Legislating morality: An Example

It's not the building. It's the service. Whenever I gather together with my fellow believers to worship God, wherever that may be --in the building or just "in church" in a different location--I refuse to pledge to the American flag. I find it highly inappropriate to pledge allegiance to a nation in the midst of worship.

There are many things that are appropriate in daily life that are inappropriate in worship.

 

I'll grant you that but only not because they're "sin" but because we feel they're inappropriate. I do agree, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing a pledge during church (except perhaps on the 4th of July). But it's not because I find anything unbiblical about it. I just don't think it's appropriate, I don't think it's "idol" worship.

 

It's called the 4th of July in England. It's called Independence Day in these United States.

 

1) Actually, it is.

2) Pornography, as long as it involves consenting adults, is also free speech protected by Amendment I of the constitution of these United States.

 

There may be a couple....Cable T.V. and telephone rates, regulations regarding commercial rail transport, most zoning laws in any municipality, legislatively recognized federal holidays, most commerce with other nations, most commerce betweeen the States, immigration laws, legislation authorizing the issuing of school bonds or other infrascructure bonds, most regulations governing our public schools.....

peace to youraying:

 

Some states even have laws dictating what ingredients you are allowed to use in pizza dough.

One of my favorite laws that DOES legislate morality is a law that requires a burglar to notify the intended victim 24 hours before commiting the burglary. "Hello? I'm planning to rob you blind about 2am tomorrow morning. I know that's just 10 hours from now, but I hope you won't report me for giving you less than 24 hours notice."

 

:laugh: I wonder how many have actually made the call...

peace to youraying:

 

It would be 'immoral' for comunications provider to gouge customers on what most consider a vital service; at the same time, the government does not require companies to provide a service for a loss, unless it [the gov't] picks it up-- that would be an immoral position.

Same as above, though a different particular public service.

What is/are the purpose(s) of zoning laws? Is it not to keep comerical businesses from infringing on the peace and well-being of a residential area? and/or is it to keep the traffic of strangers away from congesting the streets in front of private homes, thus creating greater risks of accidents, and camouflage for would-be malefactors? Is it 'moral' to reduce risks of mishaps or malevalent intents? Or perhaps better, is it 'immoral' to not do so?

Would most people not consider it immoral to force Christians to work on Christmas or Easter, unless they have agreed prior? Whether we honor days or activities relating to the founding of the nation, or furtherance of the nation's values, is a persoanl choice; the feds make the choice that we, as a nation, do so honor such days and encourage reverance for those killed in wars and prayers for those currently in such peril-- positions of a certain morality (that everyone certainly doesn't share), I think. And on what basis does the federal government think it can have a day off to give thanks-- and to who or what? A moral question.

Fair dealings to ourselves and those other nations-- a moral matter.

Same as above, just a different and domestic level.

Would you consider it 'moral' to cross the border into another country without going through the legal channels of such, considering diseases you could bring and a citizen's job you might need to get in order to live? If it's not moral to do that, and it is illegal to do that, that is legislating morality.

Suppose we closed all public schools and sold off all government-owned buildings. Suddenly most children in such a community would have no means of education and water, sanitation, and other services would suddenlhy cease with nothing to replace them for perhaps a long time. Would that be moral? Therefore, woudl failure to have regulations preventing that be immoral?

Same as above.

Thanks, I've got it. Go ahead try some more of these if you like; this is rather fun.

 

Something is worth only what someone else is willing to pay for it. It is a streeeeeeeeeetch to see the regulation of cable T.V. as a moral issue.

It depends on the law. Not all purposes are moral in nature. By state law, you drive 45 mph in construction zones (as opposed to 50 mph or 40 mph). That is a safety issue, not a moral issue. It is not "immoral" to drive 50 mph in a construction zone in and of itself. For safety reasons, the law is set at 45 mph.

No, it isn't. And even if it were, the "peace" of a residential area is not a "moral" issue. It may be a "social" issue, but not a moral issue.

