« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Relationship Between Law and Morality

By: kipling (Diary)  |  June 7th, 2012 at 01:55 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The relationship between law and morality has become increasingly relevant as social liberals advance issues like homosexual marriage and abortion rights.  Since at least Roe v. Wade, social liberalism has also revealed a division within the Republican Party.  The relationship has provoked heated discussion here at RedState.  The most recent being a discussion over homosexual marriage about a month ago – Gay Marriage:  Left vs. Right.  After some reflection, I would like to take the opportunity to enlarge on some of the points raised in that discussion.

The refrain repeated by many at the time was that “we cannot legislate morality.”  One variant of that refrain was that “no nation in the history of the world has ever been saved from moral bankruptcy by enacting laws.”  Another variant was that laws are simply a “lagging indicator” of moral reform.  The common element in the refrain and all its variants was that laws will not lead to the moral reformation of a society.

The refrain itself is a gross distortion of  the relationship between the law and morality.  Historically the question has not been whether laws led to moral reform or simply reflected a moral reformation that occurred within a society absent an initial legal component.  It is not a chicken or egg type scenario.  In fact, the refrain itself misses the larger dynamic between law and morality and ultimately proves a pointless distraction.

Two examples for the United States in the twentieth century will help illustrate the dynamic.

In discussing the movement toward social and political equality between blacks and whites in the United States, the “chicken or egg” paradigm would lead us on a quest to determine the origin of that movement to see whether the law led to changes in morality or whether morality led to changes in the law.  While the discussion might be interesting for a history course, the larger dynamic might be lost so let us lay aside the origin quest and instead look at the dynamic itself.  A quick perusal of United States history from Jamestown to the present would show that sometimes laws were a lagging indicator of public morality and sometimes laws preceded a change in public morality.

For example, the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 was not a lagging indicator of public morality.  Efforts to achieve political and civil equality between blacks and whites preceded the decision but the decision itself far exceeded the public sentiment at the time.  The “lagging indicator” argument would hold that the public had already decided to support the issue and the decision reflected that change in public morality.  Yet, the Brown Decision went further than the public initially wanted to go.  One prominent historian compared the decision to the Supreme Court establishing a beachhead for civil rights but then quickly abandoning it by failing to create a mechanism for compliance.  Here the Supreme Court clearly established a position in advance of the public and it took some time for the public to catch up.  The law set a public standard of morality that the modern civil rights movement appealed to and used to advance a new moral standard of equality.  Like the Brown decision, the history of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the civil rights position on  ”Separate But Equal” both illustrate the use of the  federal and state laws by a group to advance their social agenda.

A converse example is the Roe v. Wade Decision of 1973.  Once again the Supreme Court decision exceeded what the public was willing to support in regards to abortion in 1973 – based on the number of anti-abortion laws at the state level.  However, the decision itself led public morality toward the acceptance of abortion.  Roe v. Wade was not a lagging indicator otherwise support for abortion would have led to the removal of state laws.

The point is that the whole “chicken or egg” question is a fool’s errand.  Laws can and do shape public morality – for good or bad.  Libertarians often argue that social conservatives must win the “hearts and minds” of the American people before they can legislate morality.  Those libertarians fail to realize that laws are a means to winning the “hearts and minds” of the American people.  While the laws do not operate in a vacuum and must be supported with social efforts designed to advance public morality, they do play a key role and can lead to moral reform.

Social liberals are currently seeking legal precedent to advance homosexual marriage.  A Supreme Court decision in support of homosexual marriage and federal and state laws in support of it will be used by the left to advance their agenda and to normalize the practice of homosexuality – just like they normalized abortion on demand.  It is not inappropriate for social conservatives and others to seek to use the law to protect and advance their position.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Victor_Purinton

    That denial of equal rights to blacks is wrong (I agree), that abortion is wrong (I disagree) and that homosexuality is wrong (I disagree). What is a constitutional democracy to do?

    • kipling

      The point is not whether those things are right or wrong. The point is that in each case mentioned the law led public morality on the issue. I use morality in a neutral sense in the essay as simply a reflection of what the public deems acceptable.

      • acat

        for “values voters” to yell at or buy congresscritters than it is to do the grass-roots work that would actually change public morality.

        The abortion debate turned around once values voters found their voice, a solid argument, and State-level tools that could be employed. It won’t be won in D.C., it’ll be won at the State level – D.C. will be the cherry on top.

        As far as the “gay rights” debate goes, I’m still waiting to hear a values-voter argument that doesn’t boil down to “The bible says…”.

        Mew

        • kipling

          Social conservatives, or values voters as you call them, have always been good at grassroots organization. The problem lies in coordination and making sure Congressmen follow through on their promises. It is a common problem bemoaned by many on the conservative side.

          The battle against abortion will be won at both the state and federal level. As long as the Supreme Court can and will trump state action, then the battle must be fought at both levels. As long as the President can and will use his discretion to promote abortion and use federal funding for it, it must be fought at both levels. As long as Congress can and will turn a blind eye to those who profit from legalized murder, then it must be fought at both levels.

          As to the homosexual agenda and the redefinition of marriage, Erick and others have made the cultural / societal argument against it. At least a few books and numerous essays have been written on it.

          • acat

            on gay rights that doesn’t boil down to “The bible says…”.

            If you’d care to cite an argument you think isn’t based on that, I’d be happy to read it.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as “a pregnant couple” or references to “spouses” rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.

            Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.

            In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.

            Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?

            And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?

          • acat

            gay couples I’ve known are also asymmetric; one working a well-paying career, the other “doing meaningful work” – some form of volunteerism or minimum-wage-civic-good gig – something Dr. Sowell appears to reject out of hand rather than actually proving.

            The argument for some form of legal protection for the “underemployed” partner is actually stronger under this argument than without it, eh?

            Mew

          • kipling

            You may choose to disagree with the argument but aesthete provided you with the argument you claimed not to see.

            You can get the gist of Erick’s civilization argument here: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/05/08/remember-to-vote-yes-to-amendment-1-in-north-carolina/

          • acat

            Sowell made an assertion that is provably false.

            If you want to conclude that it’s an “argument”, so be it. Aesthete has shown me a non-bible-based but not reality-based argument.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            A heterosexual relationship will almost always have significant asymmetries because of basic biology — a man generally being stronger than a woman, different priorities when it comes to propagation, the fragile and resource-consuming state of pregnancy for months at a time — that homosexual couples can avoid as a matter of choice. Because of how intimately related heterosexual coupling and childrearing are, there’s arguably a limited role in government dealing with the fallout of a bad marriage through marriage law, since there is a strong likelihood that there will be children involved.

            The argument is that marriage law is not for good marriages, it is for bad ones — an argument which would indeed fly in the face of most of the rather romanticized and affected rhetoric about marriage from social conservatives, but which nonetheless meets your criteria of being both secular and reality-based. I don’t begrudge someone disagreeing with this case, and I certainly don’t mean this to get in the way of homosexuals getting the legal protections that make sense for their arrangement (spousal immunity or visitation rights, for instance), but the case is not a poor one if one accepts its premises.

          • acat

            What of couples who are both working and who deliberately don’t choose to have or *can’t* have kids?

            They also don’t face these “inherent” asymmetries, eh?

            The point is, the Sowell argument is based on only a subset of hetero-couples, and ignores a similarly asymmetrical subset of homo-couples.

            This works quite nicely as an argument for the value of the homemaker, something I believe Sowell sees clearly. The trouble is, that role is not specific to hetero-couples, which damages the conclusion Sowell attempts to derive from his data.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            For homosexuals, assymetries do not result from the relationship itself — you have two same-gendered folk who will have similar views and a similar discount rate when it comes to sexual partnerships, mostly similar earning power, and similar status when it comes to pregnancy (i.e., male homosexuals can’t get preggers, and lesbians have both naturally egalitarian solutions and no children resulting from sexual activity). Women are disadvantaged in men-women pairings in a way that is not generally true of man-man or woman-woman pairings.

            Yes, you could say, “well what about the barren lesbian Ironman competitor with huge muscles living with a 96-pound woman who is perenially fertile, and who keeps falling into vats of semen making her pregnancy an inevitability”… but this sort of scenario is a) rare and b) optional, making it something that is better dealt with on an ad-hoc basis through contract law.

            Fact is, the *inherent* asymmetry subset for heterosexuals is very large, easy to predict and identify, and has children tied up in it almost as a matter of course. The *inherent* asymmetry subset for homosexuals is miniscule, is based on personal characteristics that are difficult to identify, and doesn’t inherently tie children up in the matter.

          • aesthete

            to say that I think your idea of voluntary marriage is a bad one. It’s the one that I currently favor. I just think that the case for marriage as a legal affair is better than “none at all”.

          • acat

            that hangs around inheritance rights, responsibility for children, certain legal rights in court cases, taxes, etc. etc. None of these particularly need the word “marriage” associated, though.

            As to the relative size of asymmetric groups, I am not moved. We do not live in a democracy, but rather a representative republic, eh?

            Mew

          • acat

            At a minimum, 50% of what Erick writes is an appeal from religion.

            The remainder is an appeal in defense of the tradition of marriage – a tradition that I do not dispute.

            My point, remember, is not that “marriage” should be re-defined, but that government should be removed from the role of defining it, and should only recognize civil unions organized for tax, inheritance, and child-rearing purposes.

            Erick’s statement does not – as a defense of traditional marriage – contradict mine.

            Mew

          • kipling

            You asked for arguments that were not “the Bible says so.” Sowell and Erickson both provided such arguments. Whether you agree or disagree with the arguments does not matter. Those arguments exist and now you have seen them. You are welcome.

          • acat

            Two arguments. One is deeply flawed, one is not counter to my point. Neither persuades, as a result.

            I acknowledge that I have seen them.

            Mew

          • kipling

            Glad to be of service.

          • acat

            in finding a better argument – as I believe J. Sobieski has previously pointed out.

            Mew

          • kipling

            Perhaps you could relinquish your assumed role as gatekeeper and actually write a diary of substance.

            Perhaps you could stop your continually quibbling over small points.

            Perhaps you could refute an argument instead of seeking to deem it resolved.

            Any of those would be a good start.

          • acat

            I’d prefer not to have one.

            Mew

          • kipling

            Your bullying tactics do not work here. Why don’t you go find a newbie? Perhaps you can pick up a few friends to harass him/her until they leave.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            acat tries to be civil and then you reply like that.

            Maybe you need to take a walk.

          • kipling

            I find it interesting that I get called to the carpet when others can call fellow posters a “piece of crap” or refer to those who differ by a variety of other names.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            If you feel you’re being abused, take it to email to the contact page.

            You don’t get to foul our comments section with pettiness.

            Property rights. Like them or lump them.

          • kipling

            I just wished they were more uniformly enforced. If you are interested in seeing true pettiness fouling your comments section, I suggest you walk over and read the responses to hanoverhenry’s diary. I do not know hanoverhenry nor favor his diary but the responses to it were the height of pettiness. I can also refer you to a number of other diaries.

            We all know the contact page is a circular file when it comes to complaints. I can hold my own. I am not a newbie. It pains me however to see other voices silenced by a handful of unofficial gatekeepers who moderate from the sidelines.

            As long as “pettiness” and “Be respectful, or be banned.” is selectively enforced, RedState will have a serious integrity problem.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I don’t read every comment on the site. We have a contact page for a reason. If you’re being abused, we can’t read your mind. You have to report it.

          • kipling

            I have pointed you to the abuse of others. Will you take a look or must I fill out a form to which no one will respond?

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            …I am hurt… I thought I was the project of the week as a self-identified values voter writer here? You all should leave Kipling alone and come back to boosting the “comment” count at my week-old article which is now stalled at 51 facebook “recommends” since you left me to “comment” here … and I do qualify as a newbie, so fresh meat, reporting for service…

            Seriously… I enjoyed the article more, the “riposte” or “banter” or whatever you wish to call it, less. Although the gay issue is not an issue I am really interested in major focus on I do know a lot of folks in our cause ARE interested, and so I do appreciate the Kipling essay. Most of all, I do appreciate the reasoned way in which you explain the important relationship between law and morality. So I wish to simply say THANK YOU for giving me something to pass on to my own circle and remind you that you have a lot of silent readers who enjoy this sort of article (as do I) and do NOT wish to tangle with pussycats who have much time to spare for such argument.

