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.

Peace On Earth, Good Will Toward All

Most people have heard the story of the Christmas Truce during World War I, in which some troops on both sides of the trenches stopped fighting and enjoyed a holiday evening in peace and harmony with each other. Lesser known is that this was not unprecedented. It was reported that a similar event happened in 1870 during the Franco-Prussian War. A French soldier stepped up in front of everyone and began singing “O Holy Night”, which led to a temporary cease-fire between the troops in that area. It didn't last, of course. Peace rarely does. The officers, who were not at the front lines, did not approve of such things as fraternizing with the enemy and not killing each other.

My point is this: the Power of Peace is strong. When enough people decide to stop fighting and start getting along, miracles happen. The men were tired of fighting, tired of killing, tired of losing loved ones, and took it upon themselves to put an end to it.

This isn't about religion. This is about Peace. Most religions in the world today call for some sort of Peace. During this holiday season, it’s hard not to hear the phrase “Peace on Earth, Good Will toward Man.” Why is it, then, that with so many calling for Peace, we don’t have it?

The answer is simple: Intolerance. People say they want peace, yet are unwilling to tolerate anyone or anything they don’t agree with. I’m not pointing fingers at any one group or person. I've been guilty of it myself, although I try to be tolerant. Sometimes it is difficult. You believe someone is living the wrong way and it is your duty to correct them. Only, it isn't. Your duty is to love one another. Treat others as you would be treated. The Golden Rule isn't “Do unto others before they do unto you,” it’s “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Although the former would work as well, provided what you’re doing is treating them as you would wish to be treated.

Peace is not easy. Too many people have their own opinions of how things should be. Our society has become so ego-centric that many find it impossible to consider someone else first. “I’m right, they’re wrong, why should I give in?” Only, it’s not giving in. It’s getting along. Consider if everyone started getting along and stopped fighting over such silly things as political parties and sexual orientation? Instead of fighting over which religion is the right one, we agree to let each person worship (or not worship) as they see fit.

Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me.
Let there be peace on earth
The peace that was meant to be.
With God as our Father
Brothers all are we.
Let me walk with my brother
In perfect harmony.

Let peace begin with me
Let this be the moment now.
With every step i take
Let this be my solemn vow.
To take each moment
And live each moment
With peace eternally.
Let there be peace on earth,
And let it begin with me.

This song, written in 1955 by Jill Jackson and Sy Miller, sums it up nicely. Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me. Now. In this moment, and each following moment. Let me live in harmony with my brothers and sisters instead of fighting. As John Lennon put it, you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us and the world will live as one.

Christian Nation? Guess again....

I would like to preface this by saying I am not attacking any religion. I am not saying mine is better than yours. I am simply making a statement. I cannot help that you infer something other than what I imply.

Today is September 11. The twelfth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, as well as the plane that was reportedly bound for the White House before being brought down in Pennsylvania. I do not know who was behind it, although I have my thoughts. Some say it was Muslims, some say it was our own government, some say it was a third party. I don’t know, and for the sake of this rant, it doesn’t really matter.

My rant today is in response to all the people proclaiming that this is a Christian nation and how we need to get back to God.

No, we don’t. This is not, nor has it ever been, a “Christian” nation. I’m not arguing about the theological beliefs of the founders. Each one had his beliefs, and that’s great. What I’m saying is that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize not everyone has the same faith, or the same beliefs. Even those under the same blanket umbrella term have varying beliefs. Even different people sitting in the same church have differing opinions of what they are supposed to believe.

Again, I’m not bashing Christianity. I don’t agree with it, can’t believe in it, but then I don’t HAVE to. That’s the point I’m getting at. This country was founded with the concept of Freedom of Religion. Each of us is allowed to believe what we want. Where we run into problems is when members of certain sects try to force everyone to follow the same belief system. The First Amendment  prevents this from happening completely, although it does take place in far too many local areas.

Examples of this are the “Blue Laws” or “Sunday Laws” found in many areas. These were created by secular governments at the behest of religious lobbyists who believed everyone should take off the “Sabbath Day” (despite Sunday not being the real Sabbath Day). It didn’t matter if everyone in that area held the same beliefs or not, they all had to live by the same religion based rules. And yes, these are allowed because the First Amendment specifies that the FEDERAL government will not make any laws regarding religion, but says nothing about local or state governments.

But I digress. This is not a Christian nation. This is a nation founded with the idea of having Christians and Muslims and Jews and whomever else living together in peace. People would be allowed to worship as they believed so long as that worship did not infringe on someone else doing the same. For example, it doesn’t matter to me if you think Sunday is the Sabbath, or Saturday, or Wednesday. Just don’t tell me I can’t go shopping on that day because it violates your religion. You don’t have to agree with mixed race couples or same sex couples, but don’t tell me who I can and cannot be in a relationship with just because it violates your religion.

If you want to pray to your god, or God, or Gods, or whomever, to get this country great once more, I’m fine with that. If each of us who have some sort of religious belief did that, it might actually happen. If you don’t have any religious beliefs, I’m fine with that too. Don’t mock me for having beliefs, and I won’t mock you for not having them.

