The Distinction Between Sin and Crime
What do we mean when we say, “You cannot legislate morality”?
Surely, legislation should not be ambivalent to right and wrong. Law builds upon the concept of justice. Is not justice derived from morality?
Sometimes, people simply mean that government cannot force us to be good. In other contexts, the statement signals a distinction between what is objectively wrong, like killing someone, and what is subjectively wrong, like swearing in public.
Yet much of the time it can be hard to discern exactly what someone means when they say morality cannot be legislated. The term is used on both the Right and the Left, by social conservatives and social liberals, by people on opposite sides of the same issue. On the one hand, you might have a conservative who uses the term to argue against redistribution of wealth while standing opposed to gay marriage and abortion. On the other hand, you might find a leftist who uses the term to argue in favor of gay marriage and abortion while seeking to seize money which they did not earn.
What gives? Does the term prove completely subjective? Does any given person simply want their sense of morality enforced while the other guy’s sits ignored?
It shouldn’t surprise us to find confusion whenever morality is invoked. People’s sense of right and wrong certainly varies and will affect their public policies. Perhaps recognition of that fact fuels the notion that morality ought not be legislated. Perhaps we think, “In a free country, we have the right to decide right and wrong for ourselves.”
Of course, that sentiment fails upon its first application. A murderer might think he is right, as might a thief or a rapist. Hitler thought he was right. Perhaps then, morality by whim is not a pillar of true freedom.
Upon acknowledging that some kind of morality must inform legislation, a most uncomfortable question arises. Whose? Should the morality informing legislation be dictated by the church? Should it be a consensus of “experts”? Should it be put to a purely democratic vote? Who has the right, and by what authority, to tell another what they may or may not do?
Historically, governments have derived their authority and their sense of morality through entirely subjective and arbitrary means. The king is so ordained by God. Better men should govern lesser ones. The majority should get their way. These approaches are united in their disregard for individual rights.
Does religious necessary mean moral?
America’s founding fathers employed an experimental model based on the notion that government ought to protect rights. Yet even that greatest of political achievements was predicated upon a moral condition, most famously expressed by John Adams:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
What did Adams mean? Self-government, a term which has lost some of its meaning over the course of history, surely refers to autonomy. To self-govern is to live in political independence without subjugation to tyranny. But Adams and his contemporaries saw more. To them self-government demanded self-control, the ability to restrain ourselves from the thoughtless indulgence of every whim. In his time as throughout history, religion was widely regarded as the only institution aside from government capable of restraining men’s base instincts. Even today, many still hold to Adams’ view that the Constitution is inadequate to govern an irreligious people.
Certainly, it is true that the Constitution is wholly inadequate to the government of an immoral people. However, the morality which men need in order to coexist in peace need not come from religion. A Russian immigrant to the United States who spent her life decrying the evils of communism also discovered an objective morality derived through reason, a morality which references the facts of reality in its demand that each individual live free.
Ayn Rand’s theory of rights is based upon the observation that life is the ultimate value. In other words, life makes all values possible and all values serve a thriving life. For example, let’s say you want a new car. Without life, there would be no you to want the car. Further, you want the car in order to improve your quality of life. The same proves true of any value you may choose to pursue. While particular values can certainly be subjective (I like onions while my wife hates them), the concept of value is not. No matter what you prefer, you can value it only because you live, and you pursue it in service of your life.
Further noting that human beings conceive of and pursue their values through a process of rational thought, as opposed to the instinctual nature of lower animals, Rand concluded that man’s nature endows him with the right to act upon his own judgment. That right is necessarily bound by the same right in others, so that you cannot rightfully act to harm or restrict another.
In a world where this objective morality was recognized and observed, government would look very different than it does today. It would most resemble the early United States as originally intended, though it would differ remarkably even from that. Let’s tick through some issues and consider how they might be addressed.
Thus the scourge of liquor was wiped off the face of the earth.
Consider drug-control policy. As previously noted, this is an issue where critics of prohibition lament the “legislating of morality.” The argument against prohibition typically takes one of two paths. Drug abuse may be portrayed as something not worth moralizing about, the “no big deal” defense. More common is the notion that drug abuse is a “victimless crime.” That term implies a division of morality into the realms of self and other, asserting that government should only concern itself with the latter.