            I have enjoyed the “day off” in fact, from such banter, and will again spend tomorrow visiting the “religious liberty rally” in Harrisburg, PA, perhaps will post something about that later.

            Regards to my friends here and also to those who have recipe’s to share – my wife asked if you have a chile recipe to share? We attended a chile cookoff and tasting 20 different entries found everything was either too hot or too sweet, and still like ours best. But if you wish to help drive my comment count up with more recipe’s she has requested Chile recipe’s. Yummy.

          • gekster

            Posters would rather play with you like a cat with a catnip mouse.
            The fact that you havn’t seen that aready, well, what else could I say.
            And your diatribes you post as replies are tiresome to read, so no one reads them.
            I thought you would be smart enough to grt the hnt, but in that I was wrong.

          • gekster

            shows you are her for self granduation as opposed to inform.
            A**hat.
            God in Heaven you are such a narcosistic twit.
            Kinda like Obama.

          • kipling

            Be advised of the No Profanity rule. I think ** still counts.

          • gekster

            as opposed to inform.
            It seams it is all ‘I me mine’.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            If HH has a problem, HH can hit the contact page.

          • kipling

            I look forward to hearing about the religious liberty rally.

            I hope to see For Greater Glory next week.

            Please continue to persevere and write without distraction. We need more voices not fewer.

          • Jack_Savage

            I don’t believe I mentioned the Bible once when you and I last discussed this issue….

          • texasref

            is, as acat says, entirely based on the Bible.

            Courts will continue to refuse granting imprimatur to this discrimination unless and until one rational argument is made to continue it.

          • kipling

            Erickson and Thomas Sowell (via aesthete) both provided societal arguments against the redefinition of marriage that did not come down to the Bible says….

            As to rational arguments, the redefinition of marriage – the oldest institution known to man and the foundation of civilization – to suit the demands of politically aggressive minority, is the height of folly.

          • texasref

            Why is it the height of folly? Make sure to give an answer with a rational basis or else thanks for playing make sure your pets are spayed or neutered for you.

          • kipling

            One should not dismissively tear down (or redefine) one of the foundational supports of civilization to suit the whim of the latest fad.

          • texasref

            Nothing dismissive about equal rights, though.

        • aesthete

          If the best you can say about laws regulating morality is, “hey, sometimes they come before moral reform”, then that’s not a strong case at all. If it were a business proposal, you’d be laughed out of the room. A strong correlation between moral regulations emanating from government, and a moral society (if indeed there’s a good way to measure such) has not been found, and will not be found.

          IMO, even if the morally regulated society consistently produced external results (historically, they don’t), it would be wrong and immoral: the whole premise of Christian morality is that good deeds done on account of compulsion aren’t good at all; that goodness can only proceed from God and that choosing goodness in a real sense involves voluntary submission to God’s will — not cowardly preening before some mandarin’s idea of morality that the victim bends the knee to simply to avoid some pain. The products of the system are cowards, not moral people. Such systems infantilize people and prevent them from exercising true morality.

          • kipling

            The point of the post was not to say which came first – the law or public morality. In fact, I pointed out that the quest for the chicken or the egg answer actually distorts the dynamic.

            The point was that laws and morality go hand in hand. Sometimes the law leads and sometimes it follows.

            The two examples I provided are hardly small fish. Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education were actually major shifts in public perception of the moral issues contained in each.

          • aesthete

            Views on abortion did not change because of Roe — these attitudes had already shifted (negatively) during the 60s.

            Views on racial equality did not change on account of Brown v Board — no one said to themselves, “On the one hand, I really hate black people, but on the other hand, Felix Frankfurter!”

            You’re asserting causal relationships when you can’t even confirm linkage. A set of arbitrary events happening simultaneously is history. You can’t just grab a couple of your favorite ones, stitch them together, and claim to have a case. The “chicken and egg” question is not a side discussion — it’s the whole point, when it comes to policy. Policy X causes Effect Y, that sort of thing. You can’t just say, “morality and law are linked!”, pass a liberty-restricting law tangentially based on religious text with no perceived payoff or public interest, and call it a day, Well you can, but it’s a terrible way to govern effectively (see Iran, Republic of).

          • kipling

            You claim that views on abortion changed in the 1960s. Yet, anti-abortion laws remained the norm until they were all struck down by Roe v. Wade. If the views on abortion had changed so radically and became the majority, then why were the laws not removed? Why did the left not simply repeal the laws? Why did they opt to avoid the legislative process and target the Supreme Court?

            I recommend you read Parting the Waters and other accounts of the Civil Rights Movement. Brown v. Board came in 1954. The Civil Rights movement used the Brown decision in their movement and to advance their cause. Once again, the point is not which came first but rather the dynamic of how a social movement used the law to advance its social agenda.

          • aesthete

            Support for marijuana legalization is currently the majority view, and there is no state that has it fully legalized. Support for gay marriage is IIRC a plurality among the populace at large, and has lost votes in many more states than it had won them. Abortion is opposed by most and yet laws haven’t changed much even at the margins. I’d say that abortion laws in 1970 (see places like New York) were doing much better legislatively than in any of the cases I cite.

            As we have said several times, laws are ofttimes a lagging indicator. Voters skew older than the general population. Voters also don’t base their votes exclusively on social issues, which tend to be low priority for most voters. Democracy only rarely produces results that agree with the electorate; entrenched systems like government change only when pressed. Rarely does this change come quickly.

            In the context of governing, I don’t really care about a “dynamic” if it can’t be replicated or if it cannot be used to effect policy that is consistent and in keeping with declared goals. Are you seriously arguing that without Brown v Board, blacks in the South would still be living under Jim Crow?

          • kipling

            I asked you to support the contentions you made in the previous post. An appeal to modern examples does not make the connections you said exist with abortion and Roe v. Wade.

            Another problem with the modern examples you did give is the willingness of people to lie to pollsters.

            The nature of the legislative process is also designed to stall massive changes. 51% may currently oppose abortion but the nature of the system often stall the will of a majority in the short term.

          • aesthete

            You’re the one affirming that sentiment changed after Roe v Wade. The proof falls on the one who makes an assertion.

            Also, it’s just dirty bird to say that all polling on these subjects that disagrees with you is an example of people lying to pollsters, while (presumably) relying on polling to show that views on morality changed to whatever you are arguing for at the moment. You have no evidence that people are lying to pollsters; in the absence of other evidence, they’re the best information that we have. You can’t just throw them out the window.

            You can’t make a case — either given the trend of abortion laws in the 60s or through public polling — that an anti-abortion America suddenly shifted to loving abortion on demand after Roe v Wade was passed. All I’m doing is pointing that out.

            BTW, the system stalls the will of the majority for as long as the majority sentiment is not acted upon, or acted upon temperamentally. Americans have supported domestic drilling and opening up ANWR for decades. Still hasn’t happened.

          • kipling

            I am not arguing that all polling is wrong because it disagrees with me. I am simply stating a possibility of why polling data is not reflected in actual legislation and voting activity. The disconnect is nothing new.

            I can prove that sentiment change after Roe v. Wade. Public opinion did not favor abortion on demand prior to Roe. As proof I cite the inability of pro-abortion measures to gain traction outside of liberal enclaves. After Roe I can cite the growth in pro-abortion sentiment based upon polling on that data and the historical record of the lefts attempt to market that sentiment in a variety of ways.

            BTW, exactly the point I made previously.

          • aesthete

            Recall the zeitgeist during the 60s. See polling at the time. See intergenerational polling of abortion, where both the pre-Roe and immediately post-Roe generations are the most pro-abortion, while our current generation is the most pro-life in quite some time.

            Case not proven.

          • Viet71

            By 1963, about twenty states permitted abortion to one degree or another. The clear trend at the state level was to relax restrictions on abortion. A marked change from only 10 years earlier.

            Roe v. Wade went with the then tide, in terms of changing public view. Too bad it amended the Constitution in an undefensible way.

          • Viet71

            n/t

          • kipling

            Roe v. Wade went well beyond what most state legislatures and even Congress would have yielded at the time. Therefore, it was not a lagging indicator but rather an advance position in an ideological war. Public opinion then moved forward to that position.

            Relaxation and exceptions to anti-abortions laws is a lot different from abortion on demand and “abortion rights.”

          • JSobieski

            I think that is a great example of laws trying to enhance public morality failing miserably. To this day, binge drinking is a common on an American campus, and rare on European campus. People grow up with alcohol in France, while in the US it is an adult product.

            This is a prominent example of evidence against Kipling’s position.

          • Jack_Savage

            Just sayin’….

          • aesthete

            Prohibition just raised the costs for families with WINOs by mixing them up in the dangerous, illicit, and sometimes costly world of moonshine.

      • Viet71

        I agree the public got on board with Brown and Roe, although the public never has understood the specific holding in Roe.

        Legislative law, on the other hand, at least at the state level, always tracks the public mood.

        Courts always explain the reasons for their holdings. Legislators, for the most part, are devoid of reason.

        • kipling

          Case law heavily influences legislative law and often defines what is possible in a legislative sense. A good case in point is the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that forced the legalization of homosexual marriage by forcing the legislature to enshrine it into law.

          The point is not whether one leads the other but the dynamic coordination between the two.

          • avgjo

            On the surface, it seems that the two go hand-in-hand. That would explain the often violent reaction that Christian missionaries met with at first contact with various peoples.

            The reason I posit this is that it seems that law often fosters custom. That’s the whole idea behind the ‘Obamacare is so dangerous to America’ argument. We will become accustomed to socialized medicine, and that will make it impossible to change.

            Law also seems to provide conditions which foster morality or immorality, perhaps through changing custom. For instance, laws that gave black people equal access to schools, etc. I believe did contribute to a much better relationship between black and white, as the two groups became more familiar with each other, and each was humanized in the eyes of the other. Affirmative action laws, on the other hand, seem to provide conditions which foster sloth, envy and racism/sexism/whatever. A massive welfare state, instituted by legislation, has destroyed the black family unit and led to massive violence, abortion and various types of criminality in that community.

            Finally, it would be interesting to investigate whether people tend to conflate custom and morality. ‘It’s right because we’ve always done it this way’. If so, then law’s establishment of custom plays an even bigger role in the morality of many.

          • avgjo

            ‘…has destroyed the black family unit, WHICH led to massive violence…’

          • acat

            Changes in the customs – call them societal norms, shared morality, values, whatever – lead to changes in the laws.

            The Libs use this backwards, changing laws to generate changes in society, in part because they are fewer in number, but better organized. Making a federal case out of every little thing plays to their strength.

            Bear in mind that liberals had to destroy the black family unit – black churches made up of strong black families make for excellent social-conservatives, y’see …

            Other than that, I agree with you.

            Mew

          • avgjo

            because in many cases, yes, you’re exactly right. As for what you said about the left, that’s what they do, but it must be admitted, with some success. I guess what the two have in common is a feeling of compulsion; in the first (the one you bring up), it is compulsion by conviction/ideas/custom and in the second, it is compulsion by law. Nevertheless, it highlights an important point: that government can influence custom. From there, we can proceed with the question of whether custom influences morality; if so, it’s a transitive relationship wherein gov’t can influence morality.

          • acat

            This is one of the reasons why the founding fathers, who had a whole lot of clues, gave us a relatively *weak* government.

            The strengthening of the government is a long-term play… create a strong force, use it to bend society. Same as in any totalitarian state.

            Just building a strong government with “the right people” (or, if you prefer, “good, god-fearing bible-believing men”) is not an answer, it is a postponement of the inevitable.

