What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?

[SteveGC]

Lovesa, I’m coming into this discussion a little behind - forgive me. But could you help me with something…fill in the blank below:

A Christian lobbying to change the law to reflect his own religious beliefs is imposing his religion onto others; whereas a secularist lobbying to change the law to reflect what he believes is _________________________________________________________________.

I believe the first part of that statement is basically taken from your thoughts expressed in a post above. I’m interested how you would contrast this with the secularist. My apologies if you’ve addressed this earlier in the thread. If so, you may disregard.

Steve

 

[valentino]

Lovesa:Religion can be said to be any system.You can say Nazism is a religion.Don’t try to equate God with religion and blame God for mass murders.The Catholicism is considered a religion but don’t say that radical muslims are following God and therefore God or religion is responsible for causing wars.Secularism without God is amoral.And it can’t lead to equality and human rights.Cathollism is all about those moral values and justice for all.Secularism leads to discrimination.Always does and always will.

 

[scrappydeb]

I’m just coming into this thread and have not read all the pages of replies, so I apologize if I’m repeating something that has already been said. But, I felt compelled to respond to this:

What is everyone’s opinion on this? If we believe we have a right to campaign against secular laws including civil partnerships, does that mean it is okay for non-Catholics to start telling us how to apply our religious rules e.g. the Catechism?
…

After all, we are interfering in the “secular” world by campaigning against a law, so why can’t secular people interfere in our religious world by campaigning against our “rules”?

The BIG and significant distinction is this: non-Catholics are not part of the Catholic Church. As Catholics, however, we ARE part of secular society. It is appropriate for an institution (the Church) to comment on, express opinion on, and attempt to influence, the structures and processes of secular society of which it is a part, because those laws affect all of secular society, and therefore, Catholics.

The “religious rules” of the Catholic Church have no sigificant effect on anyone outside of the Church. E.g., when it comes to the question of, say, whether or not I am required to go to confession, the non-Catholic has “no dog in that race”.

 

[Lovesa]

Lovesa, I’m coming into this discussion a little behind - forgive me. But could you help me with something…fill in the blank below:

A Christian lobbying to change the law to reflect his own religious beliefs is imposing his religion onto others;

I’m not sure I’d agree that I believe this. In matters of morality, making the law reflect one’s religious beliefs on certain matters is only logical. I am all for people voting against, abortion, for instance. However, when it comes to blasphemy, it seems to me to exceed the moral responsibility of Christians and Chrisitan charity. They are still quite free to vote against it–this is a free country–but I question to moral rightness of it. After all, morally right and legally right are not the same.

whereas a secularist lobbying to change the law to reflect what he believes is

infringing upon the rights of people to follow their own conscience and beliefs_________________.

After all, a secularist making laws on their own particular morals is not a secularist. They may ban that which all agree should be banned. Murder, rape, etc. A secularist may think teaching kids about hell is immoral. They do not, unless they betray their own principles, try to ban it.

Note: I no more believe that secularists have a right to pass laws that violate religious conscience than religious have to do otherwise. Laws forcing people against same-sex marriage to support it in any way are, to my thinking, equally wrong as laws forbidding people to believe in what some term “sodomy”.

I believe the first part of that statement is basically taken from your thoughts expressed in a post above. I’m interested how you would contrast this with the secularist. My apologies if you’ve addressed this earlier in the thread. If so, you may disregard.

Steve

While I support both secularists (not to be confused with non-Christians and/or atheists; there are Christian secularists because secularists merely believe religion should not interfere with the state) and religious people voting according to their beliefs, I do not believe God or the government has given us the right to forbid others the right to do things which do not infringe on the rights of ourselves. A Buddhist or a Muslim praying in public does not infringe on my right to do the same. People committing adultery does not infringe on my right to be faithful to my spouse. Therefore, I have no right to ban these things.

I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Lovesa]

Lovesa:Religion can be said to be any system.You can say Nazism is a religion.Don’t try to equate God with religion and blame God for mass murders.

I have not blamed God for mass murders in any way. I have said that his followers have committed mass murders. I have pointed out that the religious government of the Puritans committed evils against the freedom of mankind. I have not blamed God.

