Legislating morality, Kerry-style

Remove all ads!

I haven't been following the "More on Kerry's claims to be Catholic" thread (I'm Protestant, I'm not qualified!), so maybe this issue has already been beaten into the ground. But yesterday Kerry said this:

If Kerry had said, "But even though the fetus is alive from conception, it is not truly human until birth..."; or, "But even though the fetus is a living human being, it does not merit full protection..."; or, "Its rights do not supercede the mother's..."; or even, "Although human life begins at conception, the tragedies of life compel moral trade-offs, including sacrificing the child to save the health and freedom of its mother..." - then I would understand.

But his given excuse is as pervasive as it is perverse: that he cannot legislate his (Catholic) morality on those who do not agree (atheists, Protestants, etc.).

What specious nonsense!

It's precisely because morality is not shared that we have to legislate it. We wouldn't need laws if everyone perfectly agreed on the issues. Law implies that there are recalcitrants who may be restrained only by the threat of force.

We legislate morality all the time. We have hate-crime penalties and affirmative action to keep racists under control. We have domestic abuse statutes, child support rules, and custody laws to block exploitive males. We make incest and child-rape illegal to stop sexual predators. Clearly the racists and predators don't agree with the prevailing morality and have their own organizations and explicit defenses of their behavior (racists have the KKK, child-exploiters have NAMBLA), so society legislates morality to block their desires.

Imagine if Kerry had said this:

Or more viciously and viscerally:

I'm not Catholic - more of an anti-Catholic, actually (no offense, chevalier) - so I can't speak to whether this is compatible with Catholicism or not. But I think I'm a reasonable fellow, and can more or less detect irrationality. And Kerry's defense is irrational.

Entirely by coincidence, the BBC is publishing this series of photographs.

 

Damn you, Grey! I thought I was done with this issue, but I just can't resist replying to one of yours (especially when you're wrong )

In the other thread, Aldeth pretty much anticipated your approach here when he said:

Basically sums up my views as well. Laws shouldn't exist to impose one group's moral beliefs over those of another basically equal-sized (or larger)group; they should be there to provide a basis for punishing those people who act against the beliefs of the majority. And often, the way the will of the majority is determined on a particular issue is to gauge public reaction to it; in the case of abortion, there obviously is no consensus.

 

I shouldnt really post here as all I am going to do is to mirror what Splunge said.

Laws are legalised morality, but they are for the most case the morality a vast majority of the population in the country in the question.

When it comes to questions like abortion where there is no vast majority either way I do think it is possible to express an opinion like Kerry's without coming off as two-sided.

It is not like roughly 50% or more of the US population thinks it is OK to lynch blacks or to fiddle little kids. Or, atleast I hope so.

 

Splunge, my would-be nemesis, at last we meet again! Of all the days to misplace my rapier!

I'm charitably (eleemosynarily?!?) assuming you're not supporting something so crass as "morality by majority", despite your claim that...

...but the subtler argument of "legislating morality by majority". I don't think we'd believe that white racism was moral in the antebellum South while immoral in the North, but (like Douglas, Lincoln's opponent) assess that independent of the inherent morality (or immorality) of slavery, without a majority consensus it shouldn't be legally forbidden. Or, contrarily, that abortion was morally wrong for millennia before "becoming" morally right when the majority shifted. Something like abortion or slavery is either right or wrong in an absolute sense, but whether or not prohibitions (or promotions) should be legislated is a question of pragmatism, not truth - and the best judge of pragmatism is majority opinion. Is that what you're saying?

If so, then a question: A majority of what? Joacqin jokes that "It is not like roughly 50% or more of the US population thinks it is OK to lynch blacks or to fiddle little kids." Not 50% of the US population, certainly. But is that really what we should be polling?

Take child predation, for instance. Maybe, what, 1-2% of the population lusts after little kids. The rest of us can't really understand their desires, since we're revulsed by them. According to NAMBLA, what really matters is the consensuality of the people with a direct stake in the situation: men and boys that love each other. A majority of child-lusters agree that it's perfectly moral, and they can cite sophisticated Greeks like Socrates to defend their position.

But pragmatism calls us to count the range of voters, not just those with a direct interest. So suppose NAMBLA's subscribers all move to a single town, just enough to manage a voting majority. Is it wrong for the state to "legislate its morality" on the smaller town to block its new councilmen from emptying the orphanages? Kids can't vote, remember - do they count under this calculation?

