Legislating Morality

[kujo]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1483734' date='Mar 25 2008, 01:37 PM']amen.
which is the tragedy of all those who want to ban sodomy, fornication, masturbation, anything sinful etc etc.

i'd also add freedom of action, not to split hairs but just stressing.[/quote]

My Constitutional Law professor once said that our rights and freedoms as Americans end when they infringe on the rights and freedoms of other Americans.

My freedom of action stops when my actions violate the rights of others. I call to mind this truism whenever discussing things like this.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i thikn it was franklin, maybe jefferson or madison, who said "your right to swing your fists freely ends where my face begins".

i like that one better

[kujo]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1483750' date='Mar 25 2008, 01:48 PM']i thikn it was franklin, maybe jefferson or madison, who said "your right to swing your fists freely ends where my face begins".

i like that one better [/quote]

Haha. I hope it was Franklin! He's my favorite figure in all American history. I guess I sympathize with a boozy nudist with more sarcasm and wit than is constructively-necessary!

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1483745' date='Mar 25 2008, 11:44 AM']My Constitutional Law professor once said that our rights and freedoms as Americans end when they infringe on the rights and freedoms of other Americans.

My freedom of action stops when my actions violate the rights of others. I call to mind this truism whenever discussing things like this.[/quote]

Sodomy ok? Prostitution ok? Assisted suicide ok?

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1483803' date='Mar 25 2008, 03:35 PM']Sodomy ok? Prostitution ok? Assisted suicide ok?[/quote]

If you're asking for MY opinion on those subjects, I would say no; however, with the exception of sodomy, the things you mentioned have laws prohibiting them for justifiable reason. Afterall, we can't have people selling their bodies for sex because how do you collect the taxes? And we certainly cannot have doctors killing off patients because, in the words of Chris Rock, the money is in the medicine, not the cure.

Seriously, though. The government of our land should have little to do with the immorality of the citizens it governs. The slippery-slope analogy is particularly appropriate precisely because there is no single set of moral codes in this country. You and I may be of a similar (and a correct one, if I do say so myself), but not everyone agrees. Thus, unless the action be obvious in its immorality (i.e.- abortion) and egregious in its effects on society, I believe that government--both state and federal-- should keep its focus on other matters.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1483850' date='Mar 25 2008, 02:36 PM']If you're asking for MY opinion on those subjects, I would say no; however, with the exception of sodomy, the things you mentioned have laws prohibiting them for justifiable reason. Afterall, we can't have people selling their bodies for sex because how do you collect the taxes? And we certainly cannot have doctors killing off patients because, in the words of Chris Rock, the money is in the medicine, not the cure.

Seriously, though. The government of our land should have little to do with the immorality of the citizens it governs. The slippery-slope analogy is particularly appropriate precisely because there is no single set of moral codes in this country. You and I may be of a similar (and a correct one, if I do say so myself), but not everyone agrees. Thus, unless the action be obvious in its immorality (i.e.- abortion) and egregious in its effects on society, I believe that government--both state and federal-- should keep its focus on other matters.[/quote]

How can the action be "obviously" immoral if the government has little to do with the morality of its citizens?

I tend to think that many of our laws need a moral backing; divorcing morality from law seems dangerous to me.

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1483864' date='Mar 25 2008, 04:58 PM']How can the action be "obviously" immoral if the government has little to do with the morality of its citizens?

I tend to think that many of our laws need a moral backing; divorcing morality from law seems dangerous to me.[/quote]

I think that we should not remove more free will than what is absolutely necessary for the relative-safety of the public. While the morality and spiritual well-being of the culture is of utmost importance, I don't think that heads-of-state, congressmen, senators, policeman and city councils are the people in charge of supplying that moral background you speak of. I think it begins with parents, who must instill solid Catholic morals in their children at home. Next it's the priests and pastors job to teach their congregations about God and His laws and His love. Finally, teachers, politicians and the like should be models of good civic behavior.

If we all worried more about our own morals, we would serve as better examples and perhaps people would emulate our behavior.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1483572' date='Mar 24 2008, 11:50 PM']Well... for once I agree you with you 100%. But this is the key line, how far should they go?

Should divorce be outlawed since its immoral? Why or why not?

Some people have said we should only outlaw things that effect the public. Yet this leaves a lot of grey area; for starters nearly anything can be linked to the public somehow.[/quote]
In a truly Catholic system, divorce and remarriage would not be legally recognized by the government.
Of course, as things stand, that's completely unfeasible in our (nonCatholic) society, but I would have nothing against such a law on principle.

