However, the Government should not be the enforcer of morality. There is the Law of God and the law of man. Forcing a man to follow the Laws laid down in the Bible will not save him, salvation can only come from an internal acceptance of God and a personal decision to follow his will. In short, whether or not there is a human law against adultery should be completely meaningless for a Christian; God has already ruled and it is to Him we must look first of all.
Going back to my original point, it is the idea that everybody belongs to society or to other people that Bork touches on that I have a problem with. If everybody belongs to themselves, then only laws that deal with individuals doing harm to other individuals have any right to exist. If, on the other hand, everybody belongs to everyone else, then paternalism becomes an issue; laws are made for "the greater good" of the people, because the government knows best. America was founded on the idea that it is individuals, not societies or any other groupings, that hold inalienable rights and these rights should only be infringed upon by the government to prevent people from infringing on one another.
The individual was free to look toward, and protect, his interests in the variety of the forms of association in which he saw himself: member of his family/household, inheritor of prescriptive rights, member of a guild or craft, farmer amongst a village of farmers, congregate of his church -- in other words an individual within a small group of common interests.
As the New Whigs surmounted the Old (post french revolution) the french rationalistic individualism began to be both popularized and then manipulated. People became classes, racial and ethnic groups and other invented forms that could be looked out for (manipulated or subjugated) by the General Will.
Trying to put the modern world's view of individualism on the thinking of that century is probably very incorrect.
This is just the sort of argumentative vaporing Bork rails against. The Courts have determined that it is unlawful to offend anyone engaged in morally reprehensible behavior.
It is, according to the justices, the right of every individual to insult and denegrate traditional values. It is not alright, these same justices claim, to react negatively to assaults on traditional values.
In other words, it is protected speech to pi** on the crucifix but it is not protected speech to oppose the pi**er.
Bork is absolutely correct in demanding that the atomization of values must be stopped. We are on a path of unimaginable horror. It must be ended.
GW Bush must gather the moral courage to nominate an unflinching Constitutional conservative. If he fails the Republican party will split. This is clearly the ambition of the Democrats. Their insistence that the current balance be maintained begs the question of the fundamental corruption of the current balance.