legislating morality

[Mumbles140]

As far as child rape is concerned, hasn’t the Catholic Church been shielding clergy child rapists from prosecution to the full extent of the law?

And the schools, boy scouts, youth sports leagues, etc aren’t facing these scandals as well?

The truth is, most of these cases happened decades ago. Many of the families did not want things to go public, and the priests were sent to psychiatrists, who at that time believed pederasty could be cured. After receiving the ‘all clear’, they were moved elsewhere so as not to be around the family again.

Now, you also have to remember that crimes have a statute of limitations. If the victims don’t come forward for 20+ years, the statute could expire (not sure what the specifics are for each state, but I feel 20 years is probable) and the state’s hands are tied - no prosecution.

Lastly, ask any practicing Catholic today what they feel about the child abuse scandals. They should tell you they feel sad, they pray for the victim, the family, and the priest, and they hope that these abuses never happen again, but if they do, that the victims come forward immediately so we can rid the Church of these abusers.

 

[meltzerboy]

I am well aware of the clauses mentioned. My point was that the phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ is not actually found in the Constitution. And I find it ironic that this Constitution upholds laws that bans Catholic professionals from acting upon their beliefs. I am against gay marriage, and in the state where I live, it recently became law. Now, they rejected an amendment to the Bill that would excuse teachers with moral objections from having to teach about homosexuality and gay marriages in the classroom (I believe a ‘substitute’ would come in to teach the material), and yet it failed. By the laws of this country, Catholics are being forced out of adoption agencies, the medical profession, teaching, and other careers. Even a Catholic college came under fire because its health care plan wouldn’t pay for abortions of the plan participants. Now, how is that protecting our rights to practice our religious beliefs?

Furthermore, let us not forget that our fragile country was built on the backs of people upholding Judeo-Christian values. The desire not to impose a religion on the government was to prevent a theocracy or monarchy, which we had recently broken away from with the British Empire. That is why the bill of rights contains values and protections that are in line with certain morals, so where do you think those morals came from?

The fact of the matter is this is all moot. The pro-life movement is not founded on religious beliefs. Some religions support the pro-life movement, but it is not a religious idea. It is a moral idea that it is wrong to murder another person.

And, Jefferson was very controversial, and many feel he was too heavily affected by his love of European political philosophy that came about from people under monarchies and in religious states. His ideas were quite out there, as can be seen by his ‘personal edit’ of the New Testament where he dismissed any statements or actions of Christ that he thought were ‘too radical’ and left a much tamer portrait of Christ. He was seemingly against organized religion and made sure that made its way into his political realm.

I am all in favor of supporting a citizen’s right to practice whatever religion they choose, if they so choose to practice one. However, don’t go railing on Catholics about freedom of religion when the laws of the government don’t let us practice our beliefs. How many in the ‘Nation of Islam’ were able to forego being drafted because of religious beliefs? Cassius Clay for one. So why do Catholic health plans have to support murder if Muslims in the 1960s were able to get a free pass? Where is the justice there?

This is an honest question, not an accusation. I want to find out in which public schools and in which grades do teachers talk about homosexuality and gay marriage. Is it a requirement to discuss this topic in elementary school? I have heard that teachers do present alternative family settings to their younger students. True, this may seem like a tacit endorsement of these families since an authority (teacher) in the eyes of the students is presenting the information. However, it is also giving students information that they may not be taught at home. I know the topic is discussed in college, particularly in psychology classes, and perhaps in anthropology and biology classes as well, among many other topics, some of which are also controversial for various reasons, such as drug use and war, the latter a sensitive topic of discussion for Quakers. I also know that on the college level, a professor can and should discuss such controversial topics WITHOUT either favoring or opposing them. (Admittedly, sometimes one’s own views creep into the discussion.) It is important for students to learn about what is going on in the world and critically evaluate the issues to form their own opinions. Even in public universities and non-theology classes, professors sometimes discuss religion (which may offend some students) when it is relevant to the subject matter at hand, for example, in a European history class. Christianity is also discussed from a historical perspective in Jewish yeshivas, and Catholic universities offer theology courses that talk about non-Catholic religions. That doesn’t mean a particular religion is either endorsed or negatively criticized. Sometimes, professors even make religious allusions when presenting analogies to students in the hope that students will better understand the material that way. Again, that doesn’t mean the professor is forcing the students to convert to a particular religion or wishing to offend them. All of this instruction is for the purpose of acquiring knowledge, whether in primary school, secondary school, or the university, and teachers must know about all kinds of things and inform their students hopefully WITHOUT taking sides. It’s a big world out there; there is an information explosion. Students are entitled to be informed and exchange ideas about diverse perspectives regarding a variety of topics. The opposite approach often results in what is called ignorance.

 

[Mumbles140]

This is an honest question, not an accusation. I want to find out in which public schools and in which grades do teachers talk about homosexuality and gay marriage. Is it a requirement to discuss this topic in elementary school? I have heard that teachers do present alternative family settings to their younger students. True, this may seem like a tacit endorsement of these families since an authority (teacher) in the eyes of the students is presenting the information. However, it is also giving students information that they may not be taught at home. I know the topic is discussed in college, particularly in psychology classes, and perhaps in anthropology and biology classes as well, among many other topics, some of which are also controversial for various reasons, such as drug use and war, the latter a sensitive topic of discussion for Quakers. I also know that on the college level, a professor can and should discuss such controversial topics WITHOUT either favoring or opposing them. (Admittedly, sometimes one’s own views creep into the discussion.) It is important for students to learn about what is going on in the world and critically evaluate the issues to form their own opinions. Even in public universities and non-theology classes, professors sometimes discuss religion (which may offend some students) when it is relevant to the subject matter at hand, for example, in a European history class. Christianity is also discussed from a historical perspective in Jewish yeshivas, and Catholic universities offer theology courses that talk about non-Catholic religions. That doesn’t mean a particular religion is either endorsed or negatively criticized. Sometimes, professors even make religious allusions when presenting analogies to students in the hope that students will better understand the material that way. Again, that doesn’t mean the professor is forcing the students to convert to a particular religion or wishing to offend them. All of this instruction is for the purpose of acquiring knowledge, whether in primary school, secondary school, or the university, and teachers must know about all kinds of things and inform their students hopefully WITHOUT taking sides. It’s a big world out there; there is an information explosion. Students are entitled to be informed and exchange ideas about diverse perspectives regarding a variety of topics. The opposite approach often results in what is called ignorance.

It hasn’t begun to be taught yet - the bill just came into effect, but during the vote for the bill, they denied the right of teachers to excuse themselves from teaching that material. Now, you can call it ‘alternative family settings’, but let’s call it what it is - homosexual unions, and in some states those couples can legally adopt children. So I can’t name the schools or the specific points from the curriculum, but the plan is in place, and the conscience protections for Catholic teachers was thoroughly rejected.

Furthermore, I am in favor of knowledge, but certain rights belong to the home first. I know every parent has the opportunity to withdraw their child from sex ed if they so choose. I am curious to find out if the same will hold true for ‘same sex ed’. Also, presenting opposing views is one thing, but children cannot discern the moral, natural, and political arguments at hand. They will see man and man presented as parents and not have the capacity to question.

I guess I’m just wondering where this fits into math, english, science, or history. Also, at what age does this become appropriate. Again, I don’t have specifics because they haven’t been finalized in curriculum yet, but I think it is a little much. I mean, it isn’t like we learned about the racist actions of the KKK in elementary school, and by the time we learned it in middle school, everyone pretty much had heard of them on their own. But there is a push to have matters such as this forced upon children at an early age, but let’s be serious - is this going to appear on standardized testing? Is it critical for children learning addition and subtraction to know that two men incapable of procreation constitute a ‘family unit’?

 

[meltzerboy]

It hasn’t begun to be taught yet - the bill just came into effect, but during the vote for the bill, they denied the right of teachers to excuse themselves from teaching that material. Now, you can call it ‘alternative family settings’, but let’s call it what it is - homosexual unions, and in some states those couples can legally adopt children. So I can’t name the schools or the specific points from the curriculum, but the plan is in place, and the conscience protections for Catholic teachers was thoroughly rejected.

Furthermore, I am in favor of knowledge, but certain rights belong to the home first. I know every parent has the opportunity to withdraw their child from sex ed if they so choose. I am curious to find out if the same will hold true for ‘same sex ed’. Also, presenting opposing views is one thing, but children cannot discern the moral, natural, and political arguments at hand. They will see man and man presented as parents and not have the capacity to question.

I guess I’m just wondering where this fits into math, english, science, or history. Also, at what age does this become appropriate. Again, I don’t have specifics because they haven’t been finalized in curriculum yet, but I think it is a little much. I mean, it isn’t like we learned about the racist actions of the KKK in elementary school, and by the time we learned it in middle school, everyone pretty much had heard of them on their own. But there is a push to have matters such as this forced upon children at an early age, but let’s be serious - is this going to appear on standardized testing? Is it critical for children learning addition and subtraction to know that two men incapable of procreation constitute a ‘family unit’?

No, it won’t appear on standardized testing and it’s not as critical to know as arithmetic. But what’s so good about standardized testing? (Many teachers are opposed to that because it leads to the method of teaching only for the test.) Education is much more than standardized testing. There are cuts in art and music in many school districts, and these subjects I believe are important. However, your point about age-appropriateness is a good one. Still, maybe we should have learned about the KKK in elementary school, perhaps in the upper grades and perhaps omitting the more gory details.

 

[Mumbles140]

No, it won’t appear on standardized testing and it’s not as critical to know as arithmetic. But what’s so good about standardized testing? (Many teachers are opposed to that because it leads to the method of teaching only for the test.) Education is much more than standardized testing. There are cuts in art and music in many school districts, and these subjects I believe are important. However, your point about age-appropriateness is a good one. Still, maybe we should have learned about the KKK in elementary school, perhaps in the upper grades and perhaps omitting the more gory details.

Standardized testing is, I believe, a necessary evil - there was a thread a couple of weeks ago concerning it. And I understand that art and music are important, and it is a shame they are being cut, but those have real applications - someone can be a musician or artist for a profession, and most schools (universities) require art or music classes.

As for age appropriateness, the problem with teaching something like the KKK is that it exposes children to issues they can’t really process. You can say ‘leave out the gory details’ like beatings, hangings, and bombings, but you are still teaching children about hate, and it will lead to questions that will go into that boundary. Lots of groups hate - few, if any, intimidated through violence and scare tactics more than the KKK. They very fact of learning about them is to learn about the violence they did.

Its funny, because we learned about the KKK and all of the violence, but we never learned that it originally started as Confederate soldiers trying to ‘scare away’ Union guardsmen during Reconstruction by dressing as ghosts. When it became racist and turned into a group of violence, Forrest asked that his name no longer be associated with the group, and that they cease their actions, which they did until the second major rising in the early 1900s.

 

[paedagogo]

And the schools, boy scouts, youth sports leagues, etc aren’t facing these scandals as well?

The truth is, most of these cases happened decades ago. Many of the families did not want things to go public, and the priests were sent to psychiatrists, who at that time believed pederasty could be cured. After receiving the ‘all clear’, they were moved elsewhere so as not to be around the family again.

Now, you also have to remember that crimes have a statute of limitations. If the victims don’t come forward for 20+ years, the statute could expire (not sure what the specifics are for each state, but I feel 20 years is probable) and the state’s hands are tied - no prosecution.

Lastly, ask any practicing Catholic today what they feel about the child abuse scandals. They should tell you they feel sad, they pray for the victim, the family, and the priest, and they hope that these abuses never happen again, but if they do, that the victims come forward immediately so we can rid the Church of these abusers.

I think I must have been a very attractive kid to pedarists. The first one to approach me was at the age of 6. I had several more over the years, all of which I managed to run away from. At the age of 14, I was boxing as a sport. I had a coach at the local teen center. One night the director of the center cornered me in a dark room after my training and tried to molest me. He did get his hands into my pants, but I got away. I never told anyone about it for shame. Meanwhile, I had a Big Brother of Big Brothers of America. My dad had passed away when I was younger. My big brother was the chief umpire for the Los Angeles Little League. He was a prominent television personality. Once we got to know each other, he wanted to wrestle in jock straps with the loser giving the winner a massage. I was not assertive enough to refuse immediately, but when I did it once, it felt so creepy that I cut him off. The next incident was when a guy in middle age offered me money to do sexual things with him. I was an ordinary kid minding my own business when he popped into view.

So, my point is that sexual predators will put themselves in places that they will encounter their prey. I was lucky to have not been traumatized by my experiences.

The most important thing is to educate kids appropriately, and teach them not to be ashamed, to report anything inappropriate that happens to them. In my case, I did not mention the teen center director for many years because such a topic was shameful. I told my brother about it. It turned out that the guy had also tried to molest my brother. If either of us had spoken up at the time, then perhaps the molester would have been stopped. Who knows how many victims he has had?

In order to prosecute the priests who had molested children, the state of California repealed the statute of limitations for one year. I did not put too much effort into it, but I did try to track down Harvey Block, the guy who cornered me in that room. If I had found him, I would have filed charges.

The Big Brother of America who molested me tried to contact me many years later. I did not return his call, but it seemed that the tone of it was that he wanted to apologize. He also sent me a Christmas card which was religious in tone. I suspect that he was seeking redemption, and trying to make amends for his behavior.

 

[narrowgatequest]

“The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State . . . . We find no constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects . . . . We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility toward religion” (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952). (source)

So, the Supreme Court has essentially said that it is unconstitutional for anyone to tell me not to vote Catholic.

 

[Sufjon]

“The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State . . . . We find no constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects . . . . We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility toward religion” (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952). (source)

So, the Supreme Court has essentially said that it is unconstitutional for anyone to tell me not to vote Catholic.

On the same token, you can’t force me to vote catholic. Nor can you tell me what my morals are.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[narrowgatequest]

On the same token, you can’t force me to vote catholic. Nor can you tell me what my morals are.

Your friend,
Sufjon

No one can force anyone to vote any particular way, that’s the entire point of voting.

 

[Sufjon]

No one can force anyone to vote any particular way, that’s the entire point of voting.

That’s true, however I have often thought that an IQ test and a test of whether or not you have bothered to actually know any of the issues should be given before being allowed to vote.

Your friend,
Sujon

 

[narrowgatequest]

That’s true, however I have often thought that an IQ test and a test of whether or not you have bothered to actually know any of the issues should be given before being allowed to vote.

Your friend,
Sujon

I don’t know about tests (particularly IQ tests, I have heard that they are only really effective at telling you if you are below average, average, or a genius, but that not all below average people are “too unintelligent to vote” so I’d shy away from that, but that’s really a whole other topic.) However, I would love to see the government put out more than just the voter’s pamphlets worth of information. For one thing, the blurbs in the voter’s pamphlets are generally written by the candidates and are rather short, it would be nice if they could give us a voter’s pamphlet that read more like a nonpartisan academic analysis of each candidate and issue. Perhaps instead of a test, one would be then required to sign a statement saying that they had read said voter’s pamphlet before they could vote.

 

[babylonsfalling]

i understand that there are probably as many opinions on abortion as there are people on this forum. that said, why should any one religion’s opinion on the subject be forced onto people that aren’t of that faith?

so abortion is a sin in the catholic church, but why should hindus or muslims have to accept that? some do or don’t anyway, but there doesn’t seem to be any general consensus in those religions. most muslims allow it until the fourth month, and many, but not all, hindus ban it outright.

so my question isn’t on whether or not abortion is a sin. rather, i want to know is if it is ever alright to force one person’s beliefs on another person, and why or under what circumstances.

Good grief, laws against child molestation are a case of forcing other people’s belief on another person, so are laws against prostitution, drug use, teenage drinking, and a huge ongoing list of other laws.

And yes, it is okay to make laws, even when someone defines it in negative perspective by claiming it’s a case forcing “one person’s beliefs on another person”

 

[sedonaman]

…
why should the unborn have any rights? …

So they can be born, grow up, and learn to ask, “why should the unborn have any rights?”.

Look. Instead of focusing on the particular, why don’t you focus on the more general, because your OP question was highly general? Start with, what do you mean by “morality”? I think you are taking too narrow of a view on what “morality” is. It’s not just the observance of religious laws but the observance of civil laws as well, even something as mundane as putting a nickel in a parking meter. One could argue that someone decided that it is not fair * for you to hog the parking place all day, thereby forcing his belief of right/wrong on you. We could conclude that “morality” is the quality of a person’s actions measured against a standard, the standard being some concept of fairness, such as the Golden Rule. Given that definition, is it possible to legislate a law not based on morality? If the answer is “no” [as I suspect], then the answer to your OP question is yes, you can legislate morality. In fact, it’s the only thing you can legislate.*

 

[z0wb13]

i hear the term “moral relativism” bandied about all the time on these forums. the implication is that morals are becoming relaxed, and that it is somehow part of a conspiracy between hollywood, the media, liberals, etc.

but if you think that there are one set of morals that never changes, then you don’t know history. it used to be moral to own slaves, and it was immoral to eat shellfish, or meat on fridays. maybe i don’t know what the term is supposed to mean.

@sedonaman: answer this: “how can the unborn exercise any rights?” and then answer: “how can a class have any rights which they are fundamentally unable to exercise?”

this is the reason that dogs can’t vote (no thumbs;p), but it is also the reason why children cannot vote, either. a child will not have a strong grasp of complex issues, and cannot be an informed citizen. if they have any opinions at all, it’s their parents’.

here’s another one, you have a right to privacy (it’s not explicitly stated in the constitution, but the supreme court says it’s in there). but, you only have that right when you are able to exercise it, like when you are in a private setting. you don’t have a right to privacy if you are out in public, because it is impossible to exercise that right.

 

[sedonaman]

…@sedonaman: answer this: “how can the unborn exercise any rights?” and then answer: “how can a class have any rights which they are fundamentally unable to exercise?”…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

A person has rights from the moment of creation. Therefore, he has rights simply by being created, i.e., by existing.

The idea that someone has rights only if he exercises them is rationalization and an absurd assertion, much like the argument that a fetus is not alive because he is not breathing and therefore not a person. It would also mean that slaves had no rights because they didn’t exercise them. Never mind they had rights that were being universally denied.

The longer and more complex an explanation, as the reasoning justifying abortion, the less it should be believed. A pro-abortion editorial appearing in the September 1970 issue of California Medicine contains a revealing statement on lying in the service of killing:
“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everybody knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but the taking of a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.” [Emphasis added]

I would submit that you have been the victim of some of the same type of “schizophrenic subterfuge” and “semantic gymnastics”.

If you are unsure whether truth is relative, consider this: As a teen-ager, I once went with my dad to pick up a brand new car he had ordered. He noted that it didn’t have a low gear like the demo he drove and was expecting to get. He objected that it wasn’t what he ordered. Though the salesman engaged in a significant amount of “semantic gymnastics”[IOW, talk] and convinced my dad to accept the car as is, I noticed that all the words in the world would never put a low gear in that car’s transmission. If truth is relative, was there a low gear in the transmission a] relative to the salesman; b] relative to my dad; or, c] relative to reality?

 

[Mumbles140]

@sedonaman: answer this: “how can the unborn exercise any rights?” and then answer: “how can a class have any rights which they are fundamentally unable to exercise?”

this is the reason that dogs can’t vote (no thumbs;p), but it is also the reason why children cannot vote, either. a child will not have a strong grasp of complex issues, and cannot be an informed citizen. if they have any opinions at all, it’s their parents’.

here’s another one, you have a right to privacy (it’s not explicitly stated in the constitution, but the supreme court says it’s in there). but, you only have that right when you are able to exercise it, like when you are in a private setting. you don’t have a right to privacy if you are out in public, because it is impossible to exercise that right.

