toldailytopic: People say: You can't legislate morality. Is that true?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
nicholsmom
New member
So you are making a distinction between moral action and moral character. Hmmmm...
I would agree that we cannot make laws that would require a person to have a moral character. Likewise we cannot make laws that require a person to behave in a moral fashion. The laws serve only to point out unacceptable (immoral) behavior and set penalties for getting caught in that immoral behavior.
Still, every criminal law starts out as a moral judgment call: "It's wrong to steal stuff" gets codified in the law of the land by way of statutes and penalties.
So we do legislate from a position of morality but we cannot legislate moral character nor moral action - that is laws do not control people any more than they are willing to control themselves. The law only provides one more bit of information to help us make decisions concerning our behavior.
elohiym
Well-known member
I agree with that.
"[T]o mandate, establish, or regulate by or as if by legislation...a doctrine or system of moral conduct."
My thoughts on this subject, based on that definition...
Of course we can legislate morality, but we cannot make people be moral, only compel them to conform "to ideals of right human conduct" of our society. If people could be made moral, we wouldn't need to legislate morality.
Says who?
:think: That's a tough question...
I say we put it to a vote.
lain:
I say we put it to a vote.
lain:
Newman's not very bright. You may need to clarify that you are referring to the end of his sentence, not the beginning.
If the civil magistrate, one of three institutions ordained by God for the governance of men (the other two being the family and the Church) can't "legislate" morality, then the "Personhood Amendment" is a total waste of time.
"All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword. The sword and the word are united in law. And because the word commands action by men, the word of law is necessarily a morel teaching, a teaching which seeks to guide the ruled along a particular way of action, of life. This way of life which the law-word commands is what the ruler or lawgiver considers good, and for this reason it is again inevitably a moral teaching, of one sort or another. By teaching men to obey the ruler or lawgiver's commands, via the punishment of those who disobey, who break the law, and by his personal exam pie, the magistrate can do nothing else than teach people moral principles. His teaching, punishing function is a pastoring function, for by it he guides his sheep toward what he considers green pastures and the safety of the fold, and away from what he considers precipices and beasts of prey. His sword is like the shepherd's staff: "if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (vs. 4). By striking fear into the hearts of the evil, he diverts them from their destruction and toward doing that which is good."
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm
All law is based upon morality, and morality is itself based upon religion. Therefore, when the religion of a people is weakened, so also is its morality undermined. The result is a progressive collapse of law and order, and the breakdown of society.
Men, though, see law as a limitation on their liberty, and Christianity is held to be the most restrictive with its emphasis upon Biblical law as the foundation for morality and liberty. Humanistic man wants total liberty, but he does not realize that total liberty leads only to total anarchy, and that leads to the death of law and liberty. Unless every man’s liberty is limited by law, no liberty is possible for any one.
R. J. Rushdoony
If I may revise the late R. J. Rushdoony's last sentence:
"Unless every man's liberty is limited by either self restraint through God's laws, or limited through coercion by man's laws, no liberty is possible for anyone."
M. K. Nawojski
New member
The God of Scripture does nothing “at random.” Such hit-and-miss activity would contradict His infinite, triune Being AND His attributes of eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, impassibility, and sovereignty.
Your assessment of His actions (as recorded in His Word) is slipshod and slanderous. The Hebrew Scriptures do indeed contain specific instances where He sent the armies of Israel into battle—with clear, precise instructions to completely destroy a particular enemy, leaving none alive. He is almighty God. He demonstrates mercy where it pleases Him—seeking neither permission nor approval from any of His fallen creatures. In case you missed the point, that means He is not answerable to YOU . . . in any circumstances . . . in any time . . . in any place. . . .
On the other hand, your suggestion that the God of Scripture has ever commanded or countenanced rape is entirely false. The truth is that He designates rape as a capital offense.
And He does give due process to all of fallen mankind, as you will learn to your sorrow in due season. In the fulness of time, you’ll also be disabused of the false notion that His actions are “random,” in any sense of the word.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, He admonishes us to “Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Isa. 46:9-10).
In the Greek Scriptures, He again assures us that He works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11).
In the Greek Scriptures, He also issues the clear warning that “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31).
MK
WizardofOz
New member
I was just about to comment that despite your overall idiocy I agree with the above on nearly all points.
Then I realized it was a quote of Rushdoony. Back to square one I guess. :idunno:
The two points I disagree with would be "Men, though, see law as a limitation on their liberty" and "Humanistic man wants total liberty."
First, most men see law as a guardian of liberty. Second, humanism simply refers to human values in the most general sense. Secular humanism is something else.
As to the OP, of course morality can be legislated.
Well you can put laws in place based on one moral code or another, or just make up your own, and assign punishments for breaking said laws. That's about as close as you can get to legislating morality. It doesn't really guarantee that anyone is going to be any more or less moral because of it.
Zeke
Well-known member
Or it could be lower than need be in some areas for revenue extraction by the police state.
