Legislated morality

  • Thread starter milefile
  • 131 comments
  • 3,246 views
I'm not going to look for laws that legislate morality because there are few if any right now. What I have a problem with is all of this attempted legislated morality.

Religious people seem to constantly be wanting to tell others how to live.


If any state (I don't even care to look it up) has laws against gay marriages (which I believe they do), that is legislated morality.
 
Originally posted by DGB454
Prayer is allowed and not mandated and that was only after a battle to force the schools to allow it.(freedom of religion)
I don't know of any schools that have been mandated to teach creationism.
Both have been tried. And will be tried again. There's also the courthouse in Mongomery, Alabama which displays the ten commandments in a conspicuous place.

"Justice Moore was trying to force his religious beliefs on the people of Alabama. He turned the hall of justice into a religious sanctuary where people drop to their knees and pray," said Morris Dees, lead counsel and co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which joined in a lawsuit to remove the monument.

He also installed the plaque in the middle of the night without telling anyone he was doing it. Sneaky.

Now I already know you will find that totally acceptable. But it's not. And it is another example. You asked for examples.

So, care to respond to any of the three examples I've offered?
 
We are telling you how to live but you can't think of how?

There are a billion ways that religious people tell me how to live. And that they've tried to get the government to help them do it really rubs me the wrong way.

Attempted legislative morality is very dangerous because if it succeeds... we've crossed the line of church vs. state.
 
Street violence is also not really at issue. Nobody disputes that street violence is wrong and criminal. The fact that Christian morality and laws against street violence is inconsequntial. All morality is against street violence. People who do not pray are against street violence, Gays are, too. Evolutionists, as far as I know, are on the whole, opposed to street violence as well.

The legislated morality in question here is all laws governing interaction between consenting adults.
 
  • Laws that specifically define "marriage" as only the union between a man and a woman.
  • Laws that forbid consentual polygamy.
  • The inclusion of the words "under God" in the official Pledge of Alligience of this country.
  • Laws that forbid the sale of alcohol on Sundays.
  • Laws that forbid gambling.
Those are all legislated morality. Many of them are religion-based, though not all of them.
 
Originally posted by milefile
Street violence is also not really at issue. Nobody disputes that street violence is wrong and criminal. The fact that Christian morality and laws against street violence is inconsequntial. All morality is against street violence. People who do not pray are against street violence, Gays are, too. Evolutionists, as far as I know, are on the whole, opposed to street violence as well.

The legislated morality in question here is all laws governing interaction between consenting adults.
No no - gays and evolutionists are behind all street violence incidents.

I'm honestly surprised he decided to say 'Christians' were not behind most street violence attacks. So are gays! And Catholics! Whoa!
 
Originally posted by DGB454
Just because the 10 Commandments are displayed doesn't mean you have to follow them or that they are laws.
Now you're being silly; I hope at least it's on purpose.

Suppose a judge placed a big red flag with a gold star in the middle of it in his courtroom? Just because he's displaying the flag of Soviet Russia doesn't mean he's forcing people to be Communist... but how long do you think he'd last on the bench?
 
Originally posted by DGB454


It's easy to cry about something and point fingers but much harder to do something to change it.
As Christians aptly illustrate.

You act like we live in a society where every little thing is voted on. You also act like representatives truly represent their constituents interests. Your reasoning supports this statement, too: "We voted for president in 2000 and Al Gore won." Your logic crumbles. You seem to make a direct corelation between what happens and what people want. Of course you do this because you have gotten what you want for a long time. You point out the obvious and wash your hands. There are manifold political pressures in our government that coerce and manipulate it. Perhaps I could've named this thread "Litigated Morality". In this day and age they are practically synonymous. There are all kinds of laws that courts find unconstitutional, all the time. There is much more to American democracy than voting.
 
Originally posted by DGB454
You are being silly. The question here is Legislatived morality.(forcing someone to be moral by using the law)
Is he making anyone follow the commandments?
Probably. When a judge puts up the ten commandments, god's law, one would safely assume he uses that as the standard in his decisions, which is unacceptable because there are perfectly legal acts covered by the ten commandments, i.e. covetousness, adultery.
 
Originally posted by DGB454
I didn't say any one group was behind them.

Why are you suprised? Am I wrong?

Because you're trying to relieve Christians from blame and pin it on others.
 
Originally posted by DGB454
You are being silly. The question here is Legislatived morality.(forcing someone to be moral by using the law)
Is he making anyone follow the commandments?
I'm not being any sillier than you are. My judge would not be making anyone support Communism, either... but everyone to the right of Ralph Nader would be crying for his head on a pike. You know as well as I do that hanging a plaque of Christian law in a United States courtroom that is Constitutionally required to be completely secular is to inject a bias where it has no place. Justice is supposed to be blind, correct?

I support your attempts as individuals to influence the government in your favor. However, I wish that people of that banner were big-minded enough to understand how Liberty works. I wish that they could admit that they can hold themselves to the strictest standards they deem appropriate, without trying to require everyone else to meet those standards as well.

Honestly, I think there should be a pervasive and active attempt to reduce the number of laws on the books, and to simplify the entire legal system. There are way too many busybody laws on the books that are no longer relevant. Unfortunately, inertia is strongly against that happening, as well as the political system itself.
 
Originally posted by DGB454
So he is forcing people to obey them?

Perhaps he does use those standards in his decisions but is it any different than any a judge using whatever his standards happen to be when judging someone? It is also possible that a Judge can tell the difference between statutes the commandments and judge fairly. I don't know the man and I am in no position to judge how he thinks or what he bases his decissions on.
It's never safe to assume anything.

Seperation of church and state. Simple. His standard is legal precedent. Period.
 
Originally posted by DGB454
He isn't forcing anyone to obey them. What if he kept them on his desk or sitting by his gavel instead? In plain view of everyone. Would that be ok or would that still be a bad thing?
If it was publically displayed it would not be okay. It would be like putting a gay pride flag up. They are equally inappropriate and irrelevant in a court of law. Have you ever seen a statue of Justice? She is blindfolded.

By meting out judgement according to the bible he is in effect making people obey them.
 
Back