As for Nazism as a religion, that is hardly defensible. A religion offers a philosophy of life; a political party offers a philosophy of government. Insofar as Nazism blurred the line a little, it broaches on a philosophy, and, perhaps, nearly a religion if one is pendantic about it. However, religions with a god and a life philosophy are hardly dismissible as religion simply because one disagrees.

The Catholicism is considered a religion but don’t say that radical muslims are following God and therefore God or religion is responsible for causing wars.Secularism without God is amoral.And it can’t lead to equality and human rights.Cathollism is all about those moral values and justice for all.Secularism leads to discrimination.Always does and always will.

Actually, religion has caused wars in that it has inspired people to do evil things. God has not inspired wars–unless one looks into the Old Testament, in which, yes, God inspired wars. This is what he sent the Israelites to do many times.

Secularism without God is not, however, amoral. Here we disagree. Are you familiar with Social Contract Theory? God is not needed for morals to be used in a country. There are many secularists nations on Earth today, and they have yet to get rid of people’s rights or to legalize murder. One can cry “abortion” all they want, but it is not seen as murder by many secularists, and therefore, while the morality may be dubious, morality is there. The idea that one needs religion to have morals is one of the ideas that many do not promote.

And does not the type of religious legislation some have argued for promote discrimination? Shall we go back to putting red As on adulterers? No one is clean in this debate; there is blood on all hands.

 

[Warrenton]

Note: I no more believe that secularists have a right to pass laws that violate religious conscience than religious have to do otherwise. Laws forcing people against same-sex marriage to support it in any way are, to my thinking, equally wrong as laws forbidding people to believe in what some term “sodomy”.

This view overlooks the distinction between making someone do something and forbidding someone from doing something.

It is worse to force someone to do something that they consider evil than to forbid someone from doing something they consider good, in the ordinary case.

An example: it is worse to force a conscientious objector to kill an enemy soldier than it is to forbid a patriot from killing an enemy because the patriot is not in the military.

Or, it is worse to force someone to commit an abortion than to forbid someone from having an abortion.

Why so? Because when we force people to act, we take all range of option away from them. When we forbid, we leave all, licit conduct open to them, and greater freedom is preserved.

I do not believe God or the government has given us the right to forbid others the right to do things which do not infringe on the rights of ourselves. A Buddhist or a Muslim praying in public does not infringe on my right to do the same. People committing adultery does not infringe on my right to be faithful to my spouse. Therefore, I have no right to ban these things.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

When the state says your husband may divorce you for any reason, or for no reason, what it is really saying is that you do not have the right to make a binding vow, or to make a binding vow with him, which obviously restricts your rights in the most fundamental way, by making you a slave.

Moreover, the reasoning reflected in your statement is not even adhered to by the very governments which promote this. Under such reasoning, the state could not draft or conscript soldiers, could not make them obey orders if it did, could not collect taxes, could not take property for its own purposes, could not license anything.

All of this governmental activity infringes on someone’s rights.

I hope that clears it up for you.

We’re gettting there!

Secularism without God is not, however, amoral. Here we disagree. Are you familiar with Social Contract Theory? God is not needed for morals to be used in a country.

This is a tricky concept. Generally, I agree with you that there is such a thing as public morality, and that common decency guides us not to offend our neighbors without some good reason.

However, the theory of the the social contract is more a hinderance than a help in formulating it.

First of all, no one ever did get together and agree on a set of rules to live by. While it has a certain 18th century charm, like Williamsburg, it really is ludicrous fiction, and has more in common with Moll Flanders than the philosophes would have liked to admit.

Virtually all of mankind agrees that in the beginning, the rules were already laid down, and the new creature called man was compelled to agree them by the gods. A few people qualified this general agreement by saying that one God, not many, laid the rules down.

If there is anything behind the social contract myth, it is simply that someone strong forced the people in his or her immediate vicinity to obey, and that they agreed it was better to comply than to be killed or maimed.

The second problem is its internal irrationality. The social contract theory explicitly denies divine law, primarilly on the ground that it is old and outdated.

However, what could me more old or outdated, or of less logical force, than a modern person agreeing to be bound by society’s laws merely because some primitive oafs, when convened one dismal and rainy day in a cave, around a sputtering fire that took them a month to start by steadfastly rubbing the heads of two small children together until they ignited, happened to agree that the collective scratching of fleas and body lice was preferable to the individual removal and consumption of ticks and mites?