Operating a Pizza Resturant in a residential neighborhood is not "immoral" in and or itself. Some neighborhoods may want one. Others may not. Therefore, zoning laws are put in place to reflect the "social" condition that exists. Those are clearly not moral issues

Again, a safety issue, not a moral issue.

Of course not. All jobs, that I know of, in this country are voluntary. No one forces you to put in an application. No one forces you to work any day of the week, much less Sunday or Holidays. If you don't want to work on a Sunday or Easter, find a job that allows you to be off so you can worship.

I don't believe for a second that Congress thought it would be immoral to have Christians work on July 4th, or any other federal holiday. It was just another paid vacation for their constituents.

No, purely a political issue, plain and simple.

The laws governing immigration are political, not moral in nature. Why is it that Cubans that make it to shore in Florida have a legislative right to stay, but Haitians that make it to shore are returned? Did the Congress consider it from a moral position, or from a political position?

Making up a silly situation does not further your argument at all.

By State Law, schools must be in session 188 days per year (I don't know the exact #, but that isn't important). It is not "immoral" to have schools in session for 180 days or 200 days. Why 188 days? Why not give our children the benefit of a better education by going 225 days per year? The number of days the legislature sets for a school year does not depend on "moral" issues, but on societal issues, on social issues. They decided 188 days was sufficient. If the people don't think it is enough, or if it is too much, they will tell their legislators to try to get it changed.

If you say so.

peace to youraying:

 

I am going to respond only to certain terms you used in defending your position:

"That is a safety issue, not a moral issue."
"not "immoral" in and or itself"
"No, purely a political issue, plain and simple."

As for "safety issue," I think one thing a 'moral' government will do is to do something to reduce preventable risks. Do you think attempts at being 'moral' have absolutely nothing to do with "safety issues?"

In your term "not 'immoral' in and of itself," why is is it necessary to include the "in and of itself?" If morality had absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand, that addend would not at all be necessary.

As for "a purely political issue," that may have some grounding-- for politicians. When they are seeking the votes of people who make their determination largely by emotionally-charged issues, those particular voters see a lot of 'morality' they want legislated... stricter environmental controls, making "partial birth abortion" illegal, increased welfare benefits, the socialization of medicine, and amnesty for those who entered the country illegally; for some examples. While politicians may see these as help-me-get-elected issues, they are largely moral issues for the voters whose eyes they are trying to pull the wool over.

You know, it's really 'American,' it seems, to justify one's position by saying "it's not a ___ issue, it's a ___ issue." For one good example, I remember in the late 70's there was that Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois, a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago. This was perhaps the primary conflict that gave me a bad opinion of the ACLU, as they supported the Nazis when the city attempted to refuse them a permit to hold the march. Among the quotes I read from Jewish residents were a few facsimiles of "This is not a matter of free expression; we're trying to prevent something from happening that happened not that long ago in Germany." As the ACLU has a very significant Jewish participation-- some sources say the majority of its members-- it was no shock they lost membership immediately after this. But even though I still have a negative opinion of the ACLU, I would have to say they were right in this case; that the Nazis do have a constitutional right to march where they choose as long as it is a peaceful assembly on their part. But as I have indicated, this was not always my position in cases such as this. It's a moral conflict-- do we (government) have the moral authority to tell anyone or any group that their views are so repulsive they do not have constitutional rights... or is the moral repugnance of certain views enough to make their advocacy ilegal. In this I have, even today, some moral conflict about which side to support.

 

So you don't have answers to many of the points I made, so you ignore those and just address the ones you think you can answer. OK. Are you still having fun, though?

There are some safety issues that are also moral issues. Not every issue is a moral issue.

Immorality refers to something that is sinful, wrong, evil. There is nothing "evil" or "sinful" or "wrong" about driving through a construction zone at 45 mph, rather than 40 mph. It is wrong to disobey the law, so if a law says the speed limit is 40, then driving 45 is wrong; but driving 45 instead of 40 is not "immoral" in and of itself.

