Legislating Morality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I conduct my personal life accordingly. I do not cheat on my wife, or beat her, and she would have to do something pretty bad before I would consider getting a divorce. However, I think that a law that made divorce harder would just…make divorce harder. It would not two people who hate each other to suddenly grow to love each other, it would not prevent an abusive husband (or wife, since wives have been known to beat husbands; it’s just never reported) to stop beating the crap out of his wife. It wouldn’t force a deadbeat spouse to get a job, or stop a spendthrift spouse from spending money on crap.

And it wouldn’t force parents to spend more time with their kids. In short, it won’t produce a stronger marriage for the benefit of the kids, which presumably would be the whole point of enacting tougher divorce laws.

Bottom line: You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. It’s an old cliche but very appropriate for this debate.[/quote]

Good points, but this kind of law might make those kind of people you just mentioned think twice before getting married. If it’s hard to divorce some people would then not marry. And it is probably the same ones who shouldn’t in the first place.

But you are correct, you can, to some extent, get people to follow the law, but that doesn’t change their morals.

42

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

It (the D of I) is a nice editorial. Nothing more. ?[/quote]

Omigosh. This statement is so nonsensical and void of fact that it’s unworthy of a much of a rebuttal. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez. Were you really serious when you wrote that? A statement like that pretty much disqualifies you from legitimately commenting on this subject. (Is medical marijuana use legal in your state and are you using it just for the pain?)

God, Creator, Supreme Judge and Divine Providence (all mentioned in D of I) are all interchangeable terms. Come on, wake up or at least be honest.

Absolutely not! Life is good! (Got a PR deadlifting last night!)

43

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
On a side note and just to clear up something - the Declaration of Independence is our country’s FOUNDING document.

The Constitution is the framework for how our FEDERAL government should operate. Incidentally, it is the SECOND document that established a federal government. The Articles of Confederation was our first and it described the limits and powers of our federal government for several years before our current constitution was ratified.

The Declaration of Independence mentions God several times, the Constitution doesn’t mention Him at all. The D of I is no less of an important document than the Constitution. They were two separate documents written over a decade apart and for distinctly different reasons. The fact that God is not mentioned in the document that empowers and limits the powers of the federal government does not necessarily mean that God has no place in any shape, form or fashion in government because the D of I specifically DOES address the necessity of God in the forming of a nation.

I write this because many Americans don’t really seem to know the difference between the two documents. They don’t understand their form or function. But they’re more than happy enough to run ‘round yappin’ about them as if they did.

I also believe that the vast majority have never read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in their entirety and they rely on others to tell them what is says and doesn’t say. This is sad and pathetic… &^$%ing lemmings! Let me put this another way…if you’re too lazy to read both documents - ALL OF IT - then stay out of the debates about it. Makes you look like a walrus who showed up to audition for the role of Flipper.

Yeah, that’s right. Don’t type another fuckin’ word about what either document says or doesn’t say until you READ THEM! BTW, you could read both of them in less time that it takes to read many of the threads on this website.[/quote]

I have to disagree with you in your reasoning. The Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation have no legal signficance, though they have much historical significance.

Obviously I’m not saying they aren’t important, or even that they’re irrelevant in doing an analysis as to original intent of the Constitution but the only one of the three documents you mentioned that has legal import on our government (including state and federal, because of the Supremacy Clause) is the Constitution.

It’s like a contractual analysis in which previous contracts or documents were supplanted by another – the old ones can help with interpretation if there is ambiguity, but they have no legal force.

44

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The Declaration of Independence technically only mentions the word ‘god’ once and religion has always been a part of any successful society since the beginning of time. It helps explain the unexplainable for those that need comfort.
Are you having a bad day or something?

How do you explain the “unexplainable”? Doesn’t it seem starnge to you that for all our modern scientific wonders that science still doesn’t know and can’t prove how humans came to be on this earth?

[/quote]

Some people can sythesize instead of analyze without leaving everything up to god.

45

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Were you really serious when you wrote that? [u]A statement like that pretty much disqualifies you from legitimately commenting on this subject.[/u] (Is medical marijuana use legal in your state and are you using it just for the pain?)[/quote]

okay dokey (ROTFLMFAO)

Medical marijuana is not legal in my state but I am a paleo-conservative (libertarian) that believes that marijuana should be legalized and regulated as jailing 3rd strike pot offenders is a complete waste of tax dollars.