So dogs, children, and infants should all be murdered because they can’t vote? An infant alive for 1 second is somehow more capable of ‘exercising rights’ than one still in the womb?

And you are wrong - it is not that one ‘does not have right’ unless they can exercise them. The right is always there - it allows for something to be exercised. You see, the rights must always exist. There may be restrictions on exercising rights (yelling fire in a crowded theater), and that is up for the courts to decide, but the rights are always there whether you are actively exercising them or not? Does the US Constitution not guarantee me the right to own a gun even if I choose not to own a gun?

You are also wrong about the ‘fundamental inability to exercise’. By the sheer fact that it has a heartbeat, a preborn child is ‘fundamentally able’ to live, so how is that an excuse to deprive his/her right to life?

 

[sedonaman]

i hear the term “moral relativism” bandied about all the time on these forums. the implication is that morals are becoming relaxed, and that it is somehow part of a conspiracy between hollywood, the media, liberals, etc.

Google “polylogism” and read up on it.

…but if you think that there are one set of morals that never changes, then you don’t know history. it used to be moral to own slaves, and it was immoral to eat shellfish, or meat on fridays. maybe i don’t know what the term is supposed to mean.

If one set of morals changes, does that mean all sets should change? [See my signature.]

 

[sedonaman]

…@sedonaman: answer this: … “how can a class have any rights which they are fundamentally unable to exercise?” …

Where did you get the idea that groups have rights?

 

[Krakatoa]

All legislation is morality. What are laws but deciding or proclaiming what is right and/or wrong? All the laws from the founders of this country and framers of the Constitution were based on Christian principles of right and wrong. This also springs from natural law, where a man knows in his heart, without having to learn it, that it is wrong to kill another. But moral sense of right and wrong is now skewed in this country, where abortion is legal, and those who have no authority to do so attempt to redefine marriage to include something it is not and can never be. This is right. This is wrong. You can do this. You can’t do that. Like I said, all legislation is morality.

 

[sedonaman]

All legislation is morality. What are laws but deciding or proclaiming what is right and/or wrong? …

Truth be known, the admonition against legislating morality is issued only when that morality happens to diverge from what’s fashionable, and by that I mean “politically correct.” It’s something certain people – usually those of a more liberal bent – warn about when the proposal involves morality that they don’t happen to like. For sure, not only do liberals – who are the authors of political correctness – legislate morality, they do it with greater frequency and zeal than a Puritan moralist right out of 1650’s Massachusetts could ever muster. For, no one is more obsessed with imposing [their] morality on others through government. Why, their works in this area are legion. …

One reason this truth eludes many people has to do with what I call “invisible morality.” You see, there is a morality that is so popular, so taken for granted, so much a part of the spirit of the age, that some folks don’t even recognize it as morality. For instance, the idea that murder is wrong is embraced by virtually everyone …

What makes invisible morality what it is, is that it is so thoroughly woven into the fabric of our culture that few can even see the stitch. …

Lastly, there’s something afoot here that is much more insidious than a mere misunderstanding of the issue. There are those who don’t need Selwyn Duke to tell them that a law is the legislation of morality. No, they know full well that this is the case, but they’re content to define traditional/conservative/religious morality as such while allowing theirs to remain unnoticed. This is because, you see, it is easier to win a political and cultural war when you can cast your opponents as grand-puppeteers who are trying to ram their medicine down others’ throats, while making your medicine indistinguishable from people’s everyday diet.

So the next time someone tells you that we shouldn’t legislate morality, you may want to ask, “Yours or other people’s?” Because the only way not to legislate morality is not to legislate at all. So what it all boils down to is that if you truly wouldn’t legislate morality, you’re not tolerant – you’re an anarchist.
Unquote

“The Reality About Legislating Morality”
By Selwyn Duke
renewamerica.com/columns/duke/040914