I’m digressing again. Back on topic…. This nation was created by men who knew people would argue over who believes the truth and who doesn’t. They specifically designed for each of us to be allowed to worship or not worship as we choose, in peace, without fear of attack by narrow-minded people who can’t handle the thought that someone else might be different. Some of them were Christian, sure. Not all of them. That didn’t stop them from setting down the point that everyone is free to believe what they want. 

So no, this is not a Christian Nation. Nor is it necessarily a Religious Nation. It is a nation of individuals who were supposed to be able to live together in tolerance, if not peace and harmony. What a shame we can’t have that.

A Not-so-twisty Concept

I have to wonder about the latest trend in fast food. It seems more burger joints are joining in and it doesn't sound all that appealing to me. I'm talking about pretzel buns.

Now, I like a nice warm soft pretzel, coated with massive salt crystals, maybe dunked in cheese or spicy mustard. But never have I been eating a pretzel and thought, "Ya know...this would be great on a hamburger or hot dog!" I just don't like the idea of a hard crust surrounding my burger. Yet Wendy's has their burgers and Sonic has their hot dogs clothed in pretzel buns. A quick search on Google shows pretzel buns are readily available in many bakeries.

To be fair, I have not yet tried either fast food place to see if their fare is any good. I am tempted to get some pretzel buns by themselves, warm them up, coat them in salt and butter, and put in a good movie. Some day when I have nothing better to do and enough money to do it with, I might swing by and pick up one of these offers. Don't hold your breath, though.

The Customer is Always....

Customer service…. What does that term mean to you? The customer is always right, no matter what? Unfortunately, it seems customer service is starting to go the way of the dodo. More stores are putting in self-service lanes so you never even deal with a cashier. You gather your purchase, scan the stuff, bag them, put them back in your cart and haul them out yourself. If you’re lucky they may have one or two lanes open with an actual person, but the lines for those lanes are extremely long. Or, they’re the “Express Lane” kind and you have more than 10 items in your cart. Gas stations did this a long time ago, grocery stores are catching up. Soon it will be restaurants where you enter your order on a screen at the table or counter, swipe your card, and your food arrives on a conveyor. There actually is a small chain of restaurants where your order is delivered by model train on an overhead rail, then lowered to your table. I haven’t tried it yet. I wonder what you do when you want a refill of tea, though.

What’s more troubling, beyond the lack of personal service, is the quality of personal service. Restaurant servers in particular seem to be in the news lately, demanding either higher wages or better tips. In some areas, your server is most likely making about $2/hour, with tips making up the difference. I don’t agree with this, because not everyone can or will leave the (now suggested) 20% gratuity. I certainly don’t unless the service was stellar. The problem I see is that so many servers aren’t doing their job. I was at one restaurant recently where our waitress took our orders and brought drinks, then someone else brought our food. Our waitress stopped to make sure we did get our food, then disappeared until it was time to bring the check. I had to flag someone down to get drink refills. It’s not that she was on break. I could clearly see her standing at other tables, chatting. At one point she sat down to chat. Yes, she was trying to garner a bigger tip from that table, but that shouldn’t excuse her from showing some attention to her other customers as well.

I’ve had this same problem with counter workers and telephone service as well. The apparent lack of interest in the job, the customer, or anything else but his or her phone or time clock. Many are not rude, per se, but just don’t seem to care to do their job. Others I have seen have been plain rude.

I can’t say it’s all customer service people, definitely. I’ve seen plenty that do an excellent job of paying attention to customers without hovering, being friendly and seeming to care about what they’re doing. Despite making pittance, they do their job well, and those people I applaud. I know customer service is difficult. I’ve done it. There are days you don’t want to get out of bed, let alone deal with idiots all day long. Yet you force yourself to get out, face these people with a smile, and do your job. Kudos to you!

Which brings me to my next point…. Customers can be idiots. If you’re standing in line to order something, get off your phone and talk to the person behind the counter. They’re there to serve you, not try to interpret what you mumble while telling your BFF about some moron that almost ran into your car while you were busy not paying attention to where you were going. Your BFF can wait a few minutes while you place your order and interact face to face with someone. Honest. Or if you’re in line in the grocery store or Walmart or wherever, get off the phone long enough to talk to the cashier. He or she is a person too, and when you’re rude to them you may discover you are missing something you’re sure you’ve paid for. In a restaurant, interact with the server. Put your phone down. Stop your conversation long enough to give your order and see if the server has any suggestions or questions. Otherwise, it’s not their fault your steak isn’t done right or that coffee isn’t decaf after all, or you can’t quite put your finger on that unusual seasoning…. Be polite and interact with people who are there to serve you. Consider how you would feel in their position. The old adage is fitting: Treat others as you would have them treat you. If you wouldn’t want someone treating you this way, don’t do it to someone else. It’s really kinda simple.

Bottom line, good customer service is a two-way street. It requires the service person to be friendly and polite, but it also requires the customer to be friendly and polite. At the very least it requires that both parties interact enough to make sure things go smoothly. I realize it’s a lost art, but using manners is a good start to better customer service, on both sides.