Nothing stops parents with views different from that of the greater society from raising their children with those values. Just because something is legal does not mean it has to be promoted in the home. Smoking is legal, but many parents raise their children not to do it.If society does not promote healthy morals, where is this home foundation supposed to come from?
Yes, its random. This entire scenario is in your head.
You’ll pardon me for saying so, but, while you may have found it a good experience, the same was not true of everyone. The restriction of things like cohabiting and homosexual behavior may have discouraged people from doing these things, but they did happen. They also did damage to people who, finding those things moral, were kept from living according to their consciences by the law. While I agree that some things are better kept where children can’t get at them (such as pornography; the only time I’ve seen pornography on sale is when I walked into what I thought was a magazine shop one day and was immediately asked for ID, so I don’t know how it’s available for children at the candy shop), I do not believe that it is right to deter these things simply because one believes they are wrong religiously. After all, we are also talking about an age in which women were expected to keep house–so not doing so “simply wasn’t done.”
I’m interested in knowing where the purchase of pornography doesn’t require an I.D. If you simply mean magazines with racy pictures, that has been around for at least as long as this country.
Most people were good and kind to me in school, as well, and I grew up after a good many other developments occured. At any rate, I think it is important to remember, that, even if a law does not affect you personally, it can still cause harm to another. Homosexual activity wasn’t “rarely done” when it was illegal; it was done secretly, and often not safely.Cohabitation happened; it just was kept quiet. As for working on the Sabbath, I’m actually interested in how and why that law was instituted.
Where are parents who have a moral foundation supposed to be produced from, if society is not producing them?
I think you may be overstating the decline of our society. These parents will have learned from their parents, who in turn learned from their parents. The children raised with morals will know other children who have been raised with the same morals–people with morals aren’t so rare they don’t know other people who have them. I grew up in a society in which a lot of things immoral were considered cool, but I don’t hold to them, and the credit is not entirely on my parents, but it is partly there. They, also, were raised in a society which, though they say it was more moral, contained a great many moral evils. Children are fully capable, in growing, of retaining their moral values and passing these on to their children. The fact that “society” may not support these morals does not mean that no people in society do. Society is a vague enough term without forgetting that there are a good many moral people even in what they consider an immoral society.
The average person in society doesn’t think very much about the Church. They certainly don’t go, which means they never hear sermons, and most of them don’t read newspapers, meaning they never hear what the Church has to say on particular issues.
Let us not confuse “moral” with “nice.”
Isn’t that the truth.
Being paid for sex is not illegal. Communicating for the purposes of prostitution is illegal, but almost impossible to prove, and almost never prosecuted.
You can pick up Playboy or Hustler at any 7-11 or Mac’s Milk, and if you say you’re getting it for your Dad (assuming you’re a minor), they’ll sell it to you. Maybe those are considered “racy magazines” rather than pornography these days, but I don’t really know the difference, in that case.
The Third Commandment dates back to about 4,000 B.C.E. or thereabouts, and the reason given is, “for in the days of Creation the Lord thy God rested on the seventh day; therefore the seventh day is holy to the Lord.”
Yes, but are those people the ones we’re concerned with? The important thing is that the people in the church stand as models for others. If they don’t follow that example, that is their right.
Yes, but let’s also not confuse “different than me” with “without moral standards”.
Is this not the grandmother’s decision, whether she wants to be cured or not? People do not necessarily have to have the exact same morals as mainiline Christianity to have morals. If they want to take away a person’s right to life, then their morality comes to question. After all, the right to life is guaranteed in the constitution.
As long as these people are not violating others’ right to be moral, what is the problem? At any rate, the people not reporting these things are equally at fault, or nearly so, by the law.
Playboy and Hustler are not pornography because they do not contain explicit sexual content. I’m not sure where it is that one can pick them up if they’re “getting it for [their] dad” either; I have never encountered this.
So, our country is allowed to enforce religious laws on non-religious people? I’m not sure. The idea that that law is binding on non-Christians may be part of Christian belief, but, legaly it is not something that can be legislated. This seems contrary to religious freedom.The Third Commandment dates back to about 4,000 B.C.E. or thereabouts, and the reason given is, “for in the days of Creation the Lord thy God rested on the seventh day; therefore the seventh day is holy to the Lord.”
Lovesa, it appears to me, after looking through this thread, that you might be something of a moral relativist – that is, that there is no objective morality, and that “do what you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone” is perhaps your guiding ethic.
I’m less of a moral relativist (all morals are right in societal context) than a believer in people’s right to disagree. I may think someone is wrong, but, unless they violate my rights, it is not in my rights to stop them from doing something lawful.
I’m with you one the big laws, certainly. That’s the exception to the rule that is covered in most legal systems. However, how far must one go in taking care of sexual immorality? I think that’s where the disagreement between various people’s position lies, and it can be difficult to tell where the good of society ends and personal freedom begins.
The government is. This is the debate regarding whether doctors and nurses who oppose abortion may refuse to perform or assist in them, or whether the refusal will cost them their profession.
Generally, these laws are less offensive. But not always. An example are the vagrancy laws. They are written such that they appear to proscribe begging. The Christian sees through this. The Christian knows that to forbid asking for charity is to compel the continuation of the need, and to compel the continuation of the sin of failing to render charity to the poor.
I made no such assumption. Indeed, because you are a Lutheran, I assumed you would be against divorce.
Well, a choice is only free to the extent it is knowing. The military does not disclose all of the facts, and the parties are not bargaining on a level playing field. Also, the breach by one party discharges the obligation of the other side to continue adhering to the contract. Plus, no one can enforece an immoral contract. All these matters weigh against the military.
Taking the points in reverse order: children do pay taxes. They pay sales tax and inheritance tax, for example. If taxes do not infringe rights, then we are left with a very strange kind of morality: one where the government defines what is moral, excludes any meaningful appeal from the decision, all while claiming it is based on a consensus, but at the same time denying the basic right to property.
First, there is no record of any cave agreement. But even if there were, what has that to do with me?
This is like saying they see an apple differently than me, because they call an apple what is in fact an orange. This is not mere disagreement.
Yes, but they are objectively wrong. And if they are wrong, then they have no right to persist in calling their position “moral.”
They are lying in the same way the criminal lies when he says he shot the policeman in self defense.
If murder were “concrete and inherent” then we would all agree what constitutes murder.
And I am not in support of laws forcing people to perform abortions.
Are you sure a Christian must be against vagrancy laws? There are other ways of asking for charity than asking people on the street.
The law, then, would seem to need amendment. The law is in a position to protect contracts.
I agree with you on this; the government has no right to deny contract enforcement to Christians in a marital context.
I am very unsure of tax laws myself, in that context. However, without the governments we would not have our other rights. It is one of the things that all generally agree on for the benefit of saving all the other rights.
I was just rolling with the analogy given.Actually, I think the argument is more “Is the orange worth eating?” or “What should we use oranges for?” than attempting to name the fruit.
So the government is lying to us? I haven’t seen them call morality into an argument, either. Individual politicians may claim it, but the government has no real claim to morality.
I’d disagree on this point. Everyone has the right to be wrong, providing they offer some kind of proof.
Criminals could, in rare circumstances, be telling the truth as well. If we were not there, are we in a position to come to a conclusion without further investigation?
I’m not sure about that either. Many political parties agree that taxes are “concrete and inherent”, but do not agree on what constitutes justifiable taxation.
This is a very interesting observation. In absolute terms, I would agree we are not in a position to conclude. In practical terms, however, we often must.
I understand. I think we disagree more in the terms we use than in the application. You seem comfortable with putting more things under a given term than I am. The good thing about your method is that it is more apt, perhaps, to generate consensus since you can concede quickly that you on the same page, so to speak, as your opponent. My way is apt to create an argument where there isn’t really one.
I think, if we’re honest as a society, that we know very well where to draw the line between societal good and personal freedom. We know that because we’re reaping the terrible harvest of having gone too far towards an unchecked individualiam that has ripped apart families for at least a whole generation. I don’t think you can deny that the government has stepped in, quite willingly, to take the power over individuals that once resided in healthy families. Face it – fathers aren’t necessary anymore. The government will be Big Daddy for all – and then it has the power to tell you how to live your life, since they’re footing the bill.
I’d agree that families are in quite a spot today, but I’m not sure it’s as easy to decide between personal freedom and societal good as you say. After all, not everyone is Catholic, and they deserve to follow their own religious ways. For instance, fathers do not get enough promotion these days. Fair enough. While I’ve seen campaigns lately against that, they don’t seem to be doing enough. However, it is good to not absolutely ban the idea of families that don’t fit the ideal mold out of necessity. Take for example the woman with the violently abusive husband who just up and left one day, or even the gay couple that abides by all laws, doesn’t adopt children, and doesn’t attempt to push their life on the religious. Surely these people are not part of any movement to hurt the family unit or society. After all, there are exceptions to every rule, and they deserve to be noted.