Front Porch Sipper: A Coffee Shop by Any Other Name....

Front Porch Sipper: A Coffee Shop by Any Other Name....: Some would think sitting at one coffee shop is much like sitting at any other. This is not so. Sure, there are some similarities, but the ...

Can You Legislate Morality?

So I was going to write about how you can’t legislate morality, and to that end I did some research. Yes, believe it or not I like to have actual factual information for my rants, not just my thoughts and beliefs. Anyhow, in doing this research I found numerous articles from Christian sites making the argument that you not only CAN legislate morality, but it MUST be done and in fact IS being done. “BAH!” I exclaimed loudly (in my head, where most of my conversations take place….). I had to read these frivolous articles so I can denounce them!

But you know what? Some of them actually made some sense. Not all of them, of course, and none made complete sense. They were definitely biased. But there was some interesting thoughts. And I’m going to completely disregard any of the comments on the linked articles, because yeah…. People love to hide behind the anonymity of the internet to spout their vitriolic hate. That’s coming from both sides of the argument, by the way. Not just one.

Let me preface the rest of this by stating I believe “Morality” is subjective. What one person believes is immoral may be perfectly natural for another. What some would seek to prevent, others celebrate. There are some points that most people will agree on, of course, but many others that are in contention. So, for this discussion we’ll use the definition from Dictionary.com which states morality is “conformity to the rules of right conduct.”

Micah Watson stated in his article “Why we can’t notlegislate morality”: The truth, however, is that every law and regulation that is proposed, passed, and enforced has inherent in it some idea of the good that it seeks to promote or preserve.  Fair point. Laws are generally enacted with the idea of promoting some sort of good. No killing, no stealing. I think that’s reasonable. Laws against pollution, sure. I’m good with those. We should protect the environment because it’s the only one we’ve got. Watson goes on to say: As Hadley Arkes has argued, if it is wrong to torture other human beings, then we do not content ourselves with mere tax incentives to encourage citizens to stop. We know that the wrong of torture requires that this choice be removed altogether from the domain of what is acceptable. Again, fair point.  A pair of philosophers once stated that we should “be excellent to each other.” Totally on board with that.

Watson sums up his article thus: To legislate, then, is to legislate morality. One can no more avoid legislating morality than one can speak without syntax. One cannot sever morality from the law. Even partisans of the most spartan libertarian conception of the state would themselves employ state power to enforce their vision of the common good. Morality for the sake of the common good? Yeah, okay, going back to the no killing or stealing or torturing, sure. All in the name of the common good, why not?

Where I run into difficulty is with people like Frank Turek. In his article “Legislating Morality: Why Everyone Is Doing It” he confuses morality with will. He states: ‘…what is so often missed in this debate is that pro-abortion activists want to impose their morals on others as well: they want to impose the morals of the mother on the baby and, in some cases, the father.’   Now, I don’t agree with abortion. I think it’s wrong although in some select instances acceptable. Turek is stating that the woman carrying the fetus is imposing her “morals” on the fetus, when instead it is her “will”, her desire, that she is imposing. Granted, her poor decision may have gotten her into this situation in the first place. I’m not arguing that point. What I’m saying is that she is choosing to have an abortion. That has less to do with conforming to the rules of right conduct and more to do with her desire to not be pregnant.

Turek goes on to state: ‘If Christians are to be effective in politics, then we must be able to answer this “cramming morals” objection. As with most liberal objections, Christians must learn to challenge the assumption behind the objection. This objection assumes that it is immoral to impose morals! Therefore, good questions to ask such a person are these: “Why shouldn’t I cram my morals down your throat? Is there something immoral about that? And if there is, by what standard do you come to such a conclusion? Is it just your opinion or is it really, absolutely wrong according to an objective standard outside yourself?”’

Here I really must object. Making Christian morals, or any religious morals, into law is forcing others to live by those standards. Okay, sure, the Bible has some good rules to live by: no killing, no stealing… wait, that sounds familiar….. There are other laws in that same set that many tend to disregard completely, such as honoring the seventh day and not coveting. Then there are other laws in the Bible that are completely disregarded, such as when a man rapes a woman he is required to marry her, or when a man dies his brother must marry the widow. But that’s a different discussion. There are currently laws based on Christian morality, such as the infamous “Blue Laws” or Sunday Laws. In many areas of this country, businesses are closed on Sunday. In businesses that are not closed, some things are not available for purchase, such as alcohol. Sure, if a business owner wants to close on Sunday, that’s fine. If they want to stay open but not sell things, that’s their choice. Making it a law removes that choice. I’m not a Christian, so I’m out mowing my yard on Sunday afternoon when I get a thirst for a beer. I have none at home, but I can’t go to my local grocer and buy some simply because someone else decided I shouldn’t buy beer on Sunday, something about the “Sabbath Day.” Oddly enough, Sunday isn’t the Sabbath, but again that’s another discussion.

