for them should have nothing to do with laws about protecting them. In fact, legally, we aren't. We are merely forbidden from explicitly harming them.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I can never understand why people think that if homosexuals are granted equal rights, this will impose anything on anyone. IT DOESN'T. You won't have to agree with it, you won't have to go out and hump someone of the same sex, and you don't have to have a gay marriage. Granting us equal rights in NO WAY infringes on anyone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't know why people see this as an imposition, or "agenda" - that's just bull.

God bless you and those bulls, selfinflikted.

I am curious . . . what rights do I have that you do not?

 

[EndersConscience]

I don't see where it's remotely a moral issue. A society, like any organism, acts to protect itself. If it doesn't, it is destroyed.


I'll settle for the dictionary definition.


I believe it is; it appears that you believe it is, as well. Large amounts of people don't believe it is. Whether it is or not should not be relevant to whether or not it is illegal.


Because doing so wouldn't be for the good of society.


Whether seniors "consume without giving back" I would strongly dispute; however, there are indeed some persons/groups who consume without giving back. Once more, whether we are morally obliged to provide for them should have nothing to do with laws about protecting them. In fact, legally, we aren't. We are merely forbidden from explicitly harming them.

Ok, seniors not giving back was a really bad example. However, let me turn it around - Were you in charge, big boss, head kahuna, would you legislate based on your morals? And before you answer now, how about this: Morality is too firmly embedded in individuals to be separated- Were I to take charge, 'my' morality would compel me to enact the laws that I consider necessary to a society - otherwise, I wouldn't Really believe that the poor need soup kitchens, and that aspect of my beliefs could not truly be within the scope of my morality. Individual's morals compel them to live to their own standards; otherwise their "morals" are simply a sham. Your argument regarding seniors is an argument that differentiates between two courses that really are the same thing. If one possesses the ability to feed and provide for those unable to provide for themselves, and yet does not follow up on that course, it is the exact same thing as "explicitly" harming them.