Freedom, Democracy, and Morality in America
In light of recent comments on Christianity (or religion in general) and the role of morality in society, Andie Brownlow at the American Thinker has an interesting article entitled “American Freedom and Religious Morality:”
Liberals and conservatives both believe that as Americans, we should be moral people. The major difference is where their morality intersects with their politics. Most conservatives believe that our morality should come from religion, separate from government. Most progressives incorporate moral guidance as a function of government. (emphasis original)
John Adams once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Our Constitution is based on the view that our morality comes from our religion…Therefore, when citizens take responsibility for morality through their religion, the rewards and consequences of those citizens’ actions stay mostly within the realm of spirituality. This self-regulation serves as a positive influence on individual responsibility and personal freedom.
Progressives have proven through their regulation and governmental style their belief that morality can be translated into laws, which can then be enforced through government. Leftists’ collective morality, usually called something akin to “social justice,” is what feels fair and right (most recently: moral obligations for universal health care, top-notch education, etc.). The government is the ultimate authority for a morality defined by fickle, subjective social justice issues.
Read the full article.
And yet it is the conservatives on this blog who want the state to enforce morality. The conservatives are the ones who think it is bad when the state does not punish (some, rather arbitarily chosen) “immoral” actions. For instance, is it Texas liberals or Texas conservatives who want homosexuality to be a criminal offence?
John Adams also said, “Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” and “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” ( John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816)
Context is everything, and MY morals hardly come from the govt. I agree with Donalbain, it isn’t the left that “USES” the govt to impose morality through the legislature.
albatross, don,
I would venture to say that most ‘progressive’ government rulings come from the court system rather than the legislative system. Interesting since legislatives are elected and judges are not. Take what used to be prop 8 in CA. A judge said that marriage between homosexuals should be allowed, the people voted, judge said it was against CA constitution, people voted again, judge said it was against US constitution.
albatross – so where do your morals come from?
The people voted that blacks could not marry whites. The courts disagreed. But, the liberal courts did not force anyone to follow any particular morality. If someone thinks that mixed race marriage is immoral, they are totally free not to marry someone of the opposite race. Same with gay marriage, if you think gay marriage us immoral, then don’t have one. same with remarriage after divorce. Same with mixed religion marriages.
But, it is the conservatives who want the state to deny marriage rights because they think it is immoral. Indeed, they want to go further and many of them want gay people to be prosecuted. But still the claim is that liberals want to use the state to enforce morality…
And before you use any ofvthe old claims:
Marriage does not require fertility
Marriage is not necessarily religious
Polygamy would be legally more difficult since you would have more than one next of kin
Churches are already free to refuse to marry couples
Your neighbour marrying his lover does not harm you or your children
It does not increase the number of homosexual people
It does not stop people marrying the opposite gender if they like.
Don,
since when is marriage right? I remember the state granting me marriage license. You mention polygamy, but i don’t understand your argument. Under your argument, then anyone would be able to marry anyone or anything. I don’t think that the state should allow multiple wives, or allow inter-immediate family marriages. Do you?
Dealer, do you believe YOUR morals come from the govt?
BUt you cannot draw the line at two people marrying either, Dealer? Just two people?
Albatross,
I don’t believe that my morals come from the government.
I don’t understand your last question, please rephrase, i.e. make it ‘pilot-proof.’
And you didn’t answer my question to you.
Loving v Virginia
Don,
You didn’t answer my question to you either. I’ll check out that case and respond tomorrow.
What is an “inter-immediate family,” Dealer? Is that incest in easier terms for you?
The Texas HOP want homosexuality to be a crime. Are they progressives?
Albatross,
yes i was referring to incest. still haven’t answered my question.
Don,
that depends on how you define progressive. i think homosexuality shouldn’t be a crime. what’s your answer to marriage from above?
Dealer, what was your question? I believe mine was very clealry asked: are the Texas GOP progressive?
Don,
mine to you: I don’t think that the state should allow multiple wives, or allow inter-immediate family marriages (referring to incest). Do you?
yours to mine: again, it depends on how you define ‘progressive.’ The Republican Party was originally a progressive party, going back to the support of abolition, on moral grounds that slavery was not right. Republicans in general tend to favor religious views on social issues, which implies a moral grounding. That doesn’t mean that Republicans can’t be wrong though. I think the Texas lawmakers who want to make homosexuality a crime are not Progressive, wrong in their desire to outlaw homosexuality.
If your next argument is that here are these non-progressives trying to use the government to enforce their morality, then you’re right they are. They are not however, trying to push what ‘feels fair and right’ nor are they looking to the government as the source of morality, just the implementation of it.
I’ll ask you the same question as I asked albatross: where do your morals come from?
OK. Yet again you are asked a question and you avoid giving a simple answer. Another conversation ends.
Don,
“I think the Texas lawmakers who want to make homosexuality a crime are not Progressive.”
here’s my answer, still looking for yours.
I have told you in the past, I am not interested in personal discussions.