- This topic has 10 voices and 55 replies.
-
Posts
-
Laws govern PUBLIC conduct that is deemed harmful to society. Moral codes governs both PRIVATE and public conduct for those that CHOSE to follow them. My problem is with laws that attempt to govern public conduct with a specific moral code or to govern private conduct that is not intrinsically harmful. For example, it wasn't that long ago that contraception was illegal in much of the country. It wasn't that long ago that certain types of sexual activity between consenting adults was illegal in much of the country. It wasn't that long ago that most stores were legally banned from doing business on Sunday in much of the country. These are all examples of a specific moral code being imposed on the country at large regardless of their wishes and regardless of whether the actions being banned harmed society as a whole. It was a specific dogma based on specific religious beliefs dictating public policy. Law should only ban conduct that is proven to be harmful to society as a whole. And the fact that some individuals abuse a freedom and thus bring harm to themselves while the vast majority do not, is not reason to eliminate that freedom. That is what this country is built on – freedom to choose. If you make bad or stupid choices that cause you harm, well too damned bad. If you make choices that you later regret, welcome to the real world. But DO NOT presume to make decisions for me just because you don't like them or would never choose to make them for yourself. The most basic right any human being has is the right to be wrong. One would hope that all laws are based on some universal moral precept but no moral precept should ever be written into law. There is a difference.
But how can you create laws without a moral reference?? I mean aren't laws designed to protect some form of moral and ethical standards?? How can you have a secularized law code that cannot be traced back to some form of religious morality?? I mean religion inspired the first law codes and the idea of a moral law giver (i.e. God) is a must in order for the laws to have any meaning.? In other words, there has to be some form of accountability and authority backing the laws.? If you lay that on the state, you are asking for trouble. JMHO
All good laws have a moral context but not all moral rules should be turned into law. For example, “Thou shalt not kill” is a pretty much universally accepted moral rule that is also a common legal rule. “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife” and “Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother” are both very good moral rules but should never be written into law. And the existence or non-existence of some form of God/Allah/Yawhew is irrelevent to a legal code while it is integral to the existence of a moral code. The ultimate point is that a legal code is to govern public conduct so that society can function in something approaching a logical and predictable manner. A moral code is to govern private conduct. Hopefully much of the legal code will be based on a commonly accepted set of morals, such as “Thou shalt not kill” but you should be allowed to lust after your neighbors wife if you are so inclined. You should even be able to act on it, and she should be able to return the favor, even if the husband considers it immoral, because their conduct would have no effect on anyone besides themselves. And finally, I consider myself a highly moral person. I have a very strict personal code that I live by. But I accept that not everyone agrees with some of my moral precepts and that's okay because their are many moral precepts that others believe in that I think are incredibly stupid and choose not to obey, and that is my right in this country. And if that ever changes we are, as a society and a country, doomed. Would you want Jerry Falwell determining what is right and wrong, what is legal and illegal? How would you differentiate us from Iran, other than the clothes? RELIGION MUST NEVER BE THE GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY OF PUBLIC LIFE!!!!!
Removing God from our Government and public life may lead to our doom as well. There should be a balance.
Removing God from our Government and public life may lead to our doom as well. There should be a balance.?
We could easily turn this in to a religious discussion. Gods morals are sound and if we all lived more closely by the standards he has set for us we would not have the problems we have today. But not all people believe that, including many in office, either they don't believe or they don't care. Many people don't believe God is real. I have all kinds of thoughts on why I don't believe God supports this Government anymore then he supports any others. But thats for another forum. Moral breakdown is a threat, greed is a threat, the 'My God is right and yours is wrong' attitude is a threat and the list goes on. God is far removed already from the Governments of this world.
The bottom line is that religion belongs in private life, not public life, while morality belongs in both. Unfortunately there are far too many people that believe that religion should govern both public and private life while an equal, or perhaps greater, number seem to operate under the system of “Morals? We don't need no steenkin' morals.” (For those who may not recognize the reference, it is a variation of a line from an old western movie only I substituted “morals” for “badges”.) Even more unfortunately, many of them seem to hold high public and corporate positions.
number seem to operate under the system of “Morals?? We don't need no steenkin' morals.”? (For those who may not recognize the reference, it is a variation of a line from an old western movie only I substituted “morals” for “badges”.)?
I recognize Blazing saddles!
I recognize Blazing saddles!
Don't remember it from “Blazing Saddles” but it wouldn't surprise me if they did a take-off on it. Mel Brooks can't resist making fun of things, especially when they are approaching iconic status.
Don't remember it from “Blazing Saddles” but it wouldn't surprise me if they did a take-off on it.? Mel Brooks can't resist making fun of things, especially when they are approaching iconic status.
It was the scene where Harvey Korman is recruiting all the worst villians and when he hands a group of Mexican bandidos their badges, the say said line. I do remember it was in another movie, but cant think of which one.
In another class are leaders who, as you suggest, are “desirous of lifting his fellow man…into a better position in life”. Perhaps a person like Che Guevara – whether one disagrees with him or not – falls into this category. Is this the kind of person you were thinking of?
I sit on the fence when it comes to Che Guevara. He didn't seem to me to be desirous of power. He wanted change. However his extremely violent approach to getting that change I disagree with. It was said that he wished to spread socialism all over Latin America and start WW3. A little too aggressive for my taste.
I recognize Blazing saddles!
Don't remember it from “Blazing Saddles” but it wouldn't surprise me if they did a take-off on it. Mel Brooks can't resist making fun of things, especially when they are approaching iconic status.
I just remembered this quote was also from, “Treasure of the Sierra Madre” with Humphery Bogart. I guess Mel brooks 'borrowed' from that as well
More on Chavez, rather sadly ironic. Here's what he had to say:
“How long are we going to allow a person _ from any country in the world _ to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?” Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program.
See: Chavez: Critical Foreigners to Get BootSo you call Chavez a dictator, he doesn't like being called a dictator and the throws you out….because he's not a dictator. Right…. Sooner or later the Venezuelan people won't be able to stop him even if they tried. I don't know if the ball is still in their court or if they're past this tipping point.