The fact is ‘god’ is only mentioned once and those other terms you cited may be interchangeable for you but not for everyone and not for me.

Congradulations! Keep up the great work!!

FYI - I am going to keep posting. Don’t be hatin’.

edited to fix spelling and grammar.

46

Medical marijuana was approved in Arizona but our state government as well as our federal government refuses to hear the voters voice

47

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
On a side note and just to clear up something - the Declaration of Independence is our country’s FOUNDING document.

The Constitution is the framework for how our FEDERAL government should operate. Incidentally, it is the SECOND document that established a federal government. The Articles of Confederation was our first and it described the limits and powers of our federal government for several years before our current constitution was ratified.

The Declaration of Independence mentions God several times, the Constitution doesn’t mention Him at all. The D of I is no less of an important document than the Constitution. They were two separate documents written over a decade apart and for distinctly different reasons. The fact that God is not mentioned in the document that empowers and limits the powers of the federal government does not necessarily mean that God has no place in any shape, form or fashion in government because the D of I specifically DOES address the necessity of God in the forming of a nation.

I write this because many Americans don’t really seem to know the difference between the two documents. They don’t understand their form or function. But they’re more than happy enough to run ‘round yappin’ about them as if they did.

I also believe that the vast majority have never read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in their entirety and they rely on others to tell them what is says and doesn’t say. This is sad and pathetic… &^$%ing lemmings! Let me put this another way…if you’re too lazy to read both documents - ALL OF IT - then stay out of the debates about it. Makes you look like a walrus who showed up to audition for the role of Flipper.

Yeah, that’s right. Don’t type another fuckin’ word about what either document says or doesn’t say until you READ THEM! BTW, you could read both of them in less time that it takes to read many of the threads on this website.

I have to disagree with you in your reasoning. The Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation have no legal signficance, though they have much historical significance.

Obviously I’m not saying they aren’t important, or even that they’re irrelevant in doing an analysis as to original intent of the Constitution but the only one of the three documents you mentioned that has legal import on our government (including state and federal, because of the Supremacy Clause) is the Constitution.

It’s like a contractual analysis in which previous contracts or documents were supplanted by another – the old ones can help with interpretation if there is ambiguity, but they have no legal force.[/quote]

Boston,

Whether the D of I has any legal significance was not my point. You did not carefully read my statement. It was our COUNTRY’S founding document…not our FEDERAL GOVERMENT’S founding document.

The thread was originally about legislating morality and as threads often do, they unravel. Next thing you know some pseudo history scholar is smoking weed (I’m kiddin’, ok?) and saying, “It (the D of I) is a nice editorial. Nothing more.” and God, Creator, Supreme Judge, and Divine Providence aren’t talking about the same entity.

48

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Medical marijuana was approved in Arizona but our state government as well as our federal government refuses to hear the voters voice[/quote]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I was being a smartass with the medical marijuana remark. Please don’t take that exit off the highway.

49

Why do we think we need an external source (God, Nature) for our laws or morality?

50

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
Why do we think we need an external source (God, Nature) for our laws or morality?[/quote]

It carries a lot more weight if you can say “This is a practice against nature and God” than “This practice offends me”.

Quoting an external source gives it more perceived power than making it a personal law. People will tell individuals to suck it up, but people don’t say that sort of thing once you invoke God into legislation.

51

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
Why do we think we need an external source (God, Nature) for our laws or morality?[/quote]

Why do we think we don’t?

52

Why do some think we dont? Because rules of behavior can be developed from principles.

53

[quote]vroom wrote:
Why do some think we dont? Because rules of behavior can be developed from principles.[/quote]

Which come from where???

54

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Why do some think we dont? Because rules of behavior can be developed from principles.

Which come from where???
[/quote]

I think most laws have some origin in theology. Most religions including Christianity were the first forms of education. One of the Ten Commandments porposes were to tell everyone how to behave so you did not provoke your neighbor.

55

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Why do some think we dont? Because rules of behavior can be developed from principles.