That’s generally the right direction. Objective morality does not condone drug abuse. A rational pursuit of happiness does not seek short-term pleasure at a severe long-term cost. However, the immorality of drug abuse does not violate the rights of another individual. And since government informed by objective morality would exist only to protect rights, it would not act to prohibit drug abuse.
What of gay marriage? In civil terms, the union of two people is a contractual arrangement which should not be subject to the review of third parties. Society does not get to ratify contracts. If two people want to live together, combine assets, and grant each other agency, it remains their business.
That said, the movement to redefine marriage through the force of law seeks far more than contract rights. What gay marriage proponents are after is the affirmative action currently granted to married couples, preferential treatment which however well intentioned is still a violation of rights. The uncomfortable truth surrounding the marriage issue is that heterosexual couples have long been subsidized by their unwed neighbors. It is that state endorsement which homosexuals covet, along with the social sanction it implies. Under government informed by objective morality, marriage contracts would be just that, conveying no special benefits beyond the terms agreed upon. As a result, religious individuals and institutions with conscientious objections to homosexuality would never be forced to violate their conscience.
How about foreign policy? Can war ever be moral? It can according to the case made in Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism by Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein. Brook explains:
As we argue in the book, the principle that should guide our foreign policy is the same principle that should guide all governmental action: Our government should protect the individual rights of Americans. That’s our government’s only proper function. Deriving from that same purpose, our foreign policy should work to protect the lives and the property of individual Americans—from threats that are initiated outside the borders of this country. Clearly one major threat that the government must be on guard for—and retaliate against—is that of countries or groups launching a war against us or sending out terrorists to cause the mass slaughter of Americans. Other kinds of threats include threats to the property of Americans: Think of the pirates off the coast of Somalia taking ships for ransom. It is part of the government’s job to secure our right to property, to protect our ability to trade freely, and to prevent our property from being stolen by thugs on the high seas.
The battle for hearts and minds rages on.
As agreeable as that summation may seem, realize that foreign policy is not guided by the principle of individual rights. Journo expounds:
From examining the intentions and actions of our military in the field, it becomes obvious that what animated Bush’s policy was the notion of bringing elections and social services to Iraq and Afghanistan—not protecting American lives. And while Obama wants to be seen as the anti-Bush, his approach is animated by a similar goal. In his high-profile speech in Cairo [in 2008], he promised to fund and create “centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.” What’s common here is the moral idea behind these policies—the idea that America must serve the meek and needy of the earth. We argue in the book that this conventional outlook on morality has shaped American foreign policy, and that the effect has been inimical to our liberty and security.
Peacemaking takes on a different character under objective morality. Whereas the current sense of the word evokes diplomatic ploys and decades-long, blue-helmeted occupations, the objective sense looks more like the nuclear bomb. That is not to say that war should be sought or engaged in lightly, but that it should be waged as if actual war, with its end being the utter annihilation of an enemy state. There is no obligation to rebuild foreign infrastructure, reform foreign government, or win foreign hearts and minds. The proper obligation of a government at war remains the same as when it enjoys peace, to protect the rights of citizens.
The objective moral approach to public policy may be uncomfortable to the religious, such as my Christian brethren. A world where drug abuse and gay unions are tolerated while innocents are killed in foreign wars fails to meet righteous biblical standards. Even so, are we commissioned with crafting a righteous world? At what time and in what manner has government made men holy? Justification and sanctification are the work of God in the lives of his elect, not the purpose of civil law. Under government which protects our rights, the faithful are free to exercise their religion and pursue a kingdom not of this world. That should more than satisfy.
*****
See more of Walter Hudson’s recent articles at PJ Lifestyle. Some of the subjects he focuses on include religion, technology, culture, economics, and the Tea Party:
Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
–T.S. Eliott, “The Cocktail Party”
Destiny waits in the hand of God, not in the hands of statesmen.
–T.S. Eliott, “Murder in the Cathedral”
Proper law is based on damages.
Or should we respect rules based on leftist ‘morality’?
Marraige is a property rights tradition- who inherits?
Remember bastards?
Abortion- equal rights for unborn women.