A lot of times, of course, what is ideal and what is feasible are two different things.

And divorce (in the sense of separation) is not in itself immoral, but divorce and remarriage (as it's currently practiced in our society).

The civil law should reflect, rather than contradict, God's Law, but lawmakers must also realize that we can't create heaven on earth, and laws should not be made where the enforcement would lead to greater evil than that which is being outlawed.
Yes, there is a certain amount of "grey area" here.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1483717' date='Mar 25 2008, 11:12 AM']I generally agree with you, Soc, especially the question of whose "morality" is behind the laws we pass and follow; however, I would put forth that most people would say that the state law banning sodomy violates the reasonable right to privacy that we all expect. My mother always told me that whatever happens in someone else's bedroom between 2 consenting adults is not the business of any government, federal, state or otherwise[/quote]
Constitutionally, it is up to the states. According to the 10th Amendment, the federal government has no right to step in on this matter. If the people of Texas want the law changed, they can work to change it. If they wish to keep this law respecting "traditional" morality, then it is not the place of the federal courts to butt in.
This is also in line with the Church's teaching of the principle of subsidiarity. Matters of government should be handled at the local level whenever possible.

Morally, I have no problem with anti-sodomy laws on principle. Most states had them in the early years of our country, and they were not considered an issue (though most states have not seriously enforced them in some time). And generally they did not lead to cops in private bedrooms and such nonsense, but rather concerned public vice. If the people of a state wish to have laws respecting morality, then they should not be taken away by federal decree. Again, principle of subsidiarity.

[quote]Agreed. I think we should all worry more about tending to our own affairs instead of the inequities of others, and if we were less preoccupied with the morality of society and more concerned with encouraging the morality of our children, our country would be better off.[/quote]
This is a false dilemna argument which I see used on here ad nauseum. There is no contradiction between teaching morality to one's children, and supporting moral principles in law. In fact, locally, a lot of the people supporting morality in law are Catholic homeschoolers and such.
Unfortunately, there has long existed a concentrated effort to undermine Christian moral principles in law. If nobody does anything to fight this, the enemy wins.

[quote name='kujo' post='1483850' date='Mar 25 2008, 02:36 PM']Thus, unless the action be obvious in its immorality (i.e.- abortion) and egregious in its effects on society, I believe that government--both state and federal-- should keep its focus on other matters.[/quote]
Unfortunately, not everybody can agree on what actions are "obvious" in their immorality. Plenty of people now argue (wrongly) that it is not obvious that abortion is morally wrong.
And 100 years ago, most people would regard homosexual sodomy as obvious in its immorality - as a vice deserving punishment rather than a "right."
The more immoral a society is, the more morally blind it becomes, and the less "obvious" immorality becomes.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1484368' date='Mar 25 2008, 09:44 PM']Constitutionally, it is up to the states. According to the 10th Amendment, the federal government has no right to step in on this matter. If the people of Texas want the law changed, they can work to change it.[/quote]

That is true up to the point when someone claims that the law violates their constitutional rights, and since privacy has been deemed a constitutional right, the people of Texas can't pass the law.

But as a whole on this matter, I would agree with you. If we are truly looking to work towards the Kingdom of Heaven, we should outlaw things that immoral; sodomy, contraceptives, ect.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1484368' date='Mar 25 2008, 11:44 PM']Morally, I have no problem with anti-sodomy laws on principle. Most states had them in the early years of our country, and they were not considered an issue (though most states have not seriously enforced them in some time). And generally they did not lead to cops in private bedrooms and such nonsense, but rather concerned public vice. If the people of a state wish to have laws respecting morality, then they should not be taken away by federal decree. Again, principle of subsidiarity.[/quote]

IMHO, governments, at any level, should not be in the business of enforcing morality. Citizens should always have the choice to do what they want, even if it's an immoral activity.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1484382' date='Mar 26 2008, 12:02 AM']But as a whole on this matter, I would agree with you. If we are truly looking to work towards the Kingdom of Heaven, we should outlaw things that immoral; sodomy, contraceptives, ect.[/quote]

Why? Why should we remove the free will of our peers? You cannot coerce people into morality. They need to be educated on the immorality of their activity, of course. But I don't think we should trust the agents in our government to be the articulators of these principles.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1484841' date='Mar 26 2008, 02:17 PM']Why? Why should we remove the free will of our peers? You cannot coerce people into morality. They need to be educated on the immorality of their activity, of course. But I don't think we should trust the agents in our government to be the articulators of these principles.[/quote]

Outlawing immoral actions no more limits the free will of the people than outlawing murder, or anything really.