Which come from where???

I think most laws have some origin in theology. Most religions including Christianity were the first forms of education. One of the Ten Commandments porposes were to tell everyone how to behave so you did not provoke your neighbor.
[/quote]

Exactly.

56

They don’t have to come from theology. There were rules well before there was organized religion.

Let’s build some ideas from first principles for those of weak mind that don’t believe it is possible.

As a child, we play soccer, I kick you in the nuts by accident, you fall down. I laugh. I haven’t learned anything, but you have… a kick in the nuts hurts.

Because it is funny, I accidentally kick you in the nuts again. After you are done crying, you are mad because I did it on purpose and it hurt. You kick me in the nuts. Ouch, I’ve learned something.

I’ve learned that causing hurt to another can end up causing hurt to me. I don’t like being hurt.

This game is a long and slow process, but we can learn a lot things by having empathy and accepting a few simple truths.

Taking a shortcut, I would accept as a general principle that causing pain and suffering is a bad thing.

Taking a bigger shortcut, I would accept that for creatures that can think, free will is important and should be respected.

From there, it is not hard to get to ideas similar to most of our laws.

Do I really need to waste an inordinate amount of time to connect every dot, or do you truly doubt that getting kicked in the nuts would teach you to avoid getting kicked in the nuts again?

57

The utterly false statement that our founding fathers were all Christians is thrown into debates about religion in American government all too often without challenge.

Our founding fathers were not all Christians, in fact, as mentioned earlier many of them were diest, because they did not believe in and certain of them were outright hostile to Christianity. Although due to the public sentiment of the time many feigned Christian beliefs in their public speeches, while only showing their true feelings in private correspondence.

One of the most famous founding father’s Thomas Paine was outwardly hostile to all religion feeling that is was meant to enslave the populace.

That is why the Constitution doesn’t mention God and specifically prohibits religous oaths as a prerequisite for judges.

Why does the Declaration of Independnece mention God, and not the Constitution? Because our founding fathers were using the Declaration as a rallying point for the colonists, the majority of whom held Christian beliefs. Knowing that it had no legal effect they put God into it.

When they drafted the document that mattered, upon which our government would be based, the Constitution, they didn’t mention God purposely.

Our Country was founded by men who understood the dangers of mixing relgion and government and spelled out a system which was to prevent the mixture of the two.

Please, if you have any sense of historical accuracy, stop saying our founding fathers were Christians and our Country was founded on Christian values.

58

[quote]vroom wrote:
Which come from where???

They don’t have to come from theology. There were rules well before there was organized religion.

Let’s build some ideas from first principles for those of weak mind that don’t believe it is possible.

As a child, we play soccer, I kick you in the nuts by accident, you fall down. I laugh. I haven’t learned anything, but you have… a kick in the nuts hurts.

Because it is funny, I accidentally kick you in the nuts again. After you are done crying, you are mad because I did it on purpose and it hurt. You kick me in the nuts. Ouch, I’ve learned something.

I’ve learned that causing hurt to another can end up causing hurt to me. I don’t like being hurt.

This game is a long and slow process, but we can learn a lot things by having empathy and accepting a few simple truths.

Taking a shortcut, I would accept as a general principle that causing pain and suffering is a bad thing.

Taking a bigger shortcut, I would accept that for creatures that can think, free will is important and should be respected.

From there, it is not hard to get to ideas similar to most of our laws.

Do I really need to waste an inordinate amount of time to connect every dot, or do you truly doubt that getting kicked in the nuts would teach you to avoid getting kicked in the nuts again?[/quote]

I agree with you but like all education some one took the time to contemplate what could happen if some one has sex with some one else?s wife. Or that if some one really likes their neighbors horse that would be big motivation for stealing the horse. Writing the Ten Commandments out saved a lot of grief.
I really do not know of any organized education the preceded Religion.

59

[quote]Mattthepug wrote:
The utterly false statement that our founding fathers were all Christians is thrown into debates about religion in American government all too often without challenge.

Our founding fathers were not all Christians, in fact, as mentioned earlier many of them were diest, because they did not believe in and certain of them were outright hostile to Christianity. Although due to the public sentiment of the time many feigned Christian beliefs in their public speeches, while only showing their true feelings in private correspondence.