            A strong government is, in and of itself, a threat to our freedom because, eventually, it will be in the paws of “the wrong people”.
            (hint: look at the oval office today)

            Mew

          • avgjo

            In terms of what we’re currently discussing, how did we go from a weak to a strong government?

          • acat

            The 1920s “New Deal” strengthened the power of D.C. far, far beyond the design restrictions…. and the 1960s consolidated that power.

            Mew

          • avgjo

            I know the timeline.

            When I wrote ‘in terms of what we’re discussing’, I meant, what do you think the bearing of morality and custom (esp. of those in office) was on the change from weak gov’t to strong, a process which really started from the beginning.

            the next time you hear someone say ‘there’s no such thing as a stupid question’, you can reply, ‘yeah, but there are stupidly phrased ones’ and you can point to mine (above post) as an example.

          • acat

            Seriously.

            The early “roaring” 1920s were a massive social upheaval, first we had the troops returning from World War One with a *much* different worldview than their fathers, and second, we had discovered manufacturing and urbanization….. this distorted and broke the social framework and, after the roar ended in a crash, left people without traditional (extended family, neighbors, church) moorings to cling to during the Great Depression … and it became very easy to replace them with government programs like the WPA.

            The 1960s were a similar social upheaval, a reaction to the 1950s excesses, which were themselves rooted in the same economic uplift cycle following World War Two… Unlike the previous cycle, though, where “the man from the government” was there to help, the 1960s and 1970s re-cast the man from the government as not trustworthy…. ironically, with the solution being either anarchy or bigger government. (need someone to watch the ones who watch the watchers ….)

            The zeitgeist, in both cases, was that – rather than recognizing there is no cavalry but us – We The People decided we needed more government to “do something”.

            And here we are again, at another social upheaval, eh?

            Mew

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Government is in the hands of the right (in our view) people it can be a horror. That is because even good people can come up with an endless series of justifications for doing what is in their own narrow interest.

            Furthermore, there is always error, acting without full knowledge, unintended consequences, and over zealous lackeys to deal with.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            is that I should be able to live my freely as my conscience would dictate as long as by doing so I don’t violate the rights of others. For example, if by living my life freely, I break into acat’s house and steal his litter box, he has every right to demand the Government protect his property rights and recover from me my ill gotten gain. Clearly, I violated acat’s rights and the government should intervene. I have trouble seeing how two adults entering into a contract with each other to protect survivor rights, can medical and tax benefits is an encroachment on my rights. Where I fear is that the left takes this argument further and then demands that the ceremony take place in a house of worship where doing so is a violation of the conscience of the people worshipping there. Anyway, that is my two cents.

          • acat

            a much more sound point for the church to fight from.

            “We’re not saying you two can’t have a union, we’re saying that this is private property and we do not grant you permission to be here as doing so would be a violation of both our property rights and our rights to religious freedom”.

            B’sides, it’d be very, very interesting to see whether the common statement that there’s no difference in the divorce rate between secular and church marriages would change once “church marriage” has a legally specific definition.

            Mew

          • kipling

            A good cultural and secular argument against abortion would be the devastation it has wrought on the black family and the black community. A similar argument can be made for the destructive nature of welfare and the elimination of the black male from the family dynamic.

            Excellent observation about the destructive nature of Obamacare. One of the main argument is that if it is allowed to stand then it will create cultural and thus economic problems.

          • avgjo

            nt

          • JSobieski

            Custom has played a large part in the development of laws. I prefer long established customs to most legislative actions.

          • Viet71

            Just asking, because sometimes you write like one, but not today.

          • kipling

            Just kidding. No, I am not a lawyer.

  • westcoastpatriette

    in his Commentaries on the Law of England (1765-1769):

    “Law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey.

    Thus when the supreme being formed the universe and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be.”

  • runner12

    The reality is that all of our laws are based on morals, whether some wish to see it or not. Their root is largely based on Judeo-Christian and/or Western Civilization culture and values.

    The current values’ wars or cultural wars, if you will, are between the morality of the Left ( yes, they have their own idealogy here) and the morality of social conservatives.

    The irony is that it is those on the Left who are trying to impose “new” moral rules and laws on society. Social conservatives, for the most part, are simply trying to protect what has been in place for centuries.

    It always puzzles me why social conservatives are falsely accused of trying to “impose” morality on others. We are only trying to protect what has been in existence ( and proved successful ) over many decades. If anything, it is the Left who does this every day. Aren’t they the ones telling us what to eat? What to drink? What to drive? Which lightbulb to use? What to believe? The list goes on and on.

    • aesthete

      go beyond that to try to force their own morality on other people.

      Think about it this way: Korea’s religious tradition is Buddhist Confucianism. Right now, ~40% of the Korean population is Christian. Do you think it would be alright for a pro-Buddhist government to come into power and smash Christian shrines, force everyone to follow the Eightfold Path, and tax people to build Buddhist stupas — just because Buddhism was the majority religion in the past, and an important cultural touchstone?

      I think it makes more sense and is better when government has a live-and-let-live policy when it comes to religion, and that it should be a neutral arbiter. It’s certainly more peaceful and productive, that’s for sure.

      • runner12

        conservatives in America who are trying to go beyond what I suggested and force their own morality on others.

        Additionally, I fail to see what religion has to do with what I said and the government/non-government intervention of it. My reference to the roots of our laws in Judeo-Christian or Western culture was simply a statement of fact. It is the historical root from which we came.

        Our Founders were an odd mix of Christians, Deists, and agnostics who were influenced by the Enlightenment, the Bible, and Western tradition. This is what our Republic and subsequently our laws reflect.

        • aesthete

          which seeks to criminalize sodomy.

          The American Family Institute, which seeks same as well as a ban on Islam, and censorship of media.

          I bring up religion because many of the justifications of socially conservative policy tend to invoke Christian imagery, tradition, and theology to make their case, because most social conservatives tend to come from a religious background, and because a significant segment of the socially conservative movement is not much more than a Christian identity politics group.

          I don’t include you as someone who is looking to ban everything that might be immoral, but unfortunately many of your fellow social conservatives are in that group. Much like the hardcore Ron Paul folk give libertarians a bad name, so too groups like AFA through their advocacy give social conservatives a bad name.

          • runner12

            claims? Specifically, for the American Family Institute. I am not familiar with this organization nor their desire to ban Islam or censor media.

            As for your broad claims regarding social conservatives, they are indeed broad. As are your sweeping generalizations of social conservatives who come from a religious background. As I am both, it is slightly offensive to hear myself and others like me be so mischaracterized. Most of the social conservatives I know are nothing like your portrayal.

            As for the anti-sodomy platform, it could be argued that those individuals seek to protect what once was law in this country until the Supreme Court decided otherwise. I am not going to argue the merits of that position, because that is not my point. But it does play into the narrative that social conservatives are more on the defensive, not offensive when it comes to the cultural wars.

          • kipling

            Islam is a religious/political philosophy. Sharia law and many of its components should be banned from the United States.

          • gekster

            Anything related to Islam should be banned from any law.
            Sharia is religeous law, and I never here seperation of church from state declaired.
            Does this mean there is no seperation of mosque and state.
            I don’t think so.

          • kipling

            The separation of church and state is a Jewish / Christian concept. Ancient Israel separated the two offices – as did Jesus and Paul. However, both church and state are under the authority of God and cannot be separated from Him without becoming a perversion of what they were intended to be.

            Islam recognizes no such distinction.

          • gekster

            So what you are sayng is that Islam is not a religeon and should be implied in law.
            You have to be right so much you have now attained the status of maroon.
            (and you ain’t even worth the vid)
            (Holy Heaven you can be so stupid just so you can be right)

          • kipling

            What I said is that Islam has a political component and does not recognize a separation of church and state. For example, Sharia law forces the subjugation of women and condones honor killings. Should those be tolerated under the free exercise of religion?

            It is not a question of being right. I simply made a statement. I would not have made it if I thought it was wrong.

            The separation of church and state is a valid concept and one that can be found in Scripture. If I am wrong then prove otherwise.

            The left has distorted the separation of church and state since the 1940s. See Philip Hamburger’s “Separation of Church and State” to see how the concept has evolved since Jefferson’s letter. The left does not merely want to separate church and state. They want to separate God from the state.

          • gekster

            it is a status you have earned.
            When you point out the obvious, it isn’t calling a name.
            Get over yourself, you are not that important.
            And always having to be right doesn’t help you.
            Here’s a name I will call you.
            Idiot.

          • kipling

            When you want to demonstrate where I am wrong in what I posted about the separation of church and state, I am ready to discuss the matter.

            However, like a coward, you choose not to discuss the issue but to instead resort to name calling. You do so safely behind your computer screen. When you feel up to calling names in person, let me know. Until then go look up some recipes.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            kipling is an ally.
            gekster is an ally.
            acat is an ally.
            etc.

            I’m not going to ask you to hold hands and sing, but I’m going to ask you at least lay off each other.

          • gekster

            But I don’t have to sing in harmony, if it’s ok with you. ;)

            I get it.
            I am an a** sometimes, but I (I can’t say anything to make it better, so i won’t)

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            .

          • acat

            so I’ll let Sly do the singing.. .. I’ll just stay civil.

            Mew

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Like I said, I’m not going to ask you to make friends. This isn’t kindergarten.

            I am just asking you to lay off of each other.

          • kipling

            TR

          • aesthete

            None of the Five Pillars of Islam are violent. There is no reason for the core tenets of Islam to be banned.

            And indeed, “Sharia” (a legal system, not a set of actions) should not be banned; it simply should not be enforced by US courts. Simple as that.

          • gekster

            Basically it says,
            “join or you die, quit and you die, bow down to us or you die”.
            Perfect definition of a cult.
            And before you say it, no, not all muslims adhear to this, but it is only a matter of time.
            Just ask the Coptics in Egypt how religious freedom is working for them.

          • commonsenseobserver

            So many cults are like that, but we don’t ban their believes. We can’t ban religions. We can enforce laws that prevent their free exercise of religion from harming other people’s rights to life, liberty and property.

          • gekster

            Islam is a religeon, and as such sharia law should not be incorperated in American law.
            Think abortion and Catholic law.
            It isn’t hard to understand.

          • Dave_A

            Those who claim there is, either are ignorant of the difference between voluntary arbitration and actual law….

            Or they are well aware & are lying to puff up an imaginary ‘threat’…

            [b]Supposed ‘Sharia Courts’ are simply another manifestation of a common behavior in immigrant-cultures:[/b] The use of unofficial community processes to resolve disputes [b]outside the host nation’s legal system[/b].

            In the modern era, such actions can be given legally-enforceable effect through contract law – SO LONG as the actions being contracted do not violate existent criminal or civil law.

            Contrary to the fearmongers, there are no actual ‘Sharia Courts’ in the UK or here… Nor can the informal arbitrators rule in cases that violate actual written law, or excuse illegal behaviors…

            The other common ‘evidence’ used to push fear of ‘Sharia in the West’ is the case where some liberal bleeding-heart judge let an Islamic wife-beater off because of ‘cultural issues’.

            That’s not ‘Sharia Law’ nor would any of the proposed anti-sharia measures do anything about it… That’s a leftie judge with a soft-spot for criminals – someone who probably let addicts off because ‘they couldn’t help it’, and so on… The solution is to vote him out, not pass laws that violate the 1st and 14th Amendments.

          • kipling

            Shariah: The Threat to America is very enlightening on the subject.

          • gekster

            from:
            http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/

            excerpt:
            According to the court record, the man

          • kipling

            nt

          • Dave_A

            Liberal judges pull that crap all the time – over everything from race, to culture, to addiction…

            The problem is the liberal judge & his willingness to excuse crime. The Islamophobes (and I say this as someone who’s actually traded bullets with real live Islamic bad-guys, so I’m not denying that those folks exist) focus on ‘Islam’, and ignore the real problem….

            There is no threat of Islamic law ‘trumping US law’….