Agents of the government can articulate morality just as well as others in society. When they miss the mark, we have a duty to call them out on it.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't think it is the governments role to teach morality. But certainly if the people want to pass a law saying X is immoral and we want to make it illegal, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. Morality is objective; if its wrong, its wrong and we should prevent it.

Edited March 26, 2008 by rkwright

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1484873' date='Mar 26 2008, 04:53 PM']Outlawing immoral actions no more limits the free will of the people than outlawing murder, or anything really.

Agents of the government can articulate morality just as well as others in society. When they miss the mark, we have a duty to call them out on it.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't think it is the governments role to teach morality. But certainly if the people want to pass a law saying X is immoral and we want to make it illegal, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. Morality is objective; if its wrong, its wrong and we should prevent it.[/quote]

There is a difference between laws outlawing murder and laws that would outlawing certain forms of sexual activity (i.e.- sodomy, oral sex, etc.). The former is a disruption to public safety and order while the latter is an immoral activity that doesn't really affect you or I in any tangible way.

Remember something: if we give the government we trust the right to do something we like, we run the risk of having that power in the hands of a government we don't like.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1484382' date='Mar 25 2008, 10:02 PM']That is true up to the point when someone claims that the law violates their constitutional rights, and since privacy has been deemed a constitutional right, the people of Texas can't pass the law.[/quote]
That's the judicial tyranny I am referring to.

There is aboslutely no "right" to sodomy listed in the Constitution, nor is a "right to privacy" anywhere mentioned (whatever that might mean).
The so-called "Constitutional right to privacy" is completely bogus, an invention of activist judges used as an excuse for federal courts to overrule any state laws which disagree with a liberal social agenda. That was the basis for the Roe v. Wade ruling which declared abortion a "Constitutional right."

Most states had laws restricting both abortion and sodomy, and no one saw them as contrary to the Constitution until the late 20th century. In the meantime, the federal government has made more and more restrictions on our [i]legitimate[/i] freedoms.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1484841' date='Mar 26 2008, 02:17 PM']IMHO, governments, at any level, should not be in the business of enforcing morality. Citizens should always have the choice to do what they want, even if it's an immoral activity.[/quote]
Oh, so you're an anarchist? Should we get rid of all laws?
All laws "enforce morality" to some degree.
Or are you saying that laws should only force immorality?

[quote]Why? Why should we remove the free will of our peers? You cannot coerce people into morality. They need to be educated on the immorality of their activity, of course. But I don't think we should trust the agents in our government to be the articulators of these principles.[/quote]
By that logic, we should abolish laws against murder, rape, and theft. After all, these would "remove the free will of our peers" who would wish to commit such acts, and you "cannot coerce people into morality."
Why should we trust the agents in our government to be the articulators of these principles, such as that rape is wrong?

[quote name='kujo' post='1484891' date='Mar 26 2008, 03:27 PM']There is a difference between laws outlawing murder and laws that would outlawing certain forms of sexual activity (i.e.- sodomy, oral sex, etc.). The former is a disruption to public safety and order while the latter is an immoral activity that doesn't really affect you or I in any tangible way.

Remember something: if we give the government we trust the right to do something we like, we run the risk of having that power in the hands of a government we don't like.[/quote]
Since the time of the American founding, most states had laws against sodomy, and this hardly led to the creation of some totalitarian hell with cops in bedrooms, etc.
The laws would really only be enforced if the sodomy was in some way made public. (Gay swingers clubs, etc.)
Openly promoted and practiced homosexuality and other sexual vices does in fact affect all those who have to deal with it, directly or indirectly, and has helped contribute to a breakdown in public morality.
While the federal courts may have plenty of concern for the "rights" of homosexuals to openly practice and promote their vice, what about the rights of parents who don't want to raise their children in a moral open sewer?

While you may not agree with sodomy laws, there is certainly no reason for the federal courts to forcibly (and unconstitutionaly) override these state laws (as they have done with abortion, and other things as well).
When we give federal courts the power to basically overturn any state or local laws or customs (such as displaying the ten commandments) they don't like, [i]that[/i] is a risk we should be worried about.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Socrates