Or - speaking purely theoretically - suppose a state legalizes homosexual marriage. Is the voting majority of the federal state entitled to "legislate its morality" on the smaller state? Again, purely theoretically - suppose one country decriminalizes marijuana but its southern neighbor continues to block its importation. Is the voting majority of the southern state entitled to "legislate its morality" on the neighboring state, forbidding it from selling a newly legal product (contary to NAFTA regulations)?

Or - no longer speaking theoretically - suppose abortion-on-demand was introduced by judicial fiat during a time when the voting majority opposed such blanket freedom. Further suppose that polls consistently show support for increased limitations (if not outright banning) on the procedure, but even trifling limits like a partial-birth-abortion ban are struck down by judges. Is this not a case where a minority is imposing its morality, ostensibly for the good of the people?

Seems to me that "moral consensus" is a smoky illusion that can be puffed up or blown away depending on whether one supports or disapproves of the issue at hand. Abortion is contentious? Well, we shouldn't change anything until we have a clear majority. Homosexual marriage is contentious? Well, we'd better legalize marriage so that the backward-looking majority will come to accept the brave, new world.

Which is why I find all of this - Kerry's position included - as less moderately middling than maddeningly muddying.

 

I'm not trying to take on the moral argument here, but the logical one, so please bear with me....

I'll state a few things up front to be clear, but I also want to point out that I am not bringing these up for debate, as that would get us off-topic. But I would like to explore a kernel of this argument that makes the whole thing seem absurd:

1. I'm voting for Bush, not Kerry.
2. I'm pro-life on abortion (only legal when mother's life is endangered).
3. I believe in the "separation of church and state" -- both as an American, as it is laid out in our constitution, and as a Christian, as it is laid out in the Bible.
4. Both church and state, each within their own roles, must strive to differentiate between civil law (how people are commanded/forbidden to live by force of the state) and moral law (how we would prefer people would choose to live of their own free will).

What makes abortion different to me from most other legal issues is that I am firmly convinced that life begins at conception, and that the fetus is a human being. This means that, unless the mother's life is in danger, abortion is murder. One person's "freedom" (which is most often only now being "inconvenienced" by the pregnancy because she failed to make wiser choices at several other junctions along the line beforehand) simply cannot outweigh another person's right to live. I am sympathetic to the problems an unwanted and/or unplanned pregnancy can cause, as well as very rare tragedy of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, bit it simply does not justify the taking of an innocent life. (It would be nice if more pro-choice people would be willing to express some real moral conflict over this issue as well -- most of their spokespeople really do seem to come off as more pro-abortion than pro-choice.)

In other words, legalising gay marriage may be morally repugnant to me, but I also realize that it has no direct impact on anyone else's life or freedom, so I say, "live and let live." It's just that when it comes to aborting an unborn human being, we're talking a direct impact on a human being's life or death.

Okay, so as I said above, I don't mention these poitns to debate them, but to make it eaiser to understand where I am coming from with my main point. Kerry is a politician, after all, so we're free to question the sincerity of his rationale regarding any of his politicial positions. But here is the LOGICAL matter which stymies me every time I hear someone express thoughts similar to Kerry's:

IF you are opposed to abortion on moral grounds, and those moral grounds are that the fetus is a human being, and therefore abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, THEN how can you then turn around and say that the mother's right to terminate her pregnancy supercedes the child's right to live...?

Sadly, it's not just politicians, but many, perhaps most Americans, who seem to engage in just this sort of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance each and every day. While I certainly disagree with someone who wants to argue that the fetus is not a human being, I can still at least commend their consistency. What I cannot respect is someone who wants to waffle on this issue (and I'm including a lot of nominally pro-life conservatives and Republicans here, too) while claiming to have a clearly defined and reasoned position.

IF the fetus is a human being, THEN he/she deserves equal protection under the law, over and above the mother's wishes (unless, or course, her very life is in danger). Is this really that unclear?

IF the fetus is NOT a human being until it leaves the womb, THEN it is just a lump of tissue, and the mother has the final say, end of discussion. Is this really that unclear?

IF we do not know whether or not the fetus is a human being, etc. THEN we need to state so clearly, and not run around pretending our one position is the only sane, decent position, and stop condemnming everyone else on the other side of the issue as being stupid or evil!

Kerry, in this case, seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. When he is talking to his supporters and the swing voters, he claims to feel very conscience-stricken over abortion. But when he's rallying his base, he talks as if anyone who comes down on the pro-life side is advocating some sort of Christian Taliban. (Granted, I've heard some pro-life politicians behave in a similar fashion.)