            The threat of liberal judges issuing whack-job rulings? We’ve been suffering from that for years (conscience of international law (Lawrence v TX), ‘Penumbra of the 14th’, Slaughterhouse, etc)…

          • gekster

            It seams to suit you.
            I have my eyes wide open, and can se the facts.
            If you want to stay ignorant of the facts, thats your problem.

          • JSobieski

            as frequently in the past as now occurs in the present.

            You are a sophisticated person, so you know exactly what the “Sharia courts” folks are talking about. It is about an increasing bending over backwards in the West . . . giving Islam an almost favored status. The most recent news story that comes to mind is the mandatory Arabic classes being required in a public school. Hopefull the story isn’t true, but the story is out there.

            There is a creeping phenomenon in the courts and government that perfectly reasonable people can be concerned about.

            Bringing Sharia concepts into a divorce case is not something that should happen. An agreement to handle a family law issue using Sharia concepts should be treated as a badly written pre-nuptual agreement. The subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) coercion in those cases is itself reason for concern.

            So no, there aren’t “Sharia courts” coming any time soon, but it wasn’t that long ago when I had never even heard the word Sharia in a legal context, and now you can read about a judicial jihad happening very gradually in our court system.

            Yes I take that Muslim Brotherhood memo that was uncovered during the Holy Land Foundation case very seriously. You may not, and that is your choice.

          • Dave_A

            There are way, way too many people to turn our battle against jihadisim into another Crusade – a war of all Westerners vs all Muslims…

            The reality, is that every single immigrant group brings their culture and their legal system with them & tends to maintain as much of that as is possible via informal community proceedings. It eventually fades after a few generations, and it’s not a problem over-all, staying confined to the immigrant community & never holding force of law – just force of peer pressure & in the case of those things that can be contracted, force of contract.

            We’ve seen it with Italian immigrants, Jewish immigrants, Chinese, and Koreans. Muslims are no different.

            The fact that some bleeding-heart lets his ‘everyone’s a victim except real victims’ garbage in the way, doesn’t justify the ‘crusade’ viewpoint at all…

          • JSobieski

            It certainly creates for suicide bombers than any other religion or political ideology in the modern era.

            One of the reasons why I call myself a social conservative is that I understand ultimately that culture is more important than law, and what people believe in terms of theology can trump everything else about them.

            There are several MB-offshoot groups operating in the US. They have expressed a desire to destroy us from within. Looking to Europe, they seem to be doing pretty well in their efforts there.

            All people are entitled to same rights, but it is folly to think that all ideas or all belief systems are equal in terms of efficacy, general morality, or public peace.

            Put another way if religion is just a matter of irrelevant choice like the color the grout in a 2nd bathroom, why care about religion at all?

            Ideas matter. Beliefs matter. A Muslim Brotherhood advocate comes to the US in a way that is different from the Irishman, the Italian, or even the illegal Mexican.

          • Dave_A

            But they MUST be seen as equal in the eyes of the US government & courts… The Constitution requires it.

            Because if you can ban all or part of Islam you can do the same to Christianity – and there are enough militant athiest liberals to make that a legitimate threat…

            As for the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’, they are fundamentalists & radicals, but generally not a problem for anyone outside their home countries. And honestly, I’d rather see the MB running Syria than the Tehran-allied Alawites….

            Because Iran actually IS an enemy of the US.

          • JSobieski

            You aren’t familiar with the Muslim Brotherhood memo that popped up in the US?

          • gekster

            Do a search on “islam in judicial rulings”.
            You get 6,290,000 results.
            Read some of them and be enlightened.
            And when you don’t know what you are talking about, don;t talk.
            Just some friendly advice.

          • Dave_A

            As all of the cases fall into 2 categories:

            Legitimate arbitration

            -or-

            Bleeding Heart judge ignores US law to follow his liberal beliefs.

            You see Islam as the threat/problem.

            I see liberalisim as the problem/threat – and Sharia as a canard/irrelevancy. The same judge who will say ‘He didn’t know he couldn’t rape his wife’ will excuse any other criminality he can, due to the belief that criminals are ‘victims of the system’.

          • gekster

            As opposed to you not convertimg to Islam.
            Freedom of religeon, as long as it’s thier religeon.
            Got it.

          • acat

            We have a long history of forcing religions to bend to the will of the government, I’d like to know specifically what you want to axe?

            Mew

          • gekster

            It is not about banning anything per se, but it is about applying the American laws on the books without any consideration of any religeous laws.
            If the American law parralels a religeous law, so be it.
            But when a judge considers the religeous law over the American law, to me that is wrong.

            It seams more and more judges are considering sharia law when a plaintif or defendent brings them up, and again, to me that is wrong.

            I guess the easiest example, or scenario I could give is a judge comsidering religeous law when it comes to abortion.
            In those cases I think we would here the loudest about seperation of church and state.

            The simplest I could reiterate this is that no religeous law should ever be considered in an American courtroom.

          • Dave_A

            Because when we let ONE religion be regulated, we open the door for ALL religions to be regulated…

            And given the constant assault the ACLU & other liberal groups mount on Christianity (my faith) I don’t want to give the lefties more ammo to purge God from American society… Which means I have to defend the rights of a religion I consider theologically false, in order to protect my own…

            As for the various crimes you keep citing – We don’t need ‘more laws’ against murder, rape, mutilation and assault. All of these are already illegal & I personally don’t care why a criminal commits a crime, only that it has been committed & harsh punishment is due.

            If you murdered your sister because she stole all your money, or because she has a non-Muslim boyfriend – you’re a murderer, and you should die at the hands of the state.

            If you beat your wife because she told you ‘Kiss my A**’ when you came home drunk, or because she didn’t wear a veil – you’re a wife beater either way – and we should throw you in jail for a nice long time…

            Etc…

            All of these are crimes already illegal..

            The rest of their beliefs? They have as much a right to practice them as I do mine, within the established framework of US law…

            Including the right to sign a contract saying that they will resolve civil differences (that do not involve violation of secular criminal law) in via an arbitrator who utilizes ‘sharia’ if they so wish – and have the US civil courts enforce that contract just like any other…

          • gekster

            I’ll say this only once.
            The courts should stick to American law, and NO religeous law should ever be considered in a courtroom.
            It has nothing to do with stifleing any religeous freedom at all.
            You willl have to show me wher I ever implied that.

          • Dave_A

            You are violating free-exercise of religion.

            Period.

            If the contract is coerced, secular law voids it without discriminating…

            If the contract is unconscionable or illegal, secular law also voids it…

            But if those (or any of the other defenses to an allegation of breach of contract) are not the case…

            Then the US courts should respect the individual freedom of the parties who voluntarily contracted, and require compliance with the contract.

            Period.

            Irrational fear of ‘creeping sharia’ has no place in US law or US courtrooms…

            A universal ban on judges considering foreign law outside of law-clause contract cases is an acceptable solution to the problem you see – however it WILL NOT WORK because liberal judges will ignore it just like they ignore common criminal law to favor ‘poor victim’ criminal defendants…

            MORE LAWS are NOT the solution…

          • gekster

            I am done with the subject.
            Reading comprehension homer, reading comprehension.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            The threat of socialist radicalism, and its magnitude, in no way influence how much of a threat something else can or can’t be.

          • checkmate2012

            and always will rule to their slant. More research will be req’d to be certain of that as a fact.

            I still take issue with all your wisdom that Sharia is ok with contract law. I’m fine with anyone in a court stating the facts that someone broke a contract, but just don’t use sharia as the basis. Use our law terms and the results could be the same. If not, there in lies the problem to make something up that doesn’t aplply here.

          • Dave_A

            The way the whole ‘Sharia Court’ thing works, from a western legal perspective, is that when someone who signed a contract with an agreement to take their disputes before the mullah (or whatever) balks on it (or defies the ruling), they can be sued in secular court for SECULAR breach of contract…

            The secular court doesn’t apply religious law, but rather determines weather the defendant is in violation of secular contract law – specifically the provision in the voluntary secular contract that states how disputes would be resolved.

            The only other way there can be ‘Sharia’ influence on secular law, is if a loony-left judge does it by bench-legislating… But that is a universal threat we’ve faced for all time – and it’s just as dangerous if they ‘legislate’ European law as if they legislate Sharia…

            While I oppose any law that singles out religeous groups or immigrants for discrimination, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT a law or constitutional ammendment declaring that the trial and appeals Courts of (the United States, or ‘The State of ‘ shall rule only according to the law of the United States (and if state law, the law of the state of ) and shall not consider the dictates or provisions of any foreign law or culture in determining matters of fact or law, unless the matter is one of contract and the foreign provisions were agreed to freely by all parties involved

            The above prevents any foreign law from being considered – not just ‘Sharia’ – it would invalidate Lawrence v Texas, it would prevent the EU Constitution’s declaration of health-care as a ‘right’ from being imposed on Americans, and so on…

            But most of all, it would respect the 1st and 14th Amendments – it would treat all Americans EQUALLY under the law.

          • civil truth

            as well as consent.

            For instance, to adjudicate a dispute between a man and a women under sharia, when men and women do not have equal rights, would violate that principle.

            And one has to look carefully at what duress is being placed upon the parties from family and religious leaders.

            However, most of the controversy over sharia creep has to do with the efforts of Muslims to bind non-Muslims to the constraints of sharia. In other words, efforts to expand sharia into the public sector at the expense of limiting the rights of others.

            The other issue is that Christianity recognizes a realm where Caesar has authority. Sharia does not, which means that vigilance is needed to protect the boundaries.

          • checkmate2012

            isn’t it sad that we should even have to discuss what you proposed in your end comments. I’m not willing to look up case law as I’m not a lawyer but know that rogue judges have decidely badly in our country already and will leave it at that..

            I’m ready to move on to more fun topics like O’s very very bad day :)

          • Dave_A

            Obama served the GOP a softball today, and allows *US* to paint HIM as an out-of-touch elitist…

            Which of course is what he wanted to do with Romney….

            Irony is enjoyable…

          • checkmate2012

            I think O was playing T ball with the pee-wee league- lol!

          • Dave_A

            The male/female thing is irrelevant when dealing with the contract law situation…

            If two people VOLUNTARILY contract to something that ‘isn’t fair’ for one party, then too bad, so sad, don’t come running to the courts asking for a do-over.

            It is not the job of the courts to let someone out of a contract, because they suddenly realize that the terms are unfavorable. Which makes the ‘Sharia says XYZ about women’ thing irrelevant – If a woman doesn’t want to be bound to sharia arbitration, she shouldn’t have sign a contract agreeing to it, and if she did she deserves to be held to it…

            IF she was coerced, then that voids the contract – no new laws needed… If the contract requires her to submit to violence, sexual abuse, or death it’s an unconscionable contract AND a contract requiring illegal activities – void on TWO counts.

            As for ‘binding non-Muslims to Sharia’ well, once again the only way anyone can be ‘bound’ to anything in this realm is if they sign a contract agreeing to it…

            We do NOT need more laws on the subject, and this is NOT a problem.

          • civil truth

            But I think that Sharia contracts should be only valid within the Muslim community and enforced by community sanctions (within the limits of legality).

            If a party appeals to the secular civil courts, then secular laws apply. That’s the risk of a sharia contact, but of course, the party who appeals may face community sanctions for going outside sharia.

            In other words, the religious community enforces contracts entered into under its religious laws, and the secular courts enforce our public laws. But the secular courts are not in the business of enforcing sharia contracts.

            My last two paragraphs were not referring to civil contracts, but rather referring to ongoing efforts to employ courts to impose sharia standards on non-Muslims under penalty of court sanctions.

          • checkmate2012

            and a man here in TX killed his two daughters and fled. When OK tried to amend their State Constitution to say no sharia law will ever be applicable, they were sued. Other courts have actually said it was a defense in the U.S. of A.

            Why is that ok but the left and CAIR diss every cross or any symbol of Christianty in our country? Give them inch and they’ll take a mile…just like the Left (their major supporters).

          • aesthete

            I’m in favor of abiding by our Constitution, and not locking them up for praying to Allah 5 times a day, for going on the Hajj, for almsgiving, for making an Islamic confession of faith, or for fasting during Ramadan.

            There’s a difference here that conservatives would be wise to note.

          • checkmate2012

            try to change our laws or infiltrate the general fabric of our nation…which they are trying to do. Just look at Europe for an example and the law suits they bring to force their will.

            An inch is a mile and I’m not going to be blinded by their goals or the 1000+ year history of erecting mosques on top of the churches they destroyed. They tried to force their will with their 9/11 mosque overlooking ground zero. If they respected our country and laws, as well as what we consider sacred ground, they would have done a mea culpa immediately but instead went to the court to force their issue.

            We can be glad for unions in this case as the builders etc. said they would not work to build it. Practicing is one thing but shoving their faith down our mostly Christian country or even non-denominational followers is another.

          • kipling

            In the example gekster provided, the imam testified that Islam permitted spousal rape and that the woman could not deny her husband.

          • aesthete

            Every religion is sanction to following our legal code.

            Jews can’t organize a stoning for adulterers.

            Christians can’t

            Hindus can’t burn their still-alive brides on their funeral pyres.

            That’s no good reason to ban non-violent religious practices — and certainly no Constitutional case to wholesale ban a religion which was mentioned specifically as being protected by many of the Founders.

          • kipling

            &

          • aesthete

            by saying that we won’t allow Jews to stone adulterers? I wouldn’t put it that way.

            Certainly, neither I nor the AFA are referring to those universally acknowledged restrictions for all people (regardless of their religion) when we’re talking about a “ban on Islam”. We are instead talking about clearly non-violent acts (wearing burqas, building mosques, adhering to the Five Pillars) and whether they should be banned. I say no; AFA says yes.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            We used to make people renounce anarchist and Communist over throw of America. We used to *bar* anarchists and Communists.

            We need to get back to that.

          • aesthete

            Citizens have certain rights and obligations that immigrants don’t, plain and simple. If a citizen wants to be a Communist or a Muslim, that’s their choice and it’s protected by the Constitution. Same isn’t true for immigrants. All that to say, I don’t have a problem with your idea, but I don’t think it will be terribly effective at preventing committed terrorists/stealth Islamists from coming in, either.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            If you believe being a Communist means working to overthrow our government, no, you don’t have that right.

            If you believe being a Muslim means working to slaughter the infidel, no, you don’t have that right.

          • aesthete

            You have the right to believe those things, just as you have the right to believe that any number of your citizens are going to hell, that Al-Qaeda killing MPs in Iraq is moral act, that capitalists should be rounded up and slaughtered, and that killing state officials in the service of anarchy is acceptable.

            You can even write books philosophizing about such things — the First gives you that right.

            What you can’t do is act on those beliefs.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            We were talking about whether you have a right to *be* a Communist, if you believe being a Communist means revolution.

            You can *think* that, but you can’t be it.

          • aesthete

            I think we can agree that Marx was a Communist, even though he never perpetrated violence.

            If we can’t agree that “Marx is Communist” is a perfectly true and correct statement (especially on a colloquial board), then feel free to have a semantic victory. May you enjoy it in perpetuity.

          • checkmate2012

            the Preamble before they could get a voter registration card. I know as my mom was raised in Omaha and is 76 years old now. We could at least demand a bit more from our immigrants, blessed as they are in most cases.

          • JSobieski

            Meanwhile, read a newspaper from Pakistan (there is a prominent one published in English that you can access online). Look what the “moderates” in Egypt say about religious freedom or what Sharia means.

            Frankly, so many concepts in Sharia are banned—-killing apostates for one, killing those who dishoner the family, killing adulterers, killing those who wont submit or pay the tax, killing those who blaspheme, etc.

            This 100% one way or the other is silly.

            We aren’t going to ban any religion per se, we ban practices.

            However, the implied equivalency of Judaism and Islam is silly. It is an equality that exists only under law . . and only with respect to what people think in their heads . . . not what they do.

            If modern living means that we have go around believing that all ideas are equal, that all beliefs are equally valid, etc . . . . we won’t have modern living for much longer.

          • aesthete

            I’m trying to show how *not* allowing people to get away with murder, rape, and violence (bans on practices which apply to everyone) isn’t equivalent to a general ban on a religion.

            I agree with you that holding all religions, philosophies, and beliefs as equally valid is wrong. I just think that the marketplace of ideas is the appropriate way to deal with such issues, and that dealing with political or religiously-motivated violence is a different issue which does not constitute a ban, so long as we’re dealing directly with the threat at hand and not the religion in general wrt the laws that we craft.

          • JSobieski

            However, I am aware of honor killings (both here and elsewhere), people sentenced to death for apostasy (elsewhere), people relying on Sharia concepts as defenses (both here and elsewhere).

            Dismissing the issue of hand (rather than dismissing the proposed remedy) is what I object to.

            of course we disagree as to how much of an issue it is. I agree with Mr. Steyn on this one–demographics is destiny. Lebanon used to be a great place to live in the ME.

          • Dave_A

            Because they are already illegal.

            The rationale you are using is the SAME ONE the Dems use to justify ‘Hate Crimes’ laws (as if it matters weather you did the crime because you hate the victim, or because you wanted his money, or because he flipped you off in traffic)….

            So what if an Imam testified that ‘he didn’t know better’;…

            We’ve had a murderer get an expert to testify that his client was ‘legally insane’ because he ate a Twinkie a little bit before the murder (Call it the ‘Bloomberg Defense’ – ‘Sugar made me do it’)… That doesn’t mean we need an anti-twinkie-defense law…

            One of the facets of the US legal system, is that – in the name of preserving the ‘rights of the accused’ – we generally allow our criminal defendants to make complete asses of themselves in court, by presenting ridiculous defenses…

            We don’t need to ban the ‘Sharia defense’ any more than we need to ban the ‘Twinkie Defense’ or any of the other nut-ball things you’ve seen or heard lawyers present to try and save a doomed client from a well-earned punishment…

          • JSobieski

            Because of the culture of the violent actor, we have to understand that the shame they felt was so visceral that he just snapped . . . .etc.

            I agree that banning non-violent practices is silly, but you have to admit that when you take out the violence from the Koran, you are talking a much thinner book.

          • aesthete

            but that’s their problem, not mine.

            I don’t think we should be irrationally accommodating, and we shouldn’t adapt our laws to cater to their barbarism.

            I also don’t think we should subvert our religious freedoms for the sake of a pointless (and frankly, truly offensive and liberty-destroying) “victory” over Islam.

          • gekster

            the killing of the daughters, although US or state law would not.
            That anyone would not adhear to the seperation of church and state in that particular instance would be insane or a Democrat.

          • Dave_A

            Allowing two people who signed a voluntary contract, have their mullah resolve their business dispute does NOT weaken our criminal law…

            It also does NOT weaken the rights of the parties to challenge the contract under all the normal secular defenses to breach-of-contract.

            Murder is already illegal, and as pointed out above our legal system allows for nutzo ‘defenses’ claiming mitigating circumstances – we trust our juries to have the common sense to say ‘Sorry, don’t buy it… Smile, wait for thrown book..’

            You simply cannot single out Islam for bans or ‘special’ laws without torpedoing the Constitution – specifically the 1st Ammendment, and the 14th, and the rights of the accused to the defense of their choice…

            The Constitution is more important than symbolically slapping Islam in the face…

          • gekster

            I’m done after this.
            No religeous law, Jewish, Christian, Buhdist, Sharia, or any other thing you can think of, should be used in American courts.
            If an American law happens to parrallel or mirror a religeous law, so be it.
            The thing I originaly was pointing out is that some courts are even considering sharia law, and that in itself is wrong.
            I am now done with this particular subject.

          • checkmate2012

            From someone who seems to tolerate freedom, that’s just wrong and sick, and why it can’t invade our justice system.

          • aesthete

            Of course not!

            I just don’t think that ruling had anything to do with a ban on Islam in general.

          • Dave_A

            It’s the judge who made it…

            Judicial activisim is wrong regardless of motivation…

            Just like murder is wrong regardless of motivation…

            If you want to reign in bleeding-heart judges, ban consideration of ALL foreign law (and in that regard, Euro law is actually more of a threat, because it brings with it ‘rights’ to all kinds of socialist handouts) in US courts, unless the case is a contract case with a choice-of-law provision specifying foreign law…

          • kipling

            I can only follow those blasted lines so far.

            If the question is directed at me, the answer is no. I do not support that court ruling.

          • checkmate2012

            very hard to follow indeed.

          • acat

            is how to separate the religious aspects of Islam from the legal aspects.

            Islam is both a religion and a legal system … and while I have no particular argument with the religion, we’d be best off without the legal….

            This, though, puts us into an interesting position – who’s wielding the axe to split the two?

            Mew

          • aesthete

            You can practice your religion.

            You can’t enforce it in the courts.

            How Muslims respond to that is their problem, until they make it my problem — at which point, they get to see what exactly we have our nice courts and prisons for, if not to enforce the dictats of an authoritarian theocracy.

            There are lots of complex problems in this world. Our approach to religious liberties may result in complexities, but application should nonetheless be straightforward.

            FWIW, I have no problems with an Oklahoma-like ban on Sharia use and precedent in our courts (though I think such bans should be worded more tightly to allow for arbitration in civil disputes if both parties voluntarily sign off on it).

          • acat

            (null)

          • Dave_A

            And if 2 people want to contract that they will resolve civil disputes according to Sharia, or the laws of Middle Earth, or whatever, that is their RIGHT.

            There’s a fine line between knowing your enemy (Islamist Terrorists), and actual Islamophobia.

            There is nothing inherently dangerous to American society about Islam, and even if there was, we still can’t ban it…

            To contrast, Communism actually IS a threat to our society, yet it is absolutely legal to be a Communist, to advocate for Communism, or create your own private communistic society on private property – just as long as you don’t take up arms against the US or give aid & comfort to her enemies.

            That’s the way it needs to stay!

          • checkmate2012

            will give you the utmost respect that you have better knowledge than most of us. You have seen the good in people regardless of their religion, and you defended their freedom which included their religion.

            I believe everyone should be able to practice their faith no matter what, and it they have a private arrangement based on sharia law, fine.

            But if a dispute enters the US justice system, sharia law should never be applied, no matter what. But it has, as we’ve seen horrible cases and it has no place in our country in our courts. They can pray all they want, where they want, and I don’t ever want to change that. Just don’t let it creep into our system of law.

          • Dave_A

            And in the case of a breach-of-contract, the language of the contract should be enforced by our courts – to include any agreement to respect Sharia arbitration if such an agreement is in the contract.

            The defendant in the breach of contract suit is free to argue coercion, or any other defense to breach-of-contract would operate under US law… But if the contract is found to be valid than US courts should absolutely enforce it under the agreed-to terms.

            In other cases, there’s simply no nexus to allow US courts to consider ‘Sharia’ in their rulings. Contract law is the only way, and that is a perfectly legitimate use.

            As for my experience: There are some very evil men who follow Islam, and they are best dealt with using large-caliber machinegun fire, or field artillery if you can get a sign-off…

            There are also some very good men who follow Islam over there – who happen to be instrumental in our fight against the evil ones…

            So that’s why I’m opposed to action against ‘All Muslims’ – because that actually hurts our cause among the good ones, and plays right into the propaganda of the enemy…

            You see, while we say ‘We are not at war with Islam’, the enemy works day and night to convince the world’s Muslims that we ARE at war with Islam – and thus create a ‘You may not agree with us, but we are the only ones who can protect you’ scenario…

            It’s their main propaganda campaign (America is at war with you weather you want them to be or not, so join us)….

            We have to deny them that.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            The President would have to ignore the law and the Constitution!

          • lineholder

            !

          • checkmate2012

            with Islam, but think our best bet to eliminate sharia creep into our system is to not allow a contract based on sharia, period. Come back another day when it fits our legal definitions and the court can settle a dispute accordingly.

            I heard some talking head recently say that Bush should never have use the words, “war on terror” meaning he should have actually used the words “war on radical jihads”. Made sense to me.

          • gekster

            He totally ignores the lefty rant about seperation of church and state,
            So I guess it is ok to infringe on church and state when it is Islamic law, as opposed to Catholic or jewish law, which is just as valid under his assumptions.

          • Dave_A

            If 2 people voluntarily want their dispute settled by their Imam (or priest, or rabbi) and voluntarily sign a secular contract that says they desire this….

            Then that contract is binding under secular law, and the secular courts should enforce it – so long as it stands up to any secular challenge (contracts can’t be unconsicionable, require illegal actions, coerced. and so on)…

            Our contract law prevents this small, small area from being abused – any contract that required violation of US secular law is void and unenforceable… Any contract that is coerced is unenforceable…

            The system works just fine as it is…

            All of the things you talk about, that you are ‘concerned’ will ‘creep’ into the US legal system are ALREADY STOPPED BY OUR SECULAR CONTRACT LAW – eg, an arbitration contract can’t require stoning, or amputation, nor can it impose unconscionable requirements, or be entered into under coercion.

            All of the ‘bad-ness’ of the Sharia legal system is further stopped by our criminal law.

            Jury nullifaction, and judges ignoring the law do not create a problem that can be solved by a NEW law – any judge or jury that won’t follow the law we have now, will blow off your ‘Sharia ban’ too… That’s why it’s called IGNORING THE LAW…

            It’s about FREEDOM. Not about Islam.

            We do not need MORE laws against things already dealt with properly by existing ones!

          • runner12

            I tried to Google American Family Institute and found no such organization to exist. I found the Institute for the American Family and upon a brief glance over their public policy statements I found nothing like you described.

          • runner12

            I think you were referring to the American Family Association. Upon looking them up on the Internet, they appear to be the ones you are referring to.

            I think your blanket statement regarding them is a bit overreaching. According to their website, they do not support censorship. But it seems they are active in expressing when they feel that something is being aired to children and/or families they do not like. This is their right under the First Amendment and they have a right to boycott or pressure an organization to drop the programming. From what I read, what they have been opposed to in the past has been pretty outrageous and would draw the ire of even non-religious folk. No where that I could find did they support laws to censor material.

            With regard to Islam, it appears that here is where your claims may have more merit. Apparently, from their FAQ section on their website there appears to be disagreement among those affiliated with them. One guy may be closer to the views you claimed, but the organization as a whole supports Jefferson’s view of freedom of religion.

            For more info, you can look up the organization on the Internet.

          • aesthete

            I was indeed referring to the AFA.

            The only reason that I know about the organization and its positions are because I was subscribed to their emails for a couple of years. They absolutely support censorship of certain books and strict media control (not good, and not “defensive”) alongside filtering technology (perfectly acceptable). They have endorsed certain candidates for the FCC based on their desire to use the discretionary power of government to enforce such codes, and have spoken fondly of the Hays Code (a censorship regime in place from the 30s to the 60s). I don’t oppose advocacy. I do oppose censorship, no matter who it’s coming from. More to the point, whether one supports censorship or not, it clearly goes beyond “defensiveness”, and ventures into social engineering — the logic of censorship is that it protects the person who is being censored from him or herself or that it protects society from such anti-socials, in the same way that gun bans are supposedly meant to protect either the individual from hurting himself with a gun or from inflicting his anti-social desires on the rest of society. Surely you can see why some people would not consider this “defensive”?

            As far as Islam goes, if I get an email from their site telling me that we can ban mosques and Islam because it’s not protected by the First? Then I don’t care how much disagreement there is between the founders; if there was truly disagreement, then they should have either made that clear (either by sending out an email with the alternate point of view or by putting in a disclaimer), or by not letting the original email get sent out to their subscribers using their letterhead and imprimatur.

          • runner12

            were not well-received by other social conservatives, especially those who are more for small government. Those two issues must have raised more than your eyebrows, as both were addressed in their FAQ section. When something makes the FAQ section of that nature, there is bound to have been some controversy over it.

            All that I saw was based off of their website and how they describe themselves.
            They may have done an about-face somewhat on the censorship issue since you received e-mails. The Obama administration may have given them a wake-up call that people will abuse power in anyway and that you do not want to go around giving the Feds the right to censor anything. In the age of technology, we can choose to filter out most of the garbage that is out there. Although something needs to be done about the salacious commercials. One cannot watch a football game with their kids anymore without being expose to inappropriate content.

            I will agree that the section on Islam appeared more like “riding the fence” to me. Basically they stated both positions and that one of their prominent guys or person they are affiliated with takes the view you described, while they take the other.

          • aesthete

            and as I said, I haven’t kept up with AFA since I unsubscribed. I simply wanted to point out one prominent example of trends that I think are unhealthy in the socially conservative movement, and which could cause others to see or cast other social conservatives in a bad light (somewhat unfairly for the most part, IMO).

            Many social conservatives don’t know what’s being done in their name in DC or state capitals. I wish they did.

          • aesthete

            On Islam:

            Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America[...]

            Muslims cannot claim religious freedom protections under the First Amendment.

            On homosexuality (video below):

            By the time of the founding until the late 20th century, homosexual activity was a felony offense in the United States of America. There is no reason why it cannot be a criminal offense once again. Absolutely none.

            On censorship:

            Couldn’t find a direct quote for this one in the 0.5 seconds I looked on Google, but I do remember getting emails from them looking to ban certain books, and which were generally supportive of government controls on what could be aired on television.

            Here’s the Texas Republican Party platform cite (look on p 14):

            We oppose the legalization of sodomy.

            Such language can be found in many state platforms, btw.

            AFA is (or was; don’t pay too much attention to them anymore) the second-largest socially conservative PAC after Focus on the Family. I was subscribed to them for a while due to my involvement in a tangentially-related pro-life group, until I finally unsubscribed.

            I would say that most social conservatives do not sign on to this — like most libertarians, conservatives, liberals, moderates, etc., most social conservatives are largely ignorant of the process and players, and tune out after voting. This is a fairly serious problem for established players, though — and it loses social conservatives many allies which they would otherwise have.

          • Dave_A

            They go way, way too far…

            I have quite a bit less issues with ‘Focus on the Family’, but their issues are not the primary focus of my political beliefs (I’m several-times more ‘hawk’ and ‘economics’ motivated (Monetarist, not Austrian of course))….

    • lineholder

      It always get heated. Where both sides are in agreement is that neither wants an oppressive form of government.

      One sides sees the potential for an extreme implementation of Judeo-Christian principles (particularly the more rigid Old Testament legal structure) as being dangerous (think Sharia law on steroids in the hands of an unscrupulous government)

      The other side the sees the danger of rule of law being replaced by the rule of man (with usurpation of God as the ultimate authority and extraordinarily low moral and ethical values being enforced)

      I got involved in last time around, but I think I’m going to sit this one out.

      But you’re correct in stipulating that it is Judeo-Christian values were included in the rule of law and the American Constitution. And you’re correct in saying that what most Christians who are also Conservatives would prefer is to see those value protected and preserved.

      • JSobieski

        I subscribe to the theory that the purpose of government is to protect individual liberty—–on a long term basis.

        Most people at RedState would agree with the following:
        (1) Murder is a sin, but it is also something that should be illegal
        (2) Greed is a sin, but we agree that don’t want to pass laws requiring rich to give money to the poor.

        So then the questions become:
        How do we draw the line?
        Where do we draw the line?

        These questions are difficult to answer in a systematic way. Which is why far more people will write diaries addressing points not in serious contention to avoid having to address the difficult questions.

        An open-ended invocation to enshrine moral beliefs into law without a corresponding limit (i.e. line drawing) will always generate intense feedback from people who are about public policy.

        If someone argues that no morality should be enshrined in law, I would argue 100% against that person.

        If someone that all morality should be ensrhined in law, I would argue 100% against that person.

        Defining where you rights end and my rights begin is THE question in a government of individual rights and a republican form of government.

        So the reason why these intense arguments pop up is that the side aggressively pushing the law-morality synergy refuse to tell us who far along they would push.

        Ban alcohol? gambling? no fault divorce? gluttony?

        As the recent NYC actions show, at some point nanny statism is nanny statism regardless of whether it is from the right or from the left.

        If Bloomberg justified the attack on sugar snacks/drinks using the theological construct of sin, would Kipling agree with the mayor? We don’t know because Kipling won’t say.

        After all, if law can be used to shape morality, isn’t reducing sin a good thing? Maybe everyone should do community “volunteer” work while they are in high school? Maybe everybody should “give to the poor” since there is a strong scriptural basis for doing so.

        If the Old Testament is fair game for moral direction, why don’t we stone adulterers?

        The only way to evaluate an idea is by pushing it, stretching it, and seeing how far you can take it. Diaries like this one pop up every so often, and the result is pretty much the same—nobody actually wants to propose a systematic approach to the line drawing.

        • lineholder

          That’s more or less the point. Both sides agree that they don’t want an oppressive form of agreement. Both sides can look at what they see as being an extreme approach and the dangers it would present to freedom and liberty.

          But when it comes to defining where the lines are to be drawn and who is to draw them…that’s where the debate comes into play.

          I don’t mind it or anything like that. I was just sharing what I had learned from seeing these debates in the past.

          • lineholder

            ,

          • JSobieski
          • lineholder

            I wouldn’t have chosen the moniker I have if I did. But those are lines I’ve drawn for myself. I’m not interested in imposing them on other people. I see that kind of line drawing as something the individual has to choose on their own.

            You’ll have to excuse me…but at the moment, I feel like I’ve committed a major faux pas or something of the sort by making the comments I made above, even though it wasn’t something I intentionally set out to do and I’m not exactly sure why that seems to be the case.

            I understand your argument pertaining to harm and why you would rather see social conservatives use means other than the law in bringing about change.

            But even in at least one of the examples you’ve provided, i.e. schools, it would require nothing less that legal action to bring about change. And it’s going to be challenged to the hilt when we even try (like what Jindal is facing now in LA)

            And then there are situations where utilizing the legal system can alter the trajectory of time required to succeed in bringing about change. We’re fighting against time on some things, JSobieski.

            There are so many different factors involved it that I don’t think there’s going to be a simple solution of drawing lines in regards to what kind of approach is taking.

            The closest analogy that I can think of that might be used to convey what I’m trying to express more clearly would be to use the example of severity of disease. The more severe a disease, the more aggressive the approach in treatment, and the more open-minded the physician has to be sometimes in considering every option they can find.

        • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

          First, with regard to the “greed,” No, we don’t pass laws forcing the rich to give to the poor, but we do have laws that prevent folks from stealing from others which in many cases is motivated by greed.

          I would argue the same is true with regard to gossip and false witness. We don’t have laws per se against those sins, but we have laws against slander, right?

          As for the question, where do you propose to draw the line? Because while I’m not necessarily in favor of banning smoking, big gulps, etc. (assuming that sooner or later the banners would get around to something I enjoy), but I’m extremely frustrated at living a fairly healthy lifestyle (although I don’t exercise regularly), eating right, controlling my weight, no high risk behavior, etc. and paying the same insurance premiums as those whose behavior and choices are likely to put them at higher risk for disease.

          Further, here in Alabama, we’ve voted several times statewide to prohibit gambling. The efforts of those trying to get gambling passed has led to major corruption, pay-offs, bribes, etc., and I’ve read several articles and statistics as to the crime and other problems legalized gambling brings with it. I voted for the ban every time. I don’t want it in the state because I don’t want my tax money greasing the palms of corrupt officials and businessmen or paying to support the family who gambles every penny away until they’re left with nothing. I hear the argument that gambling doesn’t hurt anyone, but that’s a load of baloney. Same thing with alcohol and pot. Do those things hurt everyone? No, but they sure hurt a lot of families, and guess who ends up footing the bill when they’ve gambled or drank or smoked their money away and can’t afford insurance or hold down a job anymore.