One of the most famous founding father’s Thomas Paine was outwardly hostile to all religion feeling that is was meant to enslave the populace.

That is why the Constitution doesn’t mention God and specifically prohibits religous oaths as a prerequisite for judges.

Why does the Declaration of Independnece mention God, and not the Constitution? Because our founding fathers were using the Declaration as a rallying point for the colonists, the majority of whom held Christian beliefs. Knowing that it had no legal effect they put God into it.

When they drafted the document that mattered, upon which our government would be based, the Constitution, they didn’t mention God purposely.

Our Country was founded by men who understood the dangers of mixing relgion and government and spelled out a system which was to prevent the mixture of the two.

Please, if you have any sense of historical accuracy, stop saying our founding fathers were Christians and our Country was founded on Christian values. [/quote]

I agree with the statement that in can be very dangerous for any interest outside our government to have too much influence over the American people. But now that that is said .Why one document mentions god and another doesn?t seems a little presumptuous

60

[quote]Mattthepug wrote:

…many of them were diest [/quote] (sic), [quote] because they did not believe in and certain of them were outright hostile to Christianity… [/quote]

Simply not true no matter how loudly you trumpet it. It is false to say “many” when the facts say “a few” in reference to founding fathers being deists. It is nonsense to say “certain of them were outright hostile to Christianity” when Thomas Paine is probably the only one that fits this category.

True, but Paine was the exception, not the rule, and to the best of my knowledge, Paine had nothing to do with drafting the Constitution.

“Tests” not oaths is the correct constitutional terminology. And what sheer speculation on your part that “that is why the Constitution doesn’t mention God”. You obviously have an agenda to accomplish here and you aren’t about to let the facts and good sense get in your way.

[quote]
Why does the Declaration of Independnece mention God, and not the Constitution? Because our founding fathers were using the Declaration as a rallying point for the colonists, the majority of whom held Christian beliefs. Knowing that it had no legal effect they put God into it. [/quote]

Wow, you’re not about to let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy either, are you?

[quote]

When they drafted the document that mattered, upon which our government would be based, the Constitution, they didn’t mention God purposely.

Our Country was founded by men who understood the dangers of mixing relgion and government and spelled out a system which was to prevent the mixture of the two.[/quote]

There is mountains of evidence to indicate otherwise. However there is absolutely no doubt that the Fathers did NOT want a state mandated religion ala the Church of England and for good reason. But to say that they considered religion and government a dangerous mix is a serious stretch at best and an outright falsehood at worst. That is your conjecture and again the facts don’t support you. You need more study on the subject. You especially need to study the life and writings/philosophy of James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”.

Here’s my conjecture and I think it will make sense to an objective observer. Read both documents and THEN tell me where I’m wrong.

The Constitution DOESN’T mention God. Why? It is a straightforward schematic, a how-to reference text on how the federal government should operate. It’s all business. It’s dry. It’s supposed to be. It reads like my motorcycle maintenance manual. God did not have to be mentioned because His authority and importance had already been recognized in the Declaration of Independence and was taken for granted in society in general.

The Declaration of Independence DOES mention God, several times (please don’t someone come along and post another trans fatty acid soaked pile of manure that says that God, Creator, Supreme Judge and Divine Providence aren’t referring to Almighty God). It is a philosophical expression. It is a list of reasons why King George and the British parliament would no longer exercise governmental authority over its colonies and those colonies who were now forming a new nation were invoking the name of Almighty God to back them up. It was a birth certificate but a birth certificate that went to the trouble of explaining the conception too. God had to be mentioned because His authority was the basis for the colonies committing such a treasonous act.

Au contraire, please, if you have any sense of historical accuracy, stop saying our founding fathers were NOT Christians and our Country was NOT founded on Christian values.

No, EVERYONE of them was not a Christian. Those that weren’t still recognized and promoted Christian values and … here it comes… MORALITY both in and out of government. I am especially thinking of Ben Franklin here. He definitely seemed to be a deist at a certain period of his life but at the same time his writings absolutely, positively advocate what I wrote above about recognizing and supporting Christian values IN AND OUT OF GOVERNMENT.