‘Feminists’ are training their future killers.
If “objective morality was recognized and observed, government would look very different than it does today. It would most resemble the early United States as originally intended…”
If Objective Morality is productive of “no big deal” drug use, marriage as a self-defined contractual arrangement, to include homosexuals (and perhaps incest?!) and indifference to political power as a means of protecting the interests of godly men, then OM seems to more strongly resemble Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World than the Founder’s Republic.
Rand’s objectivist morality is indistinguishable from amoralism or nihilism. Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Huxley and Rand are not apostles of liberty, as some dark souls would have us believe.
I encourage you to investigate further. Your comparison of objective morality to amoralism or nihilism couldn’t be further from the truth. Amorality is a lack of morality, which objective morality is not. Nihilism rejects the concept of value altogether, a concept which is foundational to objective morality. I also encourage you to re-read the piece and note that objective morality does not condone drug abuse. There is a difference between condoning something and making it illegal. Objective morality would certainly not produce Huxley’s Brave New World, a society which utterly rejected individual rights and was governed through the initiation of force rather than retaliating against it.
Nihilism is at the root of the modern liberal mindset.
No Rousseau is. Nihilism came later.
Does the world need any standard of morality beyond Jesus’ statement that we should do unto others as we would be done by? I have never found a situation where that can be improved on.
What if your sense of how others should “do onto you” is perverted? What if two people want to commit adultery? Each would be doing as the other wanted. Surely, Jesus did not mean that, did he? We should be wary of oversimplifying a statement which has sixty-six books of context. Morality should be informed by more than a single verse.
The concept of “do unto others as you would have them do to you” did not originate with Jesus Christ. It pre-dates the New Testament time among Greek philosophers by several centuries. In addition, elements can be found millennia earlier in writings such as the Code of Hammurabi.
And God predates Greek Philosophers as well as the Code of Hammurabi.
Of stop, would you please? I could care less about some obscure tribe that left some scratchings on a piece of petrified wood.
The bible is IT (Old and New Testements) as far as our cultural conscience goes and I believe there is a reason it has withstood the test of time.
Abraham came from the “petrified wood scratchers.” Would it strain your mental capacity to learn of the clay tablets with Cuneiform writing, some of which contained stories very similar to “Noah’s Ark?” Check out the Epic of Gilgamesh, which has been translated several times. The Old Testament (and therefore the New?) is within a literary tradition, which began with the wood scratchers. And atop Sinai, the Ten Commandments were written onto petrified…what?
The “do unto others” thing is not the same as “live and let live” or “it takes all kinds” or “when in Rome…” or “whatever floats your boat.”
In context, “do unto others” is preceded by two questions. If you’re a parent and your child asked for bread, would you give him a stone? If he asked for a fish, would you give him a snake? And there’s a promise: If even you sinners know how to take good care of your children, surely God knows how to take even better care of you. Then comes the “do unto others” bit.
I think this relates to the later instruction to “love thy neighbor.” People are just supposed to look out for each other, treat each other well and fairly, help each other when they need help. That doesn’t mean they’re not supposed to obey or enforce the law or correct each other when they sin.
Mark Chapter 12:
28One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?”
29Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
30AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’
31“The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”32The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM;
33AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE’S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
34When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions.
“At what time and in what manner has government made men holy? Justification and sanctification are the work of God in the lives of his elect, not the purpose of civil law.”
Walter Hudson, you have come to the nub of the problem with the above quote from your essay. The evil that has resulted from man’s attempt to build the kingdom of God on earth is incalculable; from the Tower of Babel to Pol Pot and yet the attempts continue.
That is wrong fundamentally. It supposes that without the above all would be well. History is replete with people harming others with governments subjugating, enslaving and killing their own citizens as well as others.
The Fundamental truth is that people use whatever they can to do these things. The root cause of all people’s problems are…people. There are evil people and the best we can do is try to make governments that limit the damage that other people would do to their citizens and the damage that its own citizens would do to each other.
Eventually the evil people suborn the best of governments. Welcome to 21st Century America.
“What’s common here is the moral idea behind these policies—the idea that America must serve the meek and needy of the earth. We argue in the book that this conventional outlook on morality has shaped American foreign policy, and that the effect has been inimical to our liberty and security.”