The legislature didn't say to themselves "driving 41 mph in conscruction zones is immoral, but driving 40 is not immoral." It was not a "moral" issue at all. It was a safety/social issue. The legislature said to themselves, "how fast can we allow our citizens to drive through construction zones, while keeping the workers as safe as possible and yet maintaining traffic flow that allows citizens to get to where they are going in a timely manner?"

Isn't it "politicians" that are at work legislating things? There are "moral" issues in politics, but not every issue is a moral issue.

Federal regulations state all train tracks must be 4ft, 2 3/4 in. wide (I don't know the exact #, but that doesn't matter). For that to be a moral issue, you would have to show that train tracks that are not 4ft, 23/4 in. wide are "immoral" but that those that are 4ft. 2 3/4 in. wide are "moral".

You have just proved my point, without even realizing it. If the Nazi march were a "moral" issue, they lose every time. The government has every right to reject their application for a permit.

But it wasn't a "moral" issue, it was a constitutional issue. This country has political documents that provide for the freedom of expression and prevents the government from interfering with that expression, even on moral grounds.

Your right, this is kinda fun.:smilewinkgrin:

peace to youraying:

 

No, bud. Since your answers fell under a very few generalities, that's all I needed to answer.

Yep.

Well gee, how benevolent of you to say that!

If immorality refers to something that is "sinful, wrong,, or evil [and what's the difference between those 3?], and you say it's "wrong' to exceed the speed limit through a construction zone, then you are saying it's a moral issue.

Your revisited "in and of itself" term shows it does have a moral basis or you would leave it out.

What do they say it is?-- wrong? If so, that's your definition of "immorality."

Obviously we disagree that taking some action to reduce preventable risks is a moral function of a governing authority [my position], as opposed to whether reducing the risks is nothing but a logical derivation, such as a computer or an abacus may conclude [your position].

It's 4 feet, 8 1/2 inches. But it's true the exact measurement doesn't matter; what it's about is standards, so we won't have trains and rails of all different gauges, which was how it started in the mid-1800's. The government's directions made transportation more efficient, marketing goods and services more expeditious, therefore farmers did not have to wait til their produce became rotten before the proper gauge stock cars for the rail near him could operate, and factories could produce more goods and ship them on time, lessening layoffs and the need for excessive storage, thus making earning a living more consistent and efficient for workers. There is a moral basis for this.

No, the question is about which moral position... to suppress their immoral agenda, or to forbid the suppression of free expression; the latter, of course, being a recent moral position in western democratic thinking.

That drab Americanism: "It's not a ___ issue, it's a ___ issue." Are you saying the Consitution does not include certain guarentees of freedom because 'we' [historic Americans] consider it moral to guaranteee such freedoms?

And it's not moral grounds upon which the government's prevention of interfering with freedoms is based?

Sure is, bud.

 

Again, it was political decisions, not moral. Why was 4ft. 8 1/2 inches the "moral" measurement? There is nothing moral about it.

Some guy named Rockerfeller or Carnagie or Burlington or something like that paid off the politicians to put their standards in place so they would have a monopoly on rail traffic. While the rest of the railroaders went bankrupt, they made millions.

Freedom of expression is a philosophical position and political position in western thought.

Of course not. If it were a "moral" issue then the "historic Americans", they are called Native Americans today, wouldn't be living on reservations in the worst parts of the country. They wouldn't have been slaughtered in one of the greatest examples of genicide the world has ever seen. If it were a "moral" issue, then "all men are created equal" would have meant the slaves would have been freed immediately.

No, they were placed in the constitution so the white European land/business owners wouldn't have to pay taxes to the King of England, nor belong to the Church of England. They saw a wide open country with lots of resources, and moved to take financial advantage. That is a political issue.