Other things are illegal for no justifiable reason beyond the concept of morality. Gambling and prostitution, for starters. The Bible says nothing about gambling, although criticizes people who want money (except for the churches, of course). Yes, it condemns prostitution, but this is an example of forcing your morality onto others. In parts of Nevada, for example, prostitution is not only legal but alive and well. Being legal means the women are better treated and not subjected to the violence they would encounter in areas where it’s illegal. This article by Dylan Love in The Business Insider gives some idea of what the reality is.

Speaking of prostitution, this article by Gary C. Burger makes the claim: ‘Let's be frank, a lot of people who say, "You shouldn't try to legislate morality" aren't really thinking of all the merits of various legal and ethical systems. ... From my experience it comes down to this: the most cited reason is a selfish and self-centered demand of a guarantee of personal sexual freedom. I'm not kidding; it's often all about sex!’  Yes, sexual freedom is one of the things that have been outlawed based on religious principle. Look at issue of same-sex marriage. Many states have outlawed not only same-sex marriage, but homosexual relationships period. According to this article by Charlie Jane Anders, Georgia has banned all sex toys. North Carolina has banned adultery, as well as lying about being married in order to share a motel room. Pennsylvania has a law saying oral and anal sex are illegal. You cannot cohabit with an "ancestor or descendant."

So, because the Bible doesn’t like it, nobody is allowed to do it? You may or may not agree with these acts, but telling people they can’t do it because you don’t like it? It’s like the meme that’s gone around Facebook: Banning something because you don’t like it is like getting mad at the person in line ahead of you for ordering a chicken sandwich because you don’t like chicken sandwiches. It’s like telling the person in the booth next to you at Perkins that they can’t order pie because you’re on a diet. It’s nonsense.

Yes, you can legislate morality if you consider morality as we’ve defined here. However, religion does not belong in legislation. If you want to avoid something because of your religion, great. Do so, by all means. You do not, however, have the right to tell me I can’t do something simply because you don’t think I should. So long as my actions have no bearing on your life, you have no rights. As C. W. McCall put it, if you ain’t contributing to the way I’m living your support don’t mean a lot (or in this case lack of support). Live your life the way you want, and let me live mine the way I want.

To See or Not To See, That Is The Question

In case you hadn’t heard, the American Family Association is trying to force their narrow minded ideals on visitors to the Overland Park Arboretum. Apparently the AFA, on behalf of a woman with nothing better to complain about, has taken offense at one particular statue. Specifically, the statue is of a headless woman wearing nothing but a button shirt, open, bare breasts, taking a “selfie” of herself.

The story goes that Joanne Hughes (I’m giving her name because it’s emblazoned across the AFA website) was walking through the arboretum when Joanne and family “were shockingly confronted with a bronze sculpture of a headless woman with aroused, naked breasts, taking a picture of herself” (direct quote from the AFA web site).Because they are apparently afraid of the human body and only procreated through a bedsheet in total darkness, Mrs. Hughes filed complaints to have the statue removed so that nobody would have to be affronted by such a spectacle. Needless to say, the OP city council said, “BAH!” and left the statue. The AFA has tried to collect signatures for a petition and has yet to be successful in garnering the required number. I guess not enough people are that worried over a sculpture of a headless naked woman.

What I find amusing is that there are other statues there which could be considered offensive as well, but aren’t. There’s a statue of an obese woman wearing a mini skirt and behind held aloft by a thin man. The woman’s bare backside is clearly visible to anyone walking down the path.

Another is of a nude infant male, anatomically correct, standing in an oval design.

Neither of these are mentioned, just the one of bare breasts. I have a whole rant about breasts in our society, but that’s for another day. Suffice it to say complaining about bare breasts but not a naked baby or a bare behind is, in my opinion, rather petty. The above complaint is supposedly about protecting children from such obscenities, but this is obnoxious. Choosing one statue to complain about while ignoring others shows a narrow-minded fixation which makes me wonder what her problem with breasts is.

Now, to be fair, I know not everyone considers such things as “art.” There are many things I don’t consider “art” but I’m told by those who supposedly know better that it is. However, my opinion is for me. I don’t see that I have any right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot like. And I know not everyone wants to see nudity, even if it is a sculpture or painting or such and not actual real live nudity. And that’s fine. I can appreciate that. But forcing your opinion onto everyone is not the way to handle it. Instead of demanding this statue be removed, trying using it as a teaching tool. If you’re worried it will encourage children to do the same thing, use it as an example of what not to do. Just don’t tell me what I can and cannot see. Let me decide for myself what is offensive to me.

If you’re concerned with your child learning to be “of immoral character,” use it as an example of how not to behave. Rather than be afraid your child might see bare breasts, teach them the human body is not sinful or shameful. And if you can’t manage any of those, then simply avert your eyes when you walk down that path. You can have your beliefs and your version of what you consider to be moral. Teach your children to be afraid of nudity.