  • avgjo

    1. You might read Eric Voegelin’s take on the Aristotelian concept of homonoia. This ‘likemindedness’ or ‘concord’ is greatly missing in our country today.

    2. Acat does make a great point about the difficulty of making a grassroots effort to restore public morality. This is where effective philosophizing, evangelization and taking back institutions of learning and media come into play. (I do not pretend that this is Acat’s formulation of a ‘grass roots effort’ – I think he’s not making specific recommendations. Rather, it is mine. ) I spent my free time in the last year learning how to make furniture. Early on, I learned that the QUALITY AND DURATION of your product is a function of the effort you put into it. (Seems trite, but sometimes there is a large gap between the brain’s understanding and the gut’s.) If, as some social consevatives seem to want, we seek quick and easy fixes through legislation, it’ll be the equivalent of building an endtable with MDF and butt joints (like most of my furniture is). It’ll look nice and work for a while, but it won’t stand up to much real abuse. If we go for a grassroots effort to really change hearts and minds, and restore our culture and government to make it that much harder to get back to the point we now find ourselves at, it’s like making that endtable out of maple with mortise and tenon joints (as I hope to one day have).

  • checkmate2012

    is what you seem to be advocating and let the public catch up to the “wisdom” of the courts. You talked about the egg or chicken but then you dismissed it,

    “It is not a chicken or egg type scenario. In fact, the refrain itself misses the larger dynamic between law and morality and ultimately proves a pointless distraction. …might be lost so let us lay aside the origin quest and instead look at the dynamic itself. ”

    In your Brown example, your conclusion was that it started with public sentiment but ended up in more than the public could swallow at the time, “Yet, the Brown Decision went further than the public initially wanted to go.”

    In Roe example, it was forced on the public & “exceeded what the public was willing to support in regards to abortion in 1973

    • kipling

      I was not advocating one course or the other in the diary. The diary was simply meant to show that the law can be an instrument to advance public morality. Laws are not simply a lagging indicator.

      I do not support judicial activism – i.e. the court legislating from the bench. The Supreme Court is often wrong and I do not trust the “wisdom” of the robed elite.

      I do think that conservatives can use the law to secure and even advance their own positions. The left will certainly do so.

      • checkmate2012

        In the end, both sides should use the law to favor their positions? Yet again, you said you don’t support judicial activism.

        So it will remain an enigma and maybe a post chapter after the Supremes rule on gay marriage is my conclusion…right or wrong, it’s all I got :)

        • kipling

          The law is a legitimate means of favoring a position.

          Judicial activism is not a legitimate means because one branch of government usurps the power of the other. Law is much more than case law and way more than Supreme Court decisions.

          According to Heritage, the Supremes will probably rule on the proper definition of marriage.

          • kipling

            AL

          • kipling

            I meant to connect the above to lineholder’s comment. It is late and I must bid you good night.

          • lineholder

            *

      • lineholder

        I would daresay that there was a time when the left had relatively pure motives of heart in what they were trying to accomplish and achieve. And they viewed using our legal system as being a legitimate way of doing it, too.

        But over time, the motives became somewhat corrupted with the desire for power and control, and they began to misuse and abuse our legal system for their own benefit.

        Our nation might be able to survive having one end of the political spectrum being corrupt in this manner, but it will not survive having both ends of the political spectrum become corrupted, kipling.

        Just because the left does things a specific way doesn’t always justify it, make it right, or define it as the wisest choice to be made.

        • checkmate2012

          about the end conclusion and seemingly there isn’t one. Much discussion though.

          My diaries don’t generate such traffic since I state my case, right or wrong. I take a stand on way or another and so I guess I don’t make a good poster here not would make a good politician as I have a definitive end :) I’ll try to do better but don’t believe it’s a numbers game.

          • lineholder

            I understand some of what kipling is trying to do. He wants us to be more proactive in how we approach the social issues that are challenging our nation right now. I agree with him on the proactive part. I don’t know that I agree with him 100% on utilizing our legal system as a means to accomplish these goals, though. I’m not oblivious to the dangers that might exist, and after seeing what the left has become….I really hope Conservatives never follow that path, to be honest with you.

            I think that several other people have valid points as well about trying to use other methods as a means of achieving specific goals, and that we could have greater potential to succeed by taking this approach. I can understand their viewpoint, too.

            It does get to be a heated topic. It’s awesome to watch the debate unfolds as it is taking place. We have some amazing minds here at RS.

            For myself, I’d probably be inclined to take a situational approach, going with legal only when absolutely necessary and looking to other options that could encourage long-term changes too. That’s just me.

          • checkmate2012

            that everythings ends in a court of law or so it seems and wish it didn’t have to get that far. Why can’t we all get along comes to mind but we’re too divided and debate is shunned unfortunately.That’s what we need is real debate w/o accusations but I’m afraid it’s a lost art.

            Even in Congress they used to debate, now the Chambers are mostly empty as they’re all in their respective committees and most have no eye on the big picture or the Constitution. Me, mine, I.

            I definitely agree with all the great minds here on RS and it keeps it lively and interesting, to say the least :)

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: Hayden Vanschuyver

  • Pingback: http://savejersey.com/2012/04/poll-will-yudin-or-rottino-win-the-bergen-gops-uncivil-war/

  • Pingback: Magnetic Tags Remover

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Extreme weight loss diet

  • Pingback: sexy lady

  • Pingback: homepage

  • Pingback: learn more

  • Pingback: jak szybko schudnac

  • Pingback: Better sex

  • Pingback: diablo 3 gold

  • Pingback: yoga weight loss

  • Pingback: How to fight

  • Pingback: yoga tips

  • Pingback: Handmade

  • Pingback: Business Taxes

  • Pingback: ACN Scam

  • Pingback: phen375 pills

  • Pingback: solbriller online

  • Pingback: cheap viagra

  • Pingback: moncler parka

  • Pingback: tile denver

  • Pingback: gaycamchat

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR7xtFrpGP0

  • Pingback: How To Make Youtube Videos

  • Pingback: make money fast online

  • Pingback: the best spinner

  • Pingback: Mini Guitar

  • Pingback: Download Adobe Photoshop CS6

  • Pingback: Nikon 1 V2

  • Pingback: great lakes fly

  • Pingback: Googlea

  • Pingback: l-tyrosine

  • Pingback: Chilli Seeds

  • Pingback: Fusevision.com.sg seo firms

  • Pingback: Camere foto profesionale

  • Pingback: Extreme weight loss diet

  • Pingback: turquoise beads

  • Pingback: KSL Squaw

  • Pingback: weblink

  • Pingback: projekty sklep�w

  • Pingback: Go Here

  • Pingback: Find Out More

  • Pingback: paleo recipe book Review

  • Pingback: Obdulia Clara

  • Pingback: Eugene Fansler

  • Pingback: Universitas Terbaik

  • Pingback: cardio workouts

  • Pingback: Simon Pedersen

  • Pingback: right here

  • Pingback: gratis online rubrikkannonser liste

  • Pingback: canon 650d

  • Pingback: rank site SEO

  • Pingback: tentex forte

  • Pingback: ugg boots pas cher

  • Pingback: Buddy Grippe

  • Pingback: Mary Touhy

  • Pingback: Find Out More

  • Pingback: googlesniper

  • Pingback: swissdent

  • Pingback: mastercard casino

  • Pingback: Stan Avitabile

  • Pingback: Get More Info

  • Pingback: http://pond5promocode.weebly.com/

  • Pingback: sushi delivery Somerville ma

  • Pingback: Nilda Zeman

  • Pingback: Hisako Willes

  • Pingback: louboutin

  • Pingback: Norberto Boardman

  • Pingback: Buford Oommen

  • Pingback: seofabrik

  • Pingback: Ramon Mandrell

  • Pingback: stables

  • Pingback: Wallace Sesser

  • Pingback: Randee Kolker

  • Pingback: edu backlinks

  • Pingback: Omer Reimel

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: dubai property

  • Pingback: dunedin

  • Pingback: paleo recipe

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: weblink

  • Pingback: http://justbookmarkreflect.info/page/4/

  • Pingback: http://school.phc.edu.tw/~amps/blog/2011/?attachment_id=163

  • Pingback: visit this site

  • Pingback: real estate

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: kamagra

  • Pingback: computers

  • Pingback: legal steriods

  • Pingback: link

  • Pingback: christian dating for free

  • Pingback: Otto Gutschein

  • Pingback: best supplements for muscle gain

  • Pingback: art-architecture

  • Pingback: Sell Used Cars

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: laptop tips

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: estate agents glasgow

  • Pingback: gay

  • Pingback: obe methods

  • Pingback: Rocky Capriccioso

  • Pingback: online residual income

  • Pingback: watch this video

  • Pingback: measuring

  • Pingback: gutters

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: Recomendado

  • Pingback: Recomendado

  • Pingback: Clicking Here

  • Pingback: escorts leeds.

  • Pingback: Indie music videos

  • Pingback: supply chain disaster

  • Pingback: raspberry ketones diets

  • Pingback: buy green coffee bean max

  • Pingback: African Mango Reviews

  • Pingback: steam showers

  • Pingback: African Mango Plus

  • Pingback: los angeles publicists

  • Pingback: people search,

  • Pingback: Tycoon World war Warcraft Gold Addon Review

  • Pingback: personalised babygrow

  • Pingback: Mi web

  • Pingback: Blog review

  • Pingback: simple quilt patterns

  • Pingback: jeux

  • Pingback: Peter Vancampen

  • Pingback: junk car milwaukee

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claims

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: government mortgage help

  • Pingback: bgdfgdfgdfgdf

  • Pingback: plumbers toronto

  • Pingback: I was reading this

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: Fuck you.

  • Pingback: job search blog

  • Pingback: velkoborsky.

  • Pingback: velkoborsky

  • Pingback: velkoborsky.

  • Pingback: get tumblr followers

  • Pingback: Nikon v2

  • Pingback: Tuan Autery

  • Pingback: garage doors melbourne.

  • Pingback: garage doors perth.

  • Pingback: Tas Branded

  • Pingback: gryphon garage doors.

  • Pingback: gryphon garage doors

  • Pingback: the stables towneley park,

  • Pingback: casino,

  • Pingback: Antoinette Atanacio

  • Pingback: Kira Sturdy

  • Pingback: lecteur carte vitale

  • Pingback: noclegi roztocze

  • Pingback: amarillo tree.

  • Pingback: amarillo tree

  • Pingback: amarillo tree.

  • Pingback: amarillo tree

  • Pingback: Tessa Krakowiak

  • Pingback: verificagru

  • Pingback: amarillo tree.

  • Pingback: Roni Ianuzzi

  • Pingback: Keshia Coache

  • Pingback: porn

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: porn

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: ipage complaints

  • Pingback: gambling

  • Pingback: Angla Dallam

  • Pingback: 123moldtesting.com

  • Pingback: ipage domain

  • Pingback: abc blinds

  • Pingback: Allevamento Rottweiler

  • Pingback: mls inmobiliarias

  • Pingback: check out here

  • Pingback: Dumpster

  • Pingback: "????? ????? ????"

  • Pingback: Luanne Courtney

  • Pingback: Benita Pinedo

  • Pingback: startoption

  • Pingback: banque Bordier

  • Pingback: Dominick Lipphardt

  • Pingback: Youtube Make Money

  • Pingback: galaxy s3

  • Pingback: junk car towing milwaukee

  • Pingback: http://targetbabyregistry.weebly.com/

  • Pingback: thel Addison

  • Pingback: make money online

  • Pingback: cell service affiliates

  • Pingback: jungling tips lol

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: pc dial.

  • Pingback: credit cards

  • Pingback: eames dsw

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: Jc Rutledge

  • Pingback: Rosamond Julander

  • Pingback: reverse look up phone

  • Pingback: Kylie Waffenschmidt

  • Pingback: Devon Tiemann

  • Pingback: Bügelperlen Vorlagen

  • Pingback: buy my car scam

  • Pingback: http://ldlhdlcholesterollevels.org/

  • Pingback: buy zynga poker chips

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: Marketing a Medical Practice

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: Eleonore Rhodd

  • Pingback: fastest approval online

  • Pingback: lida hapi

  • Pingback: arts and crafts

  • Pingback: http://abandonedshield82.posterous.com/best-facebook-status-for-you

  • Pingback: listen to this podcast

  • Pingback: Leticia Delmont

  • Pingback: snel afvallen

  • Pingback: Lloyd Biehn

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: randki za darmo

  • Pingback: Gay Marriage (Conservatives) | Mike LaSusa

  • JSobieski

    Trouncing the strawman argument of “legislating morality” is easy.

    Setting forth a process by which we can tell which moral rules should be enshrined in law (murder), and which shouldn’t (selfishness, glutony)—-that is actually hard word.

    So while this diary sounds great—-it doesn’t exactly get at the real issues of
    (1) How are moral rules identified (it its just “the bible says” is that good enough for public policy purposes?)
    (2) How do we decide what moral rules are enforced by force of law (law ultimately is about force) and what moral rules are just prudent personal guides for living?

    Obama is infuriating for many reasons, one of which is his inability to debate his opponents in a meaningul way. Straw man argumentation doesn’t get us anywhere except precisely where we are.

  • aesthete

    how people can read New Testament and immediately think, “Yeah! What we need is a law…”

  • kipling

    The process of determining the line between the two is sometimes difficult but that does not mean the process should be abandoned.

    Trouncing a strawman argument may be easy but, as you can tell from the responses in the cited article, strawman arguments were in abundance.

  • aesthete

    if you set no criterion for what constitutes proper or improper enforcement, or how to evaluate effectiveness.

    The arbitrary nature of your argument does not go away just because you acknowledge the difficulty of the enterprise — after all, many leftists will concede that economic planning is difficult. If you and other social conservatives have nothing to say about these criterion, then you should reconsider the validity of your philosophy for the same reason that economic leftists should.

  • JSobieski

    even though you wrote an entire diary on the straw man argument.

    No offense, but its nor particularly persuasive or impressive.

    What do democrats say when you force them to acknowledge a difficult tradeoff . . .

    “these are complex issues”—-basically what you said above.

  • kipling

    One of the things it teaches is that a government without a sense of morality is like a ravenous beast that has power and ferocity but no conscience. It also teaches that true morality is defined by God and the Word of God. All other systems of morality fall short.

  • kipling

    I am not using the difficulty of the task to justify the necessity of the task. I was agreeing with JSobieski that it is a difficult task.

    JSobieski raises two important questions. The purpose of the essay is not to address those question but rather to show the connection between law and morality. The answer to his questions would require much more than a simple response and may be fruit for a diary.

    The moral absolutes contained in Scripture are just as valid an argument as any other.

  • JSobieski

    The New Testament says virtually nothing about government from a perspective of an entity entitled to use force.

    The New Testament does say some things about how believers should treat each other (outside the force context), but otherwise focuses very much on personal salvation above all else.

    Not only did the New Testament liberate believers from certain 613 laws, but it also shows more broadly how following laws is a poor substitute for personal morality (not vice versa).

    There are many lessons from the Pharisees, and none of those lessons suggest we need more laws about anything.

  • kipling

    You had plenty of them in article I referenced.

    Whether you consider it persuasive or impressive, I find it ironic that you now claim your argument from the previous post is a strawman that is easily dismantled.

  • westcoastpatriette

    What about these scriptures:

    Let every person be loyally subject to the governing (civil) authorities. For there is no authority except from God [by His permission, His sanction], and those that exist do so by His appointment.

    Therefore, he who resists and sets himself up against the authorities resists what God has appointed and arranged [in divine order]. And those who resist will bring down judgment upon themselves [receiving the penalty due them].

    For civil authorities are not a terror to people of good conduct, but to those of bad behavior. Would you have no dread of him who is in authority? Then do what is right and you will receive his approval and commendation.

    For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid for he does not bear and wear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer.

    Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath and escape punishment, but also as a matter of principle and for the sake of conscience.

    For this same reason you pay taxes, for the civil authorities are official servants under God, devoting themselves to attending to this very service. Romans 13:1-6

  • kipling

    I refer you to Daniel, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, the major and minor Prophets, etc. The New Testament does not negate the Old. Nor can you interpret the one without the other.

    Paul does address the purpose of government and Acts, Peter, and James deal with the extent of its authority and purpose. Jesus also spoke to the limits of government and the ability of the Christian to resist.

  • Viet71

    The criminal law is based on moral notions; other aspects of the law are not.

    One can do quite immoral things within the boundaries of contract law, for example, without exposing oneself to liability.

    Making right and wrong decisions is largely left to the individual, so long as harm to another or another’s property isn’t involved.

  • JSobieski

    not to mention ethnic cleansing of the Hittites.

    Jesus said virtually nothing about government.

  • JSobieski

    Even Obama will admit that at some point taxes are too high and will stifle the economy.

    He just won’t attempt to identify where that point is.

    Just like you won’t attempt to draw a line beween personal piety and public policy—-you just call it “difficult” and abandon the real work.

  • JSobieski

    used in comparison (mutually unfavorable) to what you had said.

    If you can’t tell the difference between someone asserting X and mocking X, you might want to consider changing your screen name.

  • JSobieski

    Including contract law, which is ultimately about keeping your word when others rely on what you say/promise.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    When the authorities act in a way that God intended from the verse. In other words any normal rulers. But there are some rulers who have no thought about the well being of their citizens.

    Since these act contrary to the scripture, ie they do harm even to those who obey the law. Then according to God’s word they are not legitimate.

  • kipling

    As I stated in my first response to your query, you raise valid questions but the point of the diary is to show the dynamic between public morality and laws. The argument I wrote against actually quotes one of your posts. To call that argument a strawman is to reference your own post.

    The line between public morality and personal piety is an essential one to draw. I have not abandoned the effort. To point out that it might be difficult is not to shirk from it.

  • JSobieski

    You talk about doing it without actually doing it.

    In literalville, that is referred to as not doing anything.

    I might as well write a diary about buying low and selling high. I won’t propose any way of actually implementing this approach or what to look for in investments—I will just say “buy low, sell high”.

    Show me were you have actually attempted to fashion an approach to distinguishing between personal piety and public laws, and I will be impressed.

    Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are ducking the real issue for the job of pounding the crap out of a straw man.

    Buy low, sell high!

    Be prepared for the unexpected.

    Life is what you make of it.

    Do good, not evil.

    The stawman is a close cousin of the cliche..

  • westcoastpatriette

    but I was mainly showing JSob’ that he is wrong when he says the New Testament says “nothing about government from the perspective of an entity entitled to use force.” Those scriptures in Romans directly contradict JSob’s assertion.

  • JSobieski

    Romans does NOT provide a blue print for enactment of any particular public policy, or to a process for deciding what should be public policy.

    JSob is not wrong on this point.

    The New Testament is not a blue print for what governments should do.

    It is a guide as to what individuals should do with respect to the world around them (including but not particularly focused on government).

    Bottom Line:
    There is a difference between saying government should do X with respect to the citizenry (Roman’s doesn’t do this) and saying how citizens should behave with respect to government (Romans does do this).

    Understand the difference?

  • kipling

    The diary is not about the line between public morality and personal piety. The diary is about the connection between law and public morality. The public morality v. personal piety issue is one that you raised. If you want it answered then answer it, but do not get huffy because I wrote a different diary.

  • JSobieski

    Every line drawn is in favor of government intervention. Kind of like Obama’s line drawing on the economy.

    “line drawing” is used to refer to drawing a line such that there exists territory on EACH side of the line.

  • aesthete

    you seem to say nothing that is of particular note or pertinance to the sort of questions that are asked about *how* morality should interact with government.

    “Sometimes moral movements come before laws, sometimes laws come before moral movements, and sometimes they don’t relate to each other” may be a true statement, but so is, “Sometimes the weather is clear, sometimes it is cloudy, and sometimes it’s none of these.” Neither statement is particularly useful for our purposes.

  • kipling

    Are you saying that individual morality should not shape the policies of a republic?

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • kipling

    I am pretty clear about the extent and focus of the argument.

  • JSobieski

    It is moral to help your neighbor in need, so should we pass a law?
    Greed is immoral, so should we pass a law?
    Blasphemy is immoral, so should we pass a law?
    Eating to much is a sin, so should we pass a law?

    I can’t determine whether you are being purposely obtuse or you just don’t understand the phrase “line drawing”.

  • aesthete

    You can’t directly translate individual morality to the running of institutions. The NT says nothing about how to run institutions.

    You should be glad that no one has seriously attempted to put individual Christian morality into practice at an institutional level, because a US attempting to corporately put into practice everything that Christ commanded of his individual followers would look more like a set of pacifist anarcho-communist communes than anything else — which is another way of saying that it would either descend into Hobbesian existence or be conquered by another power and cease to exist as an autonomous entity.

  • JSobieski

    I have yet to see you identify one moral issue that you would put in the personal piety category.

    Let me help you:

    Blasphemy.

    Now maybe to get to more difficult ones like gambling? Alcohol? Strip clubs? Reality TV?

    Do you finally get what I am saying?

  • JSobieski

    KIPLING:”The process of determining the line between the two is sometimes difficult but that does not mean the process should be abandoned.”

    Aren’t you abandoning the process by not proposing any basis for line drawing?

    Anyone with a brain acknowledges that law is codified morality, and the real issue is which “moral rules” are so codified with force of law.

    You criticized those who avoid trying to tackle different questions, yet you write a diary raising the most important question of public policy . .. while avoiding tackling the difficult question.

    Line drawing is where the work is. Building a framework for line drawing is where the work is.

    Saying that laws should be influenced by morality is a trivial proposition on a Republican website.

    I am off to ESPN to write about my brilliant strategy for beating Michael Jordan in 1 on 1 basketball. I call it “score more points than Michael”.

  • kipling

    The quote came from my response to you and has nothing to do with the diary or the subject of the diary. Since you cannot refute the diary you create an issue and then condemn me for not writing a diary about the issue you raised.

  • kipling

    The argument I refuted is the contention that one cannot legislate morality and that laws are always a lagging indicator. I demonstrated two instances that showed the dynamic involved. I see by you last statement that you agree with my point. Since my point is so obvious, I assume we have heard the last of the argument it refuted.

  • kipling

    The point is that morality influence policy in a free society. No one said government should implement Christianity by law or government fiat.

    You and JSobieski need to deal with the issue at hand instead of creating phantoms to chase.

  • aesthete

    you’re citing case law from an activist court. In a democratic republic, it is usually the case that laws are lagging indicators.

    Saying that laws can precede, follow, or happen without any apparent moral movements is true, but essentially irrelevant since it tells us nothing about the relationship or the influence of one upon the other.

    Showing a cause-effect from this is more problematic, and has not been done.

  • aesthete

    and means nothing. My policy preferences proceed from my morality. I assume that the same can be said of you, JSob, and acat. So what? This says nothing about either Christianity in general, or social conservatism’s applicability.

  • kipling

    That is not what I said. The entire point is that a social movement may use and have used laws to advance their agenda. I provided two examples to illustrate the point.

  • aesthete

    That doesn’t tell us whether the laws were 1) effective or 2) embodied appropriate public policy goals.

    What’s the point? I think we’re all aware that many moral movements were tangled in politics.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    If you are an adult it is no one else, least of all government’s, business what you are doing.

    You cannot be truly free until you are willing to let your neighbor screw up their own life if they want to.

    The only alternative is government telling people how to live their lives and that road goes nowhere.

    If you are worried about your neighbor’s spiritual health then start preaching, and doing good works.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    That my Muslim neighbor across the street is not in any way a Christian, but his views on both politics and morality are very close to mine. So traditional morality is not the sole province of Christians.

  • Pingback: Emory Stasny

  • Pingback: Signo editores

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Libros Signo editores

  • Pingback: Signoeditores

  • Pingback: Signoeditores

  • Pingback: Suzanna Woznicki