Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TChris
See, the slippery slope is this: Once enough people deny any difference between right and wrong in their personal lives, then the laws created by and for those same people will inevitably follow the same path, albeit in something of a delayed fashion. If there is no good and evil in our personal, private lives, there is necessarily a similar attitude toward our civic attitudes and actions. Those who think they can completely separate their personal and public lives are deceiving themselves.

Are you seriously proposing that everything you personally believe to be immoral should be illegal -- with men with guns to enforce it? That is a conclusion that can be drawn from "no separation between public and private lives". For example:

If you belive people should go to church on Sunday -- then should everyone who doesn't be placed in Stocks?? And businesses which open on Sunday should be confiscated??

If you belive that people should only worship in a Protestant Church -- or a particular sect of a Protestant Church -- then should all Catholic Churches, and all other churches of all other Protestant sects, be confiscated or burned?

Europe had about 400 years of that kind of thinking, with more than enough death and destruction to go round, and they finally declared an exhausted truce, and saw the benefits of "tolerance" for other religions. Islam has not yet seen this light, and is due for a lot of death and destruction until they do.

I never even implied that there was no difference between good and evil. I strongly suggested that there was a difference between what you require of yourself, and what you should be willing to require of others by force of law. And once you have agreed that there is a difference, you should start to think about how you should decide; then you can persuade others to decide using the same principles.

43 posted on 08/04/2005 4:58:56 PM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: Mack the knife
I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic. You have brought up and thoroughly explained many points, most of which revolve around "just who do we want and trust to make law", and "what kind of law do we want", and "what do we use as a basis for law?". All valid questions that men have wrestled with for millenia.

For me it comes down to sort of a small "l" libertarian view: I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes as long as 1)they don't shove it in my face, and 2) they don't ask me to pay for the consequences of their actions.

44 posted on 08/04/2005 5:32:40 PM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: Mack the knife

Oh, and murderers, serial child molesters, and treasonous SOB's pay the ultimate penalty.


45 posted on 08/04/2005 5:34:24 PM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: Mack the knife
The problem with the law as currently written and practiced in the US is that it has gone a long way down the wrong road since the Constitution was written. And respect for the law is probably at an all-time low. That's because many people think that special interests have teamed up with the legal profession to set things up so that some people will greatly benefit by forcing others to comply with certain laws.

Its become a corrupt little money game. Perhaps the law has always been so. I am what used to be known as a strict constructionist when it comes to making law supposedly based on the Constitution. I think that every 4th year the various legislatures should be instructed not to make new law, but to repeal old law. And I might like to see rock solid sunset clauses built into most laws. That way the cowards in Congress wouldn't really have to vote to repeal some egregiously unconstitutional monstrosity, they could just let it expire, like the rotten 1994 AW ban.

47 posted on 08/04/2005 5:43:30 PM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: Mack the knife
Are you seriously proposing that everything you personally believe to be immoral should be illegal -- with men with guns to enforce it?

I think the initial point was that criminal laws are based on public morality, not that all public morality should be made into criminal laws. At some level, any law is created because some person or group of people wants that law to be created. It could be for any reason. For the major criminal laws, it's usually morality of some kind. Any belief you have as to how people should behave (including yourself) is morality. If you happen to take a more libertarian position and think people should be able to do anything they want as long as it doesn't 'hurt' someone else, that's also a morality. You are saying hurting someone else (without their consent) is immoral. It always falls back on morality, how you think people should behave. Since we don't all have the same moral values, we need some way to harmonize them. You should not be allowed to force your morality on everyone else any more than I should. However, laws must follow some morality and the only way we can decide which moral values to follow (and 'none' is not an option) is majority vote, though this is tempered by our form of government.

51 posted on 08/04/2005 9:21:41 PM PDT by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: Mack the knife
I strongly suggested that there was a difference between what you require of yourself, and what you should be willing to require of others by force of law.

I believe you are being disengenuous, or at least exaggerated, in your protests. Of course I wouldn't advocate jailing those who don't attend church. But the issue at hand is far from that, blatantly extreme, example.

That we've come to the point in our society that incest is seriously being considered as an entirely private matter, a protected personal liberty, is utterly shocking. It is a long way from "placing in stocks" those who don't go to church.

You also try to impose an absolutist, all-or-nothing attitude on my argument. It's absurd on the face of it. My argument is that laws do and must have a moral foundation to them. You have never responded to that claim. Instead, you go off on an inflammatory rant about imposing my morality on others. You set up a straw man, then light him on fire.

Democratic principles at work in our nation generally impose the judgment of the majority to the whole. What is judged to be wrong by that majority is declared to be illegal, with varying degrees of severity. (No stockade for the non-believers.) On what basis do voters declare what is illegal and what is not? It is based upon their collective moral judgment.

Therefore, the "you can't legislate morality" line simply couldn't be more incorrect. That's exactly what legislation is. So, as the moral restraint of the majority of voters declines, so do our laws follow.

53 posted on 08/05/2005 12:21:52 AM PDT by TChris ("You tweachewous miscweant!" - Elmer Fudd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson