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.
No comments:
Post a Comment