Rousseau, like LeCar, simply won’t do.

There are many secularists nations on Earth today, and they have yet to get rid of people’s rights or to legalize murder. One can cry “abortion” all they want, but it is not seen as murder by many secularists, and therefore, while the morality may be dubious, morality is there.

Wait a second - are we going to get on the train or off of it?

If the secularists are moral, then they wouldn’t permit abortion. But if they permit abortion, then their morality is insufficient, or worse, is their morality is in fact immoral. No one can defend the morality of an action by “defining” the problem away.

Are Chinese political prisoners any more free by virtue of being classed as “mentally ill” by the Chinese government?

And if we really don’t agree whether abortion is killing or not, what does this say about the “Social Contract?”

A contract that omits material terms is “nudum pactum.”

 

[Lovesa]

This view overlooks the distinction between making someone do something and forbidding someone from doing something.

It is worse to force someone to do something that they consider evil than to forbid someone from doing something they consider good, in the ordinary case.

An example: it is worse to force a conscientious objector to kill an enemy soldier than it is to forbid a patriot from killing an enemy because the patriot is not in the military.

Or, it is worse to force someone to commit an abortion than to forbid someone from having an abortion.

Who’s forcing people to have abortions?

Why so? Because when we force people to act, we take all range of option away from them. When we forbid, we leave all, licit conduct open to them, and greater freedom is preserved.

What about in cases where the act forbidden is not forcing something on someone?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

When the state says your husband may divorce you for any reason, or for no reason, what it is really saying is that you do not have the right to make a binding vow, or to make a binding vow with him, which obviously restricts your rights in the most fundamental way, by making you a slave.

There is no reason to assume I support no-fault divorce. A contract is different than a law all are forced to obey. One has a choice to enter into a contract; entering into that contract is their right. However, the contract binds on them because they chose that binding.

Moreover, the reasoning reflected in your statement is not even adhered to by the very governments which promote this. Under such reasoning, the state could not draft or conscript soldiers,

Note: I do not believe in the draft. This in no way infringes on my idea.

could not make them obey orders if it did,

Without a draft, the soldiers chose their conscription, and therefore agree, by free will, to be bound by the rules.

could not collect taxes, could not take property for its own purposes, could not license anything.

All of this governmental activity infringes on someone’s rights.

Taxes do not infringe upon rights, nor does licensing, to my view. If one has a “right” to their money, very well. However, children do not pay taxes. Adults do. If adults do not want to pay taxes to a country, they can move away. If they are unable, yes, they are stuck, but then they are merely bound to support the system that provides for all their other rights.

This is a tricky concept. Generally, I agree with you that there is such a thing as public morality, and that common decency guides us not to offend our neighbors without some good reason.

However, the theory of the the social contract is more a hinderance than a help in formulating it.
…
However, what could me more old or outdated, or of less logical force, than a modern person agreeing to be bound by society’s laws merely because some primitive oafs, when convened one dismal and rainy day in a cave, around a sputtering fire that took them a month to start by steadfastly rubbing the heads of two small children together until they ignited, happened to agree that the collective scratching of fleas and body lice was preferable to the individual removal and consumption of ticks and mites?

Rousseau, like LeCar, simply won’t do.

We don’t agree here, then. I am, personally, an adherent of social contract theory. Rules in the cave you mention are quite cooperative.

Besides, social contract does not abolish religion by necessity. Just pointing that out.

Wait a second - are we going to get on the train or off of it?

If the secularists are moral, then they wouldn’t permit abortion.

Surely they are moral; they simply see morality differently than you.

But if they permit abortion, then their morality is insufficient, or worse, is their morality is in fact immoral. No one can defend the morality of an action by “defining” the problem away.

No one is defending the morality of the action. It is simply prudent to point out that their logic for supporting abortion is based on a morality that, to them, respects life more than the opposition to abortion.

Are Chinese political prisoners any more free by virtue of being classed as “mentally ill” by the Chinese government?

Certainly not. However, the Chinese government is lying. Abortion supporters are not lying when they say they believe they are moral. They believe it is immoral to force a woman to have a baby she cannot support, or does not want, or that will kill her if it comes to term. The morality is there; it is simply warped.