Should we be surprised he wants it both ways? Kerry is proud of the medals he earned for his military service in Vietnam, and yet he is also ashamed of the "war crimes" and "atrocities" -- HIS OWN WORDS -- that he had to commit to earn them....

None of this makes Bush perfect, of course; but, IMHO, along with a whole host of other things, it does make Bush preferable....

 

Strange. That's what presbyterianism is all about. The state shall never be the tool to enforce the misconception of god of one on others. That would conflict with the workings of the holy spirit and.. and.. (ouch, that's when I started to fade into a day-dream...) Watch out, there's a god to punish and revenge if one is abusing the state in this manner. Indeed, I expected you to completly agree with Kerry on this issue. You read the bible for yourself and draw your own conclusions. No one has the right to enforce his interpretation of the bible on you (and making you an idolist as logical result)

And that's democracy. Morality is something completly different. Morality gives you the right to peacefully (ah crossbow can help sometimes, but only if necessity commands it...) disobey a democraticly taken decision. But laws are not the imbodiment of morality. Laws are nothing then agreed rules out of practical reasons.

If once people saw it as a good way to earn a whole lotta money through slave trading, it didn't make it moral or right. But of course, the invented idiotic justifications for it, propably endless twisting of morality. May I be mistaken here, but the bible was taken as foundation of the justification of slavery in places, so about everywhere and from nearly anyone ? It was about the money, that's fair enough, pure rationalism is at least honest and doesn't need willful misinterpretation as fig leaf. If profit and morality would always go hand in hand, the world would a better place.

Or - neither speaking theoretically - suppose an initiative would be launched that would forbid a woman that has been raped to abort her child. Isn't than an immoral majority imposing their mindless corruption on the individual ? That's the time a crossbow may come into question...

 

Well, call me crass if you will, but yes, I am, or at least if not by the current majority, then by a strong-willed (and perhaps growing) minority which doesn’t face a strong opposition. As Iago says, it’s what democracy is all about.

With respect to the end of slavery, it’s not as though a handful of legislators suddenly decided to declare slavery illegal while the rest of the country objected; there was growing opposition to the slave trade, and it wasn’t until the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863 that slaves were declared free. Not to mention that the slave trade conflicted with the principles of the Constitution.

As far as your theoretical examples go, whether or not one group has the right to legislate the activities of another group depends on whether it has the legal authority to do so. So a town comprised of child molesters would not be able to create a law legalising child molestation if it hasn’t been granted authority to do so by the sovereign state to which it belongs. And a country would be unable to outlaw the sale of marijuana in another country because neither country has any recognised authority over the internal matters of the other.

@ Buck: no disrespect intended, but the whole “is Kerry being two-faced” debate has been beaten to death in the other thread (at least it has for me), so you’ll have to forgive me if I avoid getting into it again here . I’m in this thread because of the law-making angle. And because I’m Grey’s nemesis. (/me evilly twirls waxed moustache)

 

Umm...speaking as a Presbyterian zealot...I should point out that not only did Jean Calvin's Geneva operate as a constitutional theocracy, but he dedicated the final part of his Institutes to the interplay between politics and Christianity. And the original Westminster Confession included an oh-so-controversial provision that said that the State had the authority to call Church councils, a la Constantine. The provision was excised decades later, but clearly the original Presbyterians had no problem with the State not only legislating morality, but also legislating the bounds of acceptable belief.

Which is to say that though the State should not be, as you say, a "tool to enforce the misconception of god" (or any other misconception), it could be a tool to block the most blatant misconceptions. One such misconception could be, oh, I don't know, maybe the idea that it's morally acceptable to toast fetuses.

(Now that I've demonstrated that support for legislating morality automatically opens the floodgates for the French version of fundamentalist theocracy, all the Kerry voters can breathe a deep sigh of relief. Ain't nobody gonna support that!)

 

But wait, isn't Kerry s'posed to be secretly French? Just a flip-flopping frog-eating soccer-playing French-speaking faux-Catholic crypto-Calvinist fundamentalist baby-killing athiest, eh, eh?!

Edit:
Or wait, as a little song!!! (to that Mary Poppins tune:

Flipping-flopping baby-killing frog-eating faux-Catholic!
Even though the argument is something quite pathetic
If you say it loud enough Bush might be re-elected
Flipping-flopping baby-killing frog-eating faux-Catholic!
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle aye
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle aye...
(repeat until election)

[ July 05, 2004, 23:40: Message edited by: Bion ]

 

That would be a Swiss version of fundamentalist theocracy, if I may say so. Not to say Calvin wasn't French, just the city-states where the proper ground for bloodthirsty dictators like Calvin to flourish.

Indeed, two points may be observed here. A. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and opinions change according to who's wielding the sword. And B. one should judge the likes like Calvin by their deeds, not their words.

The involvment of church and state that is so typical for early presbyterian dictatorships is not founded in theological reasoning, but by the things that count in large amounts. After they disbanded the institutions of the Catholic Church, there suddenly was a huge amount of wealth without owner. That fell to the state. The state fell to the new church. (That dislikes strict organization and autoritan power so much until today, as loosley as the various communities are linked together, don't you think ?)

Have you ever seen a presbyterian legal code ? A devilish assortment of 1000 pages of complete mind control, that even determines the color of your buttons you have to wear on your jacket on saturday morning. And one can still visit their torture chambers.

State and the power to legislate. Well actually they had quarrels with that. That is, until they had the power to enforce their will on others, particularly as they mostly liked to slaughter slightly dissenting presbyterians, even more than Catholics (and plunder the monasteries). You always fear the thing closest to yourself.

Zwingli himself was saved by the city-council of Zürich as he was wanted by the Dominicans. Claiming that there is no reason ever to bow down to a self-proclaimed moral authority ever, er.. and some theological... stuff. Yet, for the council it was good business, because the had the reason to disband monasteries and divide the plunder. And Zwingli suddenly found pleasure in using the state as tool for his missionary work with sword and fire and lead them on a holy crusade and died. Too bad. That's pretty ackward for someone who became famous through preaching that there is nothing a good christian can find in war. Ever. But that opinion changed.

The theocracies and their misdeeds of course made the later presbyterians think about their sins and going back to their roots. Geneva then became the spearhead of separating religion from state.

 

Grey, law is the morality of the majority. Back in the day no one saw a moral problem with slavery, thus it was legal. It may not have been right, but law is rarely about what is universally right. Mostly because we have a hard time agreeing on what is right. Thus the best way we have found as of yet is to roughly write our laws according to what the majority thinks. Though hopefully after some consideration by a few level headed persons cause as you seem to point out the majority quite often have an uninformed and rash opinion. That is why we have parliments/congresses/senates and the like. To be those level headed persons who sees whether the will of the majority is not completely outrageous.

 

My respect for Kerry just went up. Good to hear that he keeps his faith private and doesn't try to use it as a basis to set standards for others.

 

Bion - Kerry is a French-speaking crypto-Calvinist? He's got my vote!

Oh, fine, back to the real topic. Splunge, you're distracting me from finishing off the illithid in HotU!

Oh, I would never mean to call someone of your taste "crass"!

But maybe you accidentally qualify. Just to clarify, for my own sake: are you saying that we should only legislate morality according to the beliefs of the majority...or that morality is synonomous with the will of the majority? It's a critical distinction. In the first, we hope that the majority wisely recognizes pre-existing moral absolutes; in the latter, the majority wisely creates morality by pure willpower.

I assume you don't mean "the majority of all humans on the planet" - or even more broadly, "the majority of all humans who have ever existed". Do you mean only the majority of those with the legal right to legislate at a given moment? That could mean that dictators and their oligarchic cliques could rewrite morality at will. But even in Canada and the US, we don't give voting rights to everyone - we still don't let kids vote. Are they part of the moral-making majority? (And if kids count, should fetuses?)

I guess the follow-on question to that is: Is it an absolute principle that the majority should make moral decisions? Or is it that those with the power make the rules, and in today's age majorities hold the power? If the former is true - then does that mean that the millennia of moral decisionmaking prior to full suffrage was a charade, and only today (conveniently) can we have "legitimate" morality? If the latter - what separates morality from a philosophy of "We have the guns, you'll do as we please"?

For example, you dismiss (rightly) the idea that a bunch of child-molesters could form a township and legalize child-lusting, since they would have a greater (moral) majority to answer to (the broader state). But what about democratic Athens, where man-boy love was not only accepted, but approved? Was it "moral" then, but "immoral" today, purely by dint of who happened to be in charge at the time? Or can we say that sexual exploitation of young boys is morally wrong at all times - even if the majority at the time happens to approve?

Your use of the phrase "strong-willed and perhaps growing minority" is well-chosen. It has lovely Nietzschean echoes, and it qualifies your seeming majoritarianism with a separate quality: willpower. It is the human will that remakes the world, and how much stronger to unite a majority of wills into a common purpose! A great book called "Non-Zero" (one of the few books both I and President Clinton recommend) suggested that we are just now reaching the final divine right - to rewrite morality itself through imagination, liberty, and willpower. Think of the power! Think of the fun! Why, we'll even reach that critical tipping point where, even if God does exist, it won't matter - we'll be too far ahead for any god to stop us. It's like Eden and Babel wrapped together - but this time, with the backing of billions of free-thinking humans, founded on a sturdy base of materialist philosophy and science, steadied by capitalism and democracy, it will work. It'll work!

Ooh, this kind of talk makes me want to evilly twirl MY moustache...bwa ha ha! Uh...if I had one to twirl...

 

@GM:

That's exactly where it leads. The chief argument I use against that sort of pro-liberty arguments is the same as yours - those things can be said just about everything that some people consider right and some others consider wrong.

Ah... Presbyterian vs Catholic, like in 1745 Don't worry, I'll give you the option to convert before execution when I invade the US at the head of the Swiss Guard If I'm in good mood, I might even let you live without converting, along with one Presbyterian minister of your choice

@Splunge:

I doubt there's consensus on copyright laws. In fact, I believe the majority of people is against copyright laws, patent laws and laws governing licenses in their current shape. It's not only enforcing a certain set of quasi-moral rules, but making the majority's interest subordinate to some so called rights of dubious legal sense acting as frontend for a powerful minority's interest. I don't see left-wing parties, or liberal activists or whomever like that battle copyright laws.

@GM again:

There have been movements to lower the age of consent. Basing on the fact that gay couples are being accorded a special social status on the grounds of the relationship being consensual, paedophile groups submit that kids older than toddlers are able to consent, as they can make basic decisions on their own. What's next? Perhaps necrophiles will insist that consent is not needed - they're dead, they don't care. Animal rights? Oh, you see, my sheep/dog/horse really like that. I mean, you should see his/her face. And so on.

I've seen those verdicts. The premises are visibly made after conclusions to which they are supposed to lead. There are holes and loops in that. My logical debugger produced a long series of beeps when I was reading them

@Buck Naked:

I agree completely. If one believes that life begins at conception and considers it right that there be an option to take that life, there is only one logical conclusion: that person condones homicide - and in many cases downright murder. I consider it downright murder when abortion is used in cases like "Oh geez, I put the damned pills in the wrong box and I'm pregnant now" and similar.

@Iago:

Sorry, but that seems wrong from a logical standpoint.

If something is murder to you, does it take religion to make you do whatever possible to stop that murder?

Christianity believes it's bad to kill, steal, give false testimony and a couple of other things. Are you enforcing your religion when you forbid that?

Let's suppose a Protestant/Orthodox/Catholic/Jew has been murdered by a Protestant/Orthodox/Catholic/Jew. The murdered believes the purity of doctrine construed as following from the First and the Second outranks the Fifth and therefore he should be allowed to butcher the evil Catholic/Orthdox/Protestant/Jew infidels as he sees fit. Are we enforcing our very own and subjective interpretation of the Bible on him when we say that hell no he isn't right?

 

Those of you who blindly support the "Majority / Morality" concept had better hop on board the Taliban express and support their self chosen right, due to a majority interpretation of Islamic law, that women should be trivialized and denied rights.

It is absurd to consider majority rule as the basis of moral status.

We are in the process of working out a deal, before the trade deadline, to ship Kerry back to France in exchange for a half carafe of stale wine, a slightly "blue" baguette and the complete bound collection "Great French non-Napoleonic Military Victories" (it's more of a pamphlet, really )

 

HS, how then do you propose we legislate? According to the moral views of you? Me? Bush II? Falwell? Farrakhan? Moore? Coulter?

I for one think a country whose legislation is based solely on any of those persons is much more taliban like than the laws derived from the majority and in an effort to get some semblance of consensus.

Also the taliban ruled by force of arms and sheer loudmouthness. Not by any widespread support from the majority. I also find it hard to find a vast majority for discriminating against women as 50% of the population is female, or do you propose that the female opinion doesnt matter?

 

Gahhh! Too much to respond to…must take deep breath…and coffee…mmm, coffee.

OK, I’m gonna try.

Grey, first off, my apologies for the distraction. But after I’ve delivered this final death blow (yeah, right ), you can get back to HotU.

The first. But I’m not referring to something as broad as “all humans on the planet”. And, bearing in mind that this topic started off as a comment on Kerry, I’m really only referring to sovereign, democratic nations, since obviously the will of the majority is irrelevant in a dictatorship. In a western-style democracy (but staying away from the whole “what is a democracy” debate), people vote for those they want to represent them, and this includes representing their moral beliefs. So in effect, the majority (or largest minority) legislates morality.

But it’s also the second. And I’ll answer that at the same time I address another one of your points:

Oh, you’re gonna hate me for this one. Morality is IMO a moving target, changing with the beliefs and values of, yes – the majority of the people. I would like to think that, over time, our morality changes for the better, and moves closer to some kind of “true” morality. But of course I’m going to believe that, because I don’t want to think that my ancestors were better than I am. But at the same time, I’m not convinced that a “true” morality even exists. So yes, I believe that sexual exploitation of young boys is morally wrong at all times, but if I had been an adult in ancient Athens, I likely wouldn’t have believed so. Can I still be an immoral person if I, along with everyone else, believes that I am not? I don’t think so. Misguided, perhaps (although I'm not even sure about that). But not immoral per se.

@chev:
Your substitution of “murder” and “racism” for “abortion” at the start of your post is a red herring – the vast majority of people believe the first two are wrong; not so with abortion.

Copyright laws and the like are part of a bigger picture – property ownership. So if you believe that laws are need to protect property, then it is inconsistent to say that the laws shouldn’t apply to all property.

And your comments with respect to paedophilia and necrophilia are again misguided, since again, the vast majority of people are in opposition.

Now if you’ll all excuse me, I need a refill on my coffee.

Edit: but before I do that:
H.S. - I'd respond more completely to your comments, but joacqin did a good enough job.

[ July 06, 2004, 16:16: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

Evidently, I was a Kerry disciple even before I knew he made such a statement. GM, In the thread that you mentioned (on Kerry being Catholic) I said these exact words:

Splunge added in his initial post my statement of not making ridiculous arguements about what is commonly agreed upon. The question is what to do when there is no clear definition of what is the moral right and the moral wrong.

 

I don't think I was unlogical. First, there is no religion needed to think that murder is wrong. Or lying. Or false testimony. Religion has nothing, absolutley nothing to with the cited cases. It falls completly out of the equation and I by the way, why only christianity, there's a lot of other relgions and philosphies that have the exact same moral code. Those deeds were wrong long before the bible was written. That are propably the basic rules humankind has developed soon after they learned to talk. But religion is not the basis of those rules, religion only may be in cases the tool to transmit them. By far not the only and propably not the best tool there is to do that.

Then, I wrote above, if the laws that are in place and your own moral compass (wherever it comes from) just are severly on at odds, a person has every right to peacefully resist and disobey. So, any peaceful means there is, is at anyones disposal to do something against what is conceived as murder.

And to the next point. The presbyterians believed first, that the paintings in Catholic Churches contradicted the bible. Then the had problems with the Catholic Church and they found asyl in places that followed ther argument, that one should not use the state as tool to enforce religion on others. Then Calvin and Zwingli took over those places that offered them asylum and became blinded by greed and power and acted contrary to their own preaching (and did I mention that it is good business to plunder a monastery ?). There are right, the paintings and singing in a church contradicts christianity, nor are Catholic holydays holy, but does that give you the right to plunder and disgrace a Church, just because you believe that is blashpemy that's going on inside ? Or to abolish the Catholic holidays ? That is impossing your religion on others. Not to mention, that plunder is a kind of theft. But who asks questions...

 

I don't believe that the "Taliban" example has been answered-to by Joacqin or anyone else. All the Taliban did was to carefully define who had a voice in government, then enjoyed overwhemling support from the majority. They only enforced the will of the "majority" on those who were unfit or incapable of a responsible voice...similar to the stand taken elsewhere with minors, inmates, etc.

This is the classic trap of relying on "Majority" to define "Morality"..."Majority" can be redefined at any time, depending on the powers at hand.

I am making no claim at all as to what should be the standard for morality legislation (at least at this time...), don't try to divert the subject...I was only pointing out the obvious and logical flaws to adherence to a "majority / morality" quotient. You may continue to adopt this means of defining morality, but at least be able to recognize the inherent failings of it.

This was the point of using Taliban as an example. And don't try to muck up the issue by insinuating that I would somehow support the subjagation of women