The argument from Supreme Authority doesn't make it right, sorry.
Who said we did not want to discuss it?
And no one ever said you should just follow what he meant. The issue is the implication and/or outright accusation that he meant something he did not.
:squint:
I NEVER once attempted to interpret what Knight meant, that was YOUR ISSUE, mine was nothing more than to offer my own opinion. YOU then rebuked everyone who had an opinion that wasn't yours, and what you interpreted Knight's opinion to be. Silly boy.
The problem is you simply CAN'T be wrong, not in your mind, nothing anyone can say will change that, it is who you are, and I respect that, well a little, anyway. But, that doesn't stop you from BEING wrong, and for taking a stance, then twisting it to your own immediate need. And, all you could say about me was that I couldn't make a smiley face icon on the internet.. Wow...
Last edited:
And from where I sit, that is all a bunch of BUNK.. God doe NOT get a free pass from me, never has and never will. He, who does NOT exist, didn't create me (no really he didn't) to be a worm. I have a mind and I have the ability to call BS when I see it, and in the BIBLE I see it a LOT, and call it, too.
So, we just blindly follow this non-being, and allow him to kill millions of people, and MY assessment is slipshod and slanderous? REALLY?
And, I'm not going to go look it up, but god instructed a certain army to kill all the women who had been with a man, and keep the "virgins" for their own use. Don't know your definition of rape, but non-consentual sex, well that's rape in my world.
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)
"Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." (Revelation 7:3-4)
"And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads." (Revelation 9:3-4)
"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads." (Revelation 14:1)
"...the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins." (Revelation 14:3-4)
"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ***, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21)
"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)
"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)
"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deuteronomy 13:15)
OK, so I did the research.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It is not true.
Morality requires something that says we "ought" to do this or "ought not" to do that. This "oughtness" cannot be derived from something impersonal, like the impersonal machinations of the universe, for no impersonal structure can create obligation. Obligatory moral standards presuppose absolute moral standards, which in turn presuppose an absolute moral personality, that is, God Almighty.
Truly objective moral values require something personal that defines what is good and what is not good and necessarily implies an accountability to one's actions. Moral accountability, if there is no God, merely implies morality become vain, since our fate is irrelevant to moral behavior.
Now the non-believer will counter that the theist believes either something is good because God wills it or else God wills something because it is good. They will then claim that the first alternative is unacceptable, since it makes what is good or evil an arbitrary distinction, and the second alternative implies that the good is independent of God. Hence, they will claim moral values cannot depend on God, but instead something outside of God.
Actually this is a false dilemma. God wills something because He is good. God’s nature determines what is good, hence the good is not independent of God, and His nature necessarily expresses itself toward us in the form of His commandments such that they are not arbitrary.
In the non-believers' case "ought" is nothing more than them talking to themselves. Hence, "ought" to the non-believer is merely a relativistic chimera.
AMR
"Not only has the law helped people believe differently, it has also helped them behave differently. Upon legalization of abortion by Roe, the number of abortions performed in this country exploded and soon reached approximately 16 times the pre-legalization level. The law obviously had an effect on behavior."
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/journals/legislating.html
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/journals/legislating.html
So he demonstrates mercy when it pleases him, well I'm pretty sure IF he is real, and he isn't, but on the outside chance he is, I'm sure he'll appreciate his creation having both a mind and a spine.
You noted that he is omniscient and omnipotent, but those two things contradict each other and a mutually exclusive.
I'll take my chances on the whole "sorrow in due season" thing, thanks. Consider your Christian duty done, you have warned the heathen/atheist, you can sleep at night without worrying about my soul. Thanks.
No, when Roe V Wade became law, the number of LEGAL abortions were now counted, the number of illegal abortions declined. The total number of abortions didn't change all that much. Propoganda is a wonderful tool, isn't it.
So 50 million unborn babies were murdered in the womb (primarily out of convenience) during the 37 year period BEFORE Roe v Wade?
So what you're telling me do is if we discontinue all laws dealing with armed robbery, murder and rape, etc. etc. etc. tommorrow, crime won't increase (there's a word for that, I think they call it "anarchy").
Do you honestly think that the power of the sword has no deterring affect on society?
If so, here's what I would like you to do:
Drive up alongside a police vehicle stopped at a stoplight. Revvvvvv your engine to get the officer's attention; roll down your window and SHOUT "I ain't afraid of no stinkin laws!" and speed through the light.
(throw in the "bird" for good measure).
Bail's on me as long as you share the story here online.
"Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the United States during the1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million." Ourbodiesourselves.org quoting Planned Parenthood figures.
According to the CDC, which admits it probably skews low, from the year of Roe forward no fewer than 615,000 were performed and that number grew until 1990. As many as 1.4 million abortions were performed in that year, with more years than not seeing well over a million procedures. So by any reasonable account the number of abortions and deaths increased significantly and held to significantly higher levels, with a correspondingly higher death toll.
- Status