And if we really don’t agree whether abortion is killing or not, what does this say about the “Social Contract?”

A contract that omits material terms is “nudum pactum.”

It says that the social contract is not a guidebook of specific laws, but an explanation of the origin of the spirit of the law. Murder is wrong, says the social contract. This is concrete and inherent. What differs is what a society feels “murder” constitutes. Morality is not necessarily the same everywhere with social contract; it is merely constant in its spirit.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I no more believe that secularists have a right to pass laws that violate religious conscience than religious have to do otherwise. Laws forcing people against same-sex marriage to support it in any way are, to my thinking, equally wrong as laws forbidding people to believe in what some term “sodomy”

The argument against the artifice of same-sex “marriage” goes far beyond any wish to forbid sodomy. (Even though you separated the two concepts, you also compared them.)

You are fond of the word “force.” Rather, many of us see that homosexuals are trying to force the rest of society to accept a unique definition of marriage, which is really parriage, since one cannot “marry” in any true sense of human complementariness, a person whose gender is indistinct from one’s own; otherwise, the definition of marriage becomes open to a wide variety of self-selected definitions (i.e., manipulation by publishing private dictionaries).

No one is “forcing” homosexuals not to pair up. They have done so throughout history, and our Constitutional principles permit freedom of association as well as freedom to engage in private behavior between consenting adults (and within the law), which others find distasteful. But the government regulates the institution of marriage, and rightly so, as it is a key social structure for the raising of children and the continuation of an orderly society.

Murder is wrong, says the social contract. This is concrete and inherent.

As is people within one gender sexualizing their relationship, calling it “marriage” by fiat, and demanding (“forcing”) the rest of society to accept a unique view of the universe.

What differs is what a society feels “murder” constitutes.

That’s quite a slippery slope. Particularly the word “feels.”

This is why we have the kind of moral anarchy that makes it difficult for a child growing up today to be able to identify confidently right from wrong, with universal standards of what is humanly right and wrong.

 

[Lovesa]

The argument against the artifice of same-sex “marriage” goes far beyond any wish to forbid sodomy. (Even though you separated the two concepts, you also compared them.)

You are fond of the word “force.” Rather, many of us see that homosexuals are trying to force the rest of society to accept a unique definition of marriage, which is really parriage, since one cannot “marry” in any true sense of human complementariness, a person whose gender is indistinct from one’s own; otherwise, the definition of marriage becomes open to a wide variety of self-selected definitions (i.e., manipulation by publishing private dictionaries).

No one is “forcing” homosexuals not to pair up. They have done so throughout history, and our Constitutional principles permit freedom of association as well as freedom to engage in private behavior between consenting adults (and within the law), which others find distasteful. But the government regulates the institution of marriage, and rightly so, as it is a key social structure for the raising of children and the continuation of an orderly society.

As is people within one gender sexualizing their relationship, calling it “marriage” by fiat, and demanding (“forcing”) the rest of society to accept a unique view of the universe.

That’s quite a slippery slope. Particularly the word “feels.”

This is why we have the kind of moral anarchy that makes it difficult for a child growing up today to be able to identify confidently right from wrong, with universal standards of what is humanly right and wrong.

I’d have to disagree on two points.
Firstly, if one person wants to call their relationship a marriage, you are free to disagree. Everyone is. It no more forces society to accept some new “definition” of marriage to allow gays to marry than allowing non-Catholic marriages forces Catholics to consider those couples married in the church.

Secondly, the idea of a slippery slope is a danger in an argument, but hardly always logical. “Feels” is perhaps not the best word, but debates over the ethics of life are age-old. One could make a “slippery slope” claim about anything, but it has never been conducive to debate.

As for our children, I agree. It has always been difficult to know right from wrong. However, this is something our children can learn as they age, not something they need to be 100% sure of from the start, except as is helpful in raising them. The fact that people may disagree sometimes on right and wrong does not mean that one’s children must let the confusion dishearten them.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’d have to disagree on two points.
Firstly, if one person wants to call their relationship a marriage, you are free to disagree.

No. Society is free to disagree, and society does.

“Feels” is perhaps not the best word

No kidding.

As for our children, I agree. It has always been difficult to know right from wrong. However, this is something our children can learn as they age, not something they need to be 100%sure of from the start, except as is helpful in raising them. The fact that people may disagree sometimes on right and wrong does not mean that one’s children must let the confusion dishearten them.

