"Please remember this . . . all law/legislation is someone else’s view of right/wrong that is imposed on another!! America has legislated morality since her beginnings, and rightly so, for we would have chaos and anarchy if that were not the case. However, this brand of politically-correct rhetoric should clearly show us that much of the thinking within America (& within Christendom) is about a mile wide and an inch deep." (Scott, 10/2004)
. . . and since then: [Presidential Debate #2 Excerpt]
GIBSON:
"Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart."
DEGENHART:
"Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?"
KERRY:
"I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it on someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that. But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights . . . that's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning. . . . you'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it."
___________________________________________________________________
Wow! It’s an interesting place we’ve come to here, wouldn’t you say? On the one hand, we Evangelical Christians strongly esteem and place super-high value upon life due to the fact that mankind is created in the very image of God. This truth inevitably and naturally impacts our views and/or voting habits on issues pertaining to life, be they issues of abortion, embryonic stem-sell research, euthanasia, etc. On the other hand, however, we’re constantly told by the liberal elite that it’s simply inappropriate to "legislate" or "impose" such beliefs on those Americans who would disagree for various reasons. If you don’t see this starting to happen, I’ve only got one thing to say . . . disarm the "SNOOZE BUTTON" feature on your cultural alarm clock, because you seem to have a habit of hitting it during times like these.
From here on out, I’ll refer to this popular, albeit erroneous/flawed, line of reasoning as the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy." This particular mindset, which has saturated our thinking for decades, can be restated in the following ways:
As long as I don’t hurt anyone the government should leave me alone . . .
No one should force their morals on anyone else . . .
You can’t make people be good . . .
Legislating morality violates the "separation of church & state" . . .
"Big Brother" has absolutely no business in my bedroom . . .
Do you see the common thread woven throughout the preceding lines of argumentation? Namely, that it is wrong to legislate/impose "morality" on the people, specifically those who disagree with a particular moral stance. While I’ll readily grant the notion that the preceding philosophy has good rhetorical force (i.e., if one isn’t familiar with this type of rhetoric, he or she will most likely be caught off guard), it is desperately lacking in terms of strength and substance.
Why is this the case?
Allow me to offer a couple of theories on this:
1. For decades, this brand of jargon has been "spoon-fed" to us through a plethora of avenues (i.e., Hollywood, the media, activist court rulings, misguided politicians, etc.). Interestingly enough, if you were to take a certain saying, belief, argument, etc., and pound it over and over again into the thinking of a highly susceptible, non-thinking culture, you’d be amazed at the things that would become acceptable. Unfortunately, we tend to accept that which is ingrained into our thinking when we don’t think through the practical ramifications of a particular thought. Remember that ideas have legit consequences.
2. On top of the previous theory, it has "populist" appeal, in that it strongly identifies with the mindset of radical independence that has swept over our land. That is, we humans (especially Americans) don’t like being told what to do (I mean, after all, we’re depraved, capable, and know what’s best, right?) . . . HA! We could certainly camp out here for a while, but that’s for another time. In sum, Americans value what seems fair rather than what is true. Honestly, the same could probably be said of the American Church!!
As for the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy" lacking in terms of strength/substance, take a look at the following simplified exchange (in conversational form) which will serve to expose the basic problem:
Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
I think it’s awesome that we have the most pro-life president in history (i.e., signing into law the Born Alive Infants Act, Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and Laci & Connor Peterson’s Law)! On that note, we have the opportunity this year to impact legislation whereas the issue of abortion is concerned; more specifically, we, the people, get to decide on the parental notification of a minor’s termination of pregnancy. I can’t believe this is even an issue, but if my child has to have my permission to take an aspirin at school, I will be made aware of a situation like this. My voice, through my vote, will be heard this year! You know, maybe abortion should be outlawed altogether.
Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Mike, you certainly have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, but the fact of the matter is that things have changed and we’ve made a lot of progress as a society. In fact, it has been well-said that America is going through "collective puberty." Besides, it’s common knowledge these days that moral imposition is off-limits, especially whereas the government is concerned. We cannot impose or legislate morality . . . it’s simply wrong . . .
Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
Is that, then, your "morality?" In other words, is your belief that you cannot impose morality "your morality?"
Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Well . . . ummm . . . I’ve never really looked at it that way, but if that’s what you want to call it, then fine . . .
Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
Since that is "your morality," whether you’d like to admit to it or not, then why are you "imposing" it on me (and the others who dissent)? Why will you be seeking to "impose" your brand of morality on those who disagree with you by "your vote" on the issue?
Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Huh???
Do you more clearly see the basic problem?
Therefore, after taking more of a rational look at this issue, I must conclude that if we abandon the legislation of morality (which is inherently impossible), we must, in turn, abandon the rule of law itself. If you’d like to see a recipe of disaster for societal stability, just take a stroll down that street.
In closing, I’d like to alter the Q&A piece from presidential debate #2 to even better illustrate the inherent weakness of the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy." As you’ll quickly notice, I’ve made two alterations [for illustration purposes ONLY]: (1) The subject of Degenhart’s question is a pro-choice voter; & (2) Kerry is a CONSISTENT pro-life politician (i.e., if a thing is wrong personally, then it should follow that it is wrong whereas public policy is concerned).
Buckle up and watch what happens here . . .
GIBSON:
"Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart."
DEGENHART:
"Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is the sole right/choice of a woman and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would be able to support that very right, what would you say to that person?"
KERRY:
"I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect your right to believe what you want to believe even though I strongly disagree with your stance. As for me, I'm a Catholic, and I was raised a Catholic. I was even an altar boy (can you believe that . . . me, an altar boy?). Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, and it leads me today (because I want the votes of a certain constituency). But I can't take what is an article of belief for you personally and legislate it on someone who doesn't share that belief, be they unborn child, pro-lifer, whatever. I can't do that. But I can still be your President and have this difference of belief with you. As a president, however, I have to represent all the people in the nation, including the unborn children who have no voice but us. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-life, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights . . . that's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping the unborn child, politically correct or not."
Beloved, the same principle that was at work in the true account of that exchange was at work in the above illustration, even though it was admittedly modified to make the point. Kerry’s philosophy that he is personally against abortion, but wouldn’t legislate his views on others who disagree, was completely erroneous. In the first place, by refusing to display the principled discipline to stand up against his pro-abortion constituency and defend the unborn, he was essentially imposing his views on others – the babies – by default!!! Do not forget that, my friend!! In one sense they are the only innocent ones in this situation. Secondly, as previously stated, we do (and must) legislate morality. Our entire system of criminal law and much of our civil law is based on our moral beliefs, from larceny to rape to pre-meditated murder.
As has also been said here, if we don’t legislate morality, we forfeit the rule of law, societal stability, and ordered liberty all together. Think, right now, about other moral issues that we legislate on but which are not necessarily hot-button issues at the moment . . . murder – rape – assault & battery – petit theft . . . etc. Are you seeing what’s happening? I want you to think through these things!!
When someone gives you a variation of the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy," ask them one question . . . do you vote?? If they vote, they begin to engage in self-refutation, and that is something that we need to point out more often in our day. When you do get the chance to pull back the curtains, be sure to expose the error in a loving manner. More specifically, do so with a question rather than a statement (i.e., Maybe I’m missing something, but …). This is just a point of tactical wisdom that tends to disarm a tension-filled situation, even if you and your friend vehemently disagree on the issue.
By the way, would you like to know who else argued against "moral legislation?" You’re going to need to buckle up for this one - - - - - - - American slave owners during the time period of the civil war! That’s right! I’d encourage you to think about that one on your drive home today.
Remember: it’s not IF, but WHOSE . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment