Kissing Sibs (SCOTUS & incest)

NRO ^ | August 04, 2005 | Matthew J. Franck

[TChris]

Let me see if I can boil down your position: 1) Laws do and must have a moral foundation to them.
2) Not all moral judgements should become law.
3) Which moral judgement should become law are decided by the collective moral judgements of a majority of the citizens.

You have it reasonably well put here.

Your position #3, that the majority of voters decide, is both untrue and begs the question. It is untrue because the concept of "individual rights" as codified in the Constitution limits what the majority can make illegal (in fact, the purpose of the Consitution is to limit the power of the majority, you know, all that ... Congress shall make no law ... stuff).

In the history and experience of the US with regard to the Constitution, you are correct. However, a large enough majority could change that too, with a Constitutional amendment. It's a nifty little irony that the majority chooses to have its own power held in check by the authority of a Constitution which could be legitimately altered to eliminate that check. :-)

It further underlines my contention: The laws of our nation are the way they are because, more or less, a majority of its citizens have caused them to be. They have caused them to be that way because that is what they judge to be, more or less, right. They even believe it is right to place, or preserve, limits upon their own collective power, so far.

Once again, the laws of the land, including the Constitution, are the codified morality of the majority.

[Mack the knife]

Mack the Knife - And how many people at the Murrah building died because no one was punished for those deeds?

GoLightly - This justification doesn't cut it.

It was not meant as a justification.

As I understand the thought processes of its perpetrators from published reports, the targeting of the Murrah building, containing both BATF offices and a day care center, was intended to send a very simple message to government employees -- if our children are not safe (e.g., Ruby Ridge, Waco), your children are not safe. Chechen rebels sent the same message to the Russian government when they took over the school after their children were bombed by Russian aircraft.

I don't agree with it, but I understand how they got there.

[GoLightly]

It was not meant as a justification.

I realized you didn't intend to justify the action, but your intent is not relevant. I'm trying to get you to look deeper, as you seem to only see the surface "cause".

As I understand the thought processes of its perpetrators from published reports, the targeting of the Murrah building, containing both BATF offices and a day care center, was intended to send a very simple message to government employees -- if our children are not safe (e.g., Ruby Ridge, Waco), your children are not safe. Chechen rebels sent the same message to the Russian government when they took over the school after their children were bombed by Russian aircraft.

Every junkie caught burglarizing a house to support their drug habit will blame the theft on the price of drugs & every poor kid who holds up the local 7-11 will blame the theft on their poverty. "Victim mentality" enabled by a basically immoral society perpetuates itself. It is the destructive force. It is what was behind Waco, Ruby Ridge, the bombing of the Murrah building, the Belsan school massacre, the bombing of the the Chechen's, the burglarized home & the robbery at the 7-11. Strong societies push their populations towards a supportive morality, but every time governments get into that business, they take away the most effective tools from the societies they are attempting to govern.

I don't agree with it, but I understand how they got there.

You do?