But the society you construct will definitely confuse them, and “from the start.” Children’s notions of right and wrong are formed actually quite early. “Helpful”? Those notions are formed from language, from behavior, from what is formally taught in schools, from what is reflected in the media, and from much more. By the time “they age,” it will be way too late to shape their internal moral convictions.

 

[Lovesa]

But the society you construct will definitely confuse them, and “from the start.” Children’s notions of right and wrong are formed actually quite early. “Helpful”? Those notions are formed from language, from behavior, from what is formally taught in schools, from what is reflected in the media, and from much more. By the time “they age,” it will be way too late to shape their internal moral convictions.

I’m not sure why you think that children are so difficult to teach. The media currently is very opposed to Christianity in right and wrong, and many people are managing to raise their children with a concrete sense of that very thing. Even in a Christian society, there will be kids on the playground advocating bad things; there will be peer pressure and bullies and all sorts of things. There will be teachers who slack off of their duties. If they approach the world with the structure they have learned at home and at church, they should be fine. Otherwise, we give our childlren very little credit.

 

[Christopher68]

One simply cannot derive a right to commit a moral evil from G-d. The fact that such a thing leads to theocracy is perfectly acceptable to me.

Thank you for admitting what your prior posts have insinuated. While the notion of a theocracy may be perfectly acceptable to you, it would be quite scary in reality. Are you familiar with the middle east?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not sure why you think that children are so difficult to teach. The media currently is very opposed to Christianity in right and wrong, and many people are managing to raise their children with a concrete sense of that very thing. Even in a Christian society, there will be kids on the playground advocating bad things; there will be peer pressure and bullies and all sorts of things. There will be teachers who slack off of their duties. If they approach the world with the structure they have learned at home and at church, they should be fine. Otherwise, we give our childlren very little credit.

And I’m not sure why you seem to miss the primary point of my responses, and instead look for something obscure.

I never said, or implied, that “children were difficult to teach.” I wouldn’t know where you would draw such a conclusion. I said that the home foundation is critical from the start, early, not later “when they age.” You seem to have a different understanding of how and when children learn most receptively, from the experience of those who parent, the experience of psychologists and educators, and the self-reports of people recalling their own childhoods. And when young, they learn concretely, by observing patterns (more than by intellectualizing).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thank you for admitting what your prior posts have insinuated.

Thank you for making this random comment…?

While the notion of a theocracy may be perfectly acceptable to you, it would be quite scary in reality…

Why?

 

[Lovesa]

And I’m not sure why you seem to miss the primary point of my responses, and instead look for something obscure.

I never said, or implied, that “children were difficult to teach.” I wouldn’t know where you would draw such a conclusion. I said that the home foundation is critical from the start, early, not later “when they age.” You seem to have a different understanding of how and when children learn most receptively, from the experience of those who parent, the experience of psychologists and educators, and the self-reports of people recalling their own childhoods. And when young, they learn concretely, by observing patterns (more than by intellectualizing).

Certainly they learn by experiences, and they need a home foundation. I don’t deny that. I do, however, think that, with that home foundation, they can learn to handle the conflicting standards they may find in others. Children knowing that not everyone agrees with them does not automatically confuse them in a damaging way.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…I no more believe that secularists have a right to pass laws that violate religious conscience than religious have to do otherwise. Laws forcing people against same-sex marriage to support it in any way are, to my thinking, equally wrong as laws forbidding people to believe in what some term “sodomy”.
…

The argument against the artifice of same-sex “marriage” goes far beyond any wish to forbid sodomy. (Even though you separated the two concepts, you also compared them.)

You are fond of the word “force.” Rather, many of us see that homosexuals are trying to force the rest of society to accept a unique definition of marriage, which is really parriage, since one cannot “marry” in any true sense of human complementariness, a person whose gender is indistinct from one’s own; otherwise, the definition of marriage becomes open to a wide variety of self-selected definitions (i.e., manipulation by publishing private dictionaries).

No one is “forcing” homosexuals not to pair up. They have done so throughout history, and our Constitutional principles permit freedom of association as well as freedom to engage in private behavior between consenting adults (and within the law), which others find distasteful. But the government regulates the institution of marriage, and rightly so, as it is a key social structure for the raising of children and the continuation of an orderly society.

