A Guide to Imposing Your Morals on Others Without Feeling Guilty About It

Family Reporter ^ | 4/7/04 | Editor, Family Reporter (www.familyreporter.com)

[Vitamin A]

A Guide to Imposing Your Morals on Others Without Feeling Guilty About It

By: Editor, Family Reporter

"You can't impose your morals on other people!" These days you can't participate in a political debate without hearing that argument. Those who lack any religious convictions commonly pull out this popular but unreasoned slogan as a "trump card" to shut down any argument informed by Judeo-Christian principles. And far too often, those of us who hold to faith-based moral principles fail to appreciate the intellectual justification for our advocating that government enforce our view of morality. Too often we feel guilty for taking moral stances because we mistakenly think that promoting laws based upon our morals violates others' freedom. Well, I'm here to tell you that you and every other American can and should try to impose your morals on society, and this guide's purpose is to explain why you should do so without feeling any guilt about it.

Full Article Here

[King Black Robe]

I ask them in return, should government impose their amorality then? It is just as imposing. Very convenient of them to define us out of the debate.

[Vitamin A]

Then I guess you also missed this part:

" "Okay," says the more intellectually honest liberal, "I'll concede that just because a moral happens to be advocated by religious groups doesn't disqualify it from being enforced by government. But there has to be some reason for enforcing a moral other than just that "God says it's wrong," because even religious people disagree about who and what God is and what He/She/It says is right and wrong." Finally our atheistic liberal friend is starting to advocate a more sound position. He'll probably be disappointed to learn, however, that as luck or divine design would have it, religious morals are almost always aimed at preventing some negative impact on society in addition to "saving your soul." For example, one cannot reasonably disagree that if the world practiced Judeo-Christian morals concerning sex (including more Jews and Christians themselves), we would not have nearly as big a problem as we do today with sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, out of wedlock births, or broken homes."

[JimRed]

This is the same thing we conservatives say about why abortion should be illegal--it is murdering a fetus.

Which is precisely why you cannot get a liberal to agree that a fetus is a human being. That admission would be the first step to enlightenment or accepting guilt.

[RUCKUS INC.]

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/social_issues/morality.htm

Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason has written an article entitled "How to Force Your Morality" that does a way better job of dealing with this issue.

[Sloth]

Because the majority of us are almost always right in our collective moral judgment

An utterly foolish, and false, assumption.

[RUCKUS INC.]

I agree!!!

[Vitamin A]

Then I guess Sloth and Ruckus are very comfortable with the current trend of a few unelected elitist judges deciding these issues from us instead of the majority.

[Sloth]

Why do you say that?

[Vitamin A]

Because you voiced such strong opposition to the notion that the majority is almost always right in its collective moral judgment. If you believe that is wrong, then you must be relieved that judges, rather than the majority, are making the laws today.

[King Black Robe]

There is equally a lot of confusion about morality and the founders take on it. They were not neutral on the issue. They wanted to create a fertile ground where morality could grow and prosper. That's why they were so concerned about protecting the free expression of religion while denying any right to enforce a particular one. But the left has successfully redefined "free expression" into meaning coercion. Under the left's definition, if you say the name "God" you are coercive, but if you teach school children that homosexuality is jim-dandy, you are not coercive.

[Sloth]

Very poor reasoning. My recognition that tyranny of the majority is evil does not preclude that judicial tyranny is even more evil.

[Vitamin A]

Just a couple days ago I read an article about how the Supreme Court declined hearing a case where a boy had gotten in trouble for handing out "Jesus" pencils at school. Can you believe we are litigating such nonsense. What a coercive act! How dare he?! And in a PUBLIC school! Government coercion!

[King Black Robe]

Exactly!

[King Black Robe]

John Adams: We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other

Samuel Adams: A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.

Frederic Bastiat: When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.

Edmund Burke; Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.

Edmund Burke: There never was a bad man that had ability for good service.

Alexis de Tocqueville: ... liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.

One example: nudity laws. Why do we have them? If one person wants to be naked in public, what should that matter to anyone else? It doesn't "hurt" them. ahhhhh....but it hurts their sense of morals. It would break down the general morals of society. THAT would be harmful, not helpful to liberty. And it would violate the liberty of the majority that does not wish to have an immoral public environment.