Keep drinking the cool-aide, pal. You won't see the train (on that 4ft. 8 1/2 in. track) until it hits you.

peace to youraying:

 

Then would it have been moral to set the standard gauge at 15 feet, which no railroad company could have built and maintained? How about 10 inches? It would be 'immoral' to force railroads, which had become a vital transportation to do what is nearly impossible, stifling commerce and the means of living of many Americans. It's not that there was anything moral or immoral about 4 feet 8 1/2 inches, but it would be immoral to stifle commerce and moral to keep production and trade going as smoothly as possible. Have you pressured Congress to change the rail standard, or to make 100 miles the maximum of any commercial flight, or to make the automobile speed limit 25? These might be logical from the point of view of conserving energy and minimizing accidents, so why not? Or would it be 'immoral' to cost many people their jobs by making transport less expeditious?

What's your proof?

Which ones, and what's your proof?

On what basis of philosophy?

The only historic Americans are "Native Americans?"

Right. Most people (who had the pull to make it happen) thought it 'moral' to get rid the ones to which you refer. Today such is considered 'immoral' and is illegal.

And why weren't they? Because enough considered slavery right and moral. Now that has long been an immorality that was outlawed. Isn't that why it's outlawed? As for the D of I phrase "all men are created equal," it could be claimed that slaves were not men [persons], or they were outside the scope of what the term meant; again putting their own morals (right or wrong) into the interpretation.

'

And also one of writing their own morals into law-- or of writing their own immorals into law. Either way, they were legislating their own "morality."

I don't drink Kool-Aid [it is spelled with a K], and I conclude we are not "pals."

If I'm going to be hit by a train, frankly I'd rather not see the train until it happens.

Bunk.

 

From the view of history, of course. They've been here thousands of years, Europeans were here a couple hundred years.

So "morality" is relevant to the time period and culture in which we live? Is that what you are saying?

It appears that is exactly what you are saying.

Now you have gone and hurt my feelings.:tear: I normally refer to people by their post names. When you started calling me "bud" (which must be short for "buddy"), I got all warm and fuzzy inside, thinking I had made a new friend.

I am not going to talk to you anymore if you don't take that back!:tear:

peace to youraying:

 

Oh, it's too bad, then, another 'peoples' didn't come to the America within a few hundred years of the first ones, or they would have had the moral authority to slaughter the first ones, by that logic. And how many centuries must 'our' people wait before we could be called "native Americans?" We of European ancestry supposedly should beat the more recent Asians [Chinese, Vietnames, Japanese, et al]; right?

Certainly as far as making the laws of a time period. Enslavement of blacks was 'moral' at earlier times, now it's 'immoral' and that morality is legislated.

Well, you can read, evidently.

How terrible.

You assume a lot of things which ain't so.

Alright, you wanted an easy way to cower out of this argument; you got it.

 

We never get to be called "native Americans".

We have a great disagreement, here. Morality isn't "relative" to the time period or culture. Enslavement of blacks was never "moral". Shame on you for thinking it was.

I don't think we need to continue. Your position is clear. I disagree.

peace to youraying:

 

According to the dictionary, native means associated with by birth. Are you some authority on the errors of Webster's nomenclature, in addition to everything else? Or do you believe 'American Indians' and their ancestors have never lived anywhere else, like some of their pagan stories tell about them coming up from below the earth to this land? The truth is-- and refute it if you can-- that they migrated here, like any other people/nations also did. Or if it's that you think because 'they' (and that covers many nations and tribes) were here "first," that they have a greater right to the things here than anyone else, is that also true of northern Europeans in regard to the moon or the top of Mount Everest, since 'we' were at those places first? Or, no matter what nation or race you are, do you think anti-white is the current morality in that regard that should be 'legislated?'

If morality is not relative to the time period or culture, then how evil was ancient Israel for executing a man for gathering wood on the sabbath, having the death penalty for a child cursing at his parents, polygymy or slavery?

Suit yourself.

 

Seems to me you have set yourself up to be the expert on everything. You even know what every legislator is thinking ("this is a moral issue. I must make certain those trains run on 4ft. 8 1/2 in. tracks so the farmers can get their crops to market and we have peace and tranquility in the land.") on every piece of legislation that is signed into law, from national holidays to standards and measures it is all about legislating morality(or immorality, as the time period and/or culture dictates).

I understand what you are saying. I just disagree. You're not going to be mad at me, are you?:tear:

peace to youraying: