The Fall of Religion, and Why the State is Next.

Remove all ads!

That the law doesn't exist to enforce a uniform standard of ethics, but to protect the rights of each individual

How? This doesn't even make sense. This has been the guiding principle of the American legal system for over 200 years and governments role is a LOT bigger now than it was at it's inception. Your words are pretty, but disconnected from reality.

 

Your rights are just as important, and they are just as protected. No one is saying that you have to stop believing in stricter morals and conform to the "degraded" morals of society. But what you seem to imply here is that you have a right to see society's laws reflect your own morals, and I don't think that's a "right".

 

Ideally, the purpose of the government is to protect the citezens from themselves, others, and the outside world. The biggest issue here, however, is what constitutes sufficient protection? What ancient moral codes are truely arbitrary, or modernly obsolete, and which ones have a genuine social value that may or may not have been forgotten?

Laws against eating pigs: because of parasites, but we can sterilize them today, so we just have laws on how to sterilize the meat.
Laws against murder, rape, etc.: we can all see ( I hope) how important these are.
Laws against abortion: are these just, protecting the innocent unborn, or are they a violation of the woman's rights?
Laws agaisnt homosexuality: are these just, protecting society from forgotten consequences, or are they just a result of fear?
Laws against pre-marital sex: are these just, protecting society from all the known and unknown consequences, or are they the holdover of a strictly traditional society?

What society can say uniformly that these laws are or are not just? I guarantee that most of the murderers in jail today thought their crimes were perfectly justified. If there were no debates over the laws, we would have no need for them, since we would all follow them. The only society that can truely say this is the society of one.

 

I take great exception to the highlighted part! The PURPOSE of government is not to play parent to its citizens and do their thinking for them - IMO, that's the main DOWNFALL of government. People are too willing to turn over their own responsibilities, and the government to date has been too willing to simply absorb them. Yes, there should be some social safety net for those who are truly incapable of self-care, but the mesh on that net has gotten much too tight. More people should be falling through! What's wrong with expecting adults to behave like adults, on all levels of society?

In this respect, I'm as conservative as they come.

 

A single mother making minimmum wage will always make minimmum wage unless someone helps her, Rallymama. Education isn't free.

 

@Drew: That would be part of the "social safety net" I refer to. That net should include far more "hand up" money, as opposed to "handout" money. Unfortunately it's in politicians' self-interest to get people dependent on the government, and then keep them there.

 

How about vehicle safety regulations? Drug prescription regulations? Child labor laws? Requirement of a lawyer or legal advice at trial? There are plenty of examples in modern society where the government has acted to protect us from our own ignorance, usually required because the enire nation cannot be experts in things. Not all of them have been implemented to the greatest effect, I agree, and some have been unnecisary, but many have been of great benefit to society.

 

@NOG: With the examples you cited (except for the trial), are people being protected from themselves, or from unscrupulous corporations who would rather make profit than do things right? And with your other example, who's being protected, really - the person on trial, or the court from having to re-try the case on appeal?

 

I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about, but wearing a seat belt is required by law here in Wisconsin; you get a ticket if you're caught without it. (The campaign has the creative slogan of "Click it or ticket." ) Personally, I say let the idiots thin themselves out a bit.

 

No official state religion, yes, but when 50% + 1 want laws reflecting a certain religion's standards then they will get it or they will support someone else who will deliver it. There are some points of the law where accommodating the non religious will alienate the religious. In these cases, the objective of that document is virtually impossible, how would you see them procede?

If that's the case, they do a poor job of it. How many people feel safer now than twenty years ago? Only the dead. And how does taking roughly half (or more in some countries) of our money for one tax or another make us free? And how many laws restrict our freedom? The point where law grants freedom has long passed, and the more they legislate, the less freedom we will have.

The generally accepted rules for right and wrong were clearer when I was younger. Back in a day where society in general picked one moral theory and generally stuck with it.

If the government's role is to regulate the lives of the people while preserving freedom, it will find that these goals conflict. From this conflict, the authority of the government will erode to the point where the public will wonder why they are there...

And what percentage of the population will actually support the clown that gets elected? And from there, what's to say that his term will deliver what he promised in the first place? If he is not on the governing side of the equation, he has no power to bring about the wishes of those that voted him in. Democracy really doesn't satisfy anyone because they try to please everyone.

But the freedom of speech doesn't guarantee the quality of the words spoken. Go looking at any KKK or Neo Nazi site and see that for yourself. Governing requires not just multiple opinions, but the balls to determine what's the best for the nation and when to tell a minority to sit down and shut up. I believe the South Dakota Legislature did just that to the Pro Choice lobby, but I see that very little any more...

There's a big difference between demanding that people pray or give to charity when they don't want to and forbidding them from transgression. It's not unreasonable to ignore the people who don't pray before meals, but it's not unreasonable to stay out of the bedroom of gays completely--that means not criminalizing the behaviour but not legitimizing it either. A stance of Don't ask, don't tell is fair to both sides, and forcing the issue will irk the majority.

Actually, I thought I answered that. Nations where Islam is the law, they enforce their ways on the populace, and will execute people for the contrary. The Society of Afghanistan wanted to execute a man for converting to Christianity. I don't advocate it, but that's their way of protecting their civilization from divergent though. If I had been raised with Islamic beliefs, and still believed them, I would probably advocate them as I understood them. Freedom of religion only works when a state maintains it's own moral laws and will not kiss the ass of every little minority group...

It only allows certain few viewpoints to flourish. How frequently do you see someone other than Republican or Democrats elected to anything in the US? In the last election here in Canada, there was controversy because only 4 leaders were invitted tot he debate, despite up to 13 parties running candidates in various ridings across the country. When you see Green party, Christian Heritage Party, Marxix-Lenninist and Marijuana Party represented at leader's debates during an election in Canada, maybe then I'll buy that arguement.

But for this to be of value, there has to be a point where we just fly the flag and recognize certain things as ...

I was asking why the majority's views were held less valuable or important than other views, and questioning whether people are rejecting it because of suspect credibility or restrictive rules. If the majority doesn't want the government saying that homosexuality is okay, then why should the government have to say it's okay?

But where does the line have to be drawn? Society needs rules to function, but what if a minority feels that these rules are bad? Does the rule get thrown out because one minority doesn't like it? That, IMO, fuels a backlash against that minority...

But what do they do beyond drain our money? Do they maintain Education and Infrastructure? Not from what I'm seeing. They fail to keep order because they have stupid laws on the books, and have other points of law challenged routinely that they cannot fuinction. There needs to be a point where they tell certain groups that they will not get their way, and if they don't like it there's the border...

We have the right to elect politicians that support our views. When courts or other people try to handcuff them from doing that job, they suppress that right. It becomes not about a view of the future of the nation, but to keep the other side from screwing the vision that you want...

This is an attack on laws criminalizing murder. How long before someone finds a legal point to force acquittal and make a challenge to that law possible?

I disagree with that. I don't think that at all. In fact I see people ramaining in poverty as a failure of government to maintain an economy where there are anough jobs to go around, and excessively taxing people so that they spend less. The government (at least in Canada) had cut funding to education and healthcare, but found money to wast 2 billion on a long gun registry and a 350 million dollar sponsorship scandal. Even within the Healthcare and educational system, services are compromised to cut cost then the managers give themselves huge raises...

They simply don't want to. Why should we spend time cleaning our room when we'd rather be playing videogames? Why should we live healthier when we'd rather sit and watch TV and eat junk food? People don't like doing things they don't want to do, and often they don't. If Government doesn't act the role of parent, then they won't behave. And as Government can't make up their mind on how they should behave, the people will do as they please...

Ah yes, the infamous hold on power by keeping the proletariat down so that they cannot rise up and take the rich down...

 

The point I'm trying to make (and it applies to all of the quoted segments above, even tho' the second and third aren't mine) is that, at least in America, there's a significant chance that no, the majority won't get what they want if it goes against the principles laid out in the Constitution. The Courts aren't handcuffing anyone's rights, they're simply doing their job of enforcing the higher law of the land. Some things are more important than majority rule. If people truly want to live in a distinctly Christian nation, either they're going to have to change the Constitution or move.

Personally, I think that's a good thing.

I have to say that your answer regarding my comments on the government's social safety net are rather confusing. You're the last person I'd expect to leave me with the impression that people should be able to sit around on the federal dole and play with themselves all day. Is this what you really meant? I have a feeling that we'd find we're on the same side of this one if we discussed it further - but is this thread the proper place?

 

I agree that that is the purpose of the courts, but these days many judges seem to think that since the constitution is silent on an issue, it is the role of the judges to decide what the costitution should have said. This is blatently false, and frankly I'm surprised it has gone as far as it has.

 

Rally: I think that the social safety net is falling apart in places like Healthcare and education. Part of the problem is that corporations are cutting jobs, forcing more poeple to rely on handouts, which tax the system beyond it's ability support itself.

NOG: You're right. The courst job is to adjudicate the law, not define it.

 

To quote The Laramie Project : "What it basically boils down to is, if I don't tell you I'm a faggot, you won't beat the crap outta me...How's that a great philosophy?"

The government does not encourage homosexuality. It says that you have to tolerate it, not that you have to accept it. You can think its a horrible sin, but the law says that just because you don't like it, you can't prevent those who think its a valid and approipriate lifestyle for themselves from practicing it. Just like you can hate black people (or any other ethnic minority) but you can't coerce, subjugate, or silence black people, because the law protects them. Thats the purpose of the law, to make sure that one single majority vote does not undermine the fundamental rights of humans to make their own decicsions concerning their private lives. I mean, most of Germany rallied behind Hitler, but that does not excuse the discrimination and perecution of the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and many other groups. And the "don't ask, don't tell" phisosphy is still discrimination, because its saying that because someone is gay they are denied the right to voice their orientation, a right Heterosexuals enjoy.

 

The court isn't able to make new laws. It can only determine that existing laws violate the constitution. Without this ability we would still have segregation, police wouldn't be required to tell us what our rights are or why we are being arrested........ The court's judicial review exists to protect us from unjust or tyrannical laws. It's a good thing.

 

I understand and like the basic concept, but lately many judges, especially in California, have decided to read into the constituion what they want it to say. Ex.) A judge finds that laws banning homosexual marriages are unconstitutional. He gives no reason, cites no passage of the constitution, but he doesn't have to. That law is now 'unconstitutional'. The case is appealed by both sides all the way up to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides that the Constitution doesn't even protect the right to marry in the first place, and that this falls under the 10th? ammendment which state that everything else is the jurusdiction of the states. Thus the state law is upheld, but the initial judge still stepped beyond the scope of the law to try and enact the social changes he wanted.

 

First off, Homosexuality is a CHOICE, not a genetic defect, or a naturally occuring mutation or whatever crap they spew to get their way. Since it is a choice, then there is no reason to say that the choice is valid. People here have rejected the notion that killing should be a legitimized choice because some believe it is okay, then why should government be forced to legitimize any choice? This is what leads to the government's waning influence. At some point, the government has to tell the people that this is our nations way. If you don't like it, then our country is not for you...

Actually, that is not always a good thing. Some things, yes, they were necessary, but at what point does the law tear itself down?

 

I agree with Gnarff. Any choice or action should be treated by the government as either condoned or not condoned. Anything that people are forced into, i.e. disability, race, etc., cannot legitimately be concidered by a government.
Certain actions and choices, such as feeding ourselves, caring for the elderly, etc. will automatically be condoned by any government or else the people will revolt. Homosexuality is not one of them.
What we really need is a proposed constitutional ammendment that will either allow or ban homosexual marriages. Then we could get a real understanding of what the American people want, and not just some 2,000 person poll from The View or USA Today.
No poles on this issue are really reliable anyway, because 1.) no one is willing to spend the resources required to perform a nationally accurate poll and 2.) it is very hard to make a totally unbiased poll to begin with, while it is very easy to make one that is biased, but doesn't look it.

 

Lets please not get into whether or not homosexuality is a choice, because there is evidence going both ways.

I disagree. I think actions should be automatically assumed as condoned by the government unless they interfere in the lives of other citizens. The government should not condone
murder, for example, because if murder was condoned, society would unravel as killing would become a meathod of getting what you want. But homosexuality does not interfere in other people's lives. You could claim that it interferes in your life if it offends you, but then you could also claim that women waling around without covering their entire body offends you, but should that be banned? People should have certain fundamental liberties that the government cannot take away-thats why the U.S. has a bill of rights. And if the freedom for someone else to do something you don't like exists, then tough, ignore them.