As is people within one gender sexualizing their relationship, calling it “marriage” by fiat, and demanding (“forcing”) the rest of society to accept a unique view of the universe.

That’s quite a slippery slope. Particularly the word “feels.”

This is why we have the kind of moral anarchy that makes it difficult for a child growing up today to be able to identify confidently right from wrong, with universal standards of what is humanly right and wrong.

In follow up to the above exchange:

In pushing for the legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’, gay couples and their supporters are forcing society to accept a new definition of marriage. Law tends to be regarded as a great teacher, although what is legal is not necessarily moral. This is the reason Catholics should ‘interfere’ where and when they can to shape or change secular laws. Moral laws benefit all, not just a segment of society.

If gay couples just want to call their unions ‘marriage’ with their supporters agreeing with them, there would not be great resistance by opponents to same-sex ‘marriage.’ The fact that gay couples would enjoy legal and economic benefits does not bother too many folks with legalization of SSM. Of concern is that this most radical sexual revolution successfully reaching the fruit of legalized same-sex ‘marriage’ will establish that homosexuality (the act) is to be encouraged, without regard to the many who believe that it as unnatural and immoral. That is forcing.

The argument of the gay crowd that ‘marriage’ between two men or two women is a private affair, with no effect whatsoever to society or the public, simply fails. It is more than just bestowing kinship and partnership rights as with the legal union of husband and wife. How would social scientists grasp the cost to the future generations? How would re-engineering society back to where the community was before SSM even be possible? Families are not created for the purpose of meeting adult wants and happiness only, disregarding children’s rights to natural parents, to be born to and raised by a mother and a father.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

I do, however, think that, with that home foundation, they can learn to handle the conflicting standards they may find in others. Children knowing that not everyone agrees with them does not automatically confuse them in a damaging way.

I never made any statement contradicting that, so you’re arguing against something that hasn’t been argued. We seem to be having a communication problem, so I won’t belabor it.

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps, but if things as simple as blasphemy were to be made illegal it could be very dangerous. After all, if everything condemned by the Bible were illegal there would be no room for all the prison inmates.

Either that, or everyone would simply behave better.

I am old enough to have lived in this “horrifying world” where swearing in public was illegal, and thus, not often done. Where cohabiting was illegal, and thus, only rarely done. Where homosexual behaviour was illegal, and thus, only rarely done. Where it was expected that every father would take his family to Church or synagogue every weekend, and thus, it was (mostly) done. Where it was illegal to transact unnecessary business on the Sabbath, and thus, it was simply not done. In which it was illegal to possess pornography, and thus, at the very least, pornography was not available at candy stores for children to look at while buying candy, and did not appear in advertising.

In the year that I turned eight years old, they took the Lord’s Prayer and the National Anthem out of the schools, and the decline from that point onward was very steep - by the time I was twelve, I could have bought pornographic magazines at the candy store on a Sunday, if I had wanted to for some reason - just as twelve year olds today can do.

Of course there is a right to interfere. However, responsibility comes with every right. Is it morally responsible to ban things because one’s own religion says they are wrong? Is that not forcing one’s own religion on others? The law (governmental law) is not there to make people good. It is there to protect them enough to let them live free lives.

I don’t know if we were any freer back in those days, but I do remember that my parents didn’t interfere too much with my doings - as long as I went to school at the proper times, and did whatever homework they sent me home with, I was free to do whatever I wanted. I could stay in the park until the street lights came on, and play pretty much any games I wanted to play. I could study any subjects I wanted to in school, and most people were good and kind to me.

 

[Christopher68]

Thank you for making this random comment…?

There was nothing “random” about my comment. You stated a belief you held - which I suspected was the case - and I referenced it specifically. I appreciated that you admitted your position, even if you may have been concerened about opening yourself up to ridicule in doing so. I applaud you for that.

 

[jmcrae]

Certainly they learn by experiences, and they need a home foundation. I don’t deny that. I do, however, think that, with that home foundation, they can learn to handle the conflicting standards they may find in others. Children knowing that not everyone agrees with them does not automatically confuse them in a damaging way.

If society does not promote healthy morals, where is this home foundation supposed to come from?