Our power elite has manipulated us into accepting their catastrophic foreign policy decisions through the PRETENSE of serving the meek and needy of the earth.
Their real motives for serving the cause of Islamic expansionism at every turn have nothing at all to do with serving the meek and needy (who are the Christians and Jews currently being victimized by Muslims all over the world).
Case in point: Hillary Clinton and her motives for declaring war on the Christian Serbs, and for stealing Kosovo to turn it over to a Muslim narcoterrorist gang that is implicated in human organ trafficking.
Stupid, crazy, evil, and hypocritical is no way to go through life.
Where was this Muslim narcoterrorist gang before Milosevic?
The Christian Serbs were committing and were intent on further crimes against humanity. al Qaeda’s opening to the Balkans was created by the Serbs, not by NATO’s reaction to Serbia’s crimes.
Quit licking Putin’s boots, and after a decade’s or so penance you might have credibility.
I’m sick of hearing the same false accusations over and over from low-information commenters who, when it comes to foreign affairs about which they know nothing, take everything that the State Department and the mainstream media says at face value.
And once they’ve written something stupid, they can never take it back because that would involve admitting that they’ve been wrong all along.
The Serbs are not war criminals; the US, NATO and the EU have had well over a decade to prove their case and they have not. The ICTY follows NO due process of law and is, in fact, bankrolled by George Soros, the ex-Nazi-collaborator.
The Albanian Muslim gangsters have been at it for decades. Tito allowed Albanians fleeing the Enver Hoxha regime to infiltrate into Kosovo and to expropriate the Serbs. As soon as the Communist regime in Albania fell, vast numbers of Albanians left just as quickly as they could, many to Kosovo, some to Macedonia, some to the EU and the US. They got involved in gang violence, smuggling drugs and other contraband, human trafficking, and even trafficking in stolen human organs because that was the way to make money.
Before you make a bigger fool out of yourself by trying to argue with me, spend a few months of your spare time reading the articles on THIS BLOG – and no, it is not my blog and I do not write for it. Follow up the links, news items, videos, and so forth. Then you owe me and the entire Serbian people an apology.
Your too full of shit.
Sniping civilians in Sarajevo happened. Serbs did it.
Mass killings of rounded up non-Serb males happened. Serbs did it.
The rape of tens of thousands of Bosnian women by Serbs happened. The DNA is unambiguous.
These atrocities happened, and were committed by Serbs.
PJMedia policies permit only a single link to be posted at a time, so I will follow with several single link posts.
It should be a strategic goal of the United States of America, if the Russians won’t get with the program, of opposing Russia in its every interest we do not share, to cause Russia to shrink back to the borders of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. We should arm the Ukrainian opposition if they want it, US air bases should fill Poland and Georgia. If the Finns want to make a play to recover Karelia, they should have our help. The Japanese should be encouraged to retake the Kurils. We should agitate in Siberia for independence.
Until Islam, China, and Russia are destroyed in their current form, the Revolution of 1775 is not any more safe from those totalitarians than it was from George III.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-bosnia-rape-idUSBRE8BI0SD20121219
http://books.google.se/books?id=7bfwDs2wCiAC&pg=PA333&dq=overwhelmingly+against+Bosnian-Muslim+women&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=IzfbUPCdN8yP4gSxooCwBw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=overwhelmingly%20against%20Bosnian-Muslim%20women&f=false
http://books.google.se/books?id=HJexhW3C0TIC&pg=PA243&dq=bosnia+rape+war+predominantly+muslim+women&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=PjPbUPzPCune4QT4qIDYBQ&ved=0CGAQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=bosnia%20rape%20war%20predominantly%20muslim%20women&f=false
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8007740/ns/world_news-europe/t/bosnian-children-bornof-war-rape-asking-questions/#.UQxej_JsJNV
“We should agitate in Siberia for independence.”
should be
“We should agitate in Georgia for independence.”
“take everything that the State Department and the mainstream media says at face value.”
I take nothing from the State Department at face value. Your main problem is that the film of Serbian snipers shooting little girls in Sarajevo predates the development of the CGI technology that could fake it. I remember watching it, it wasn’t faked.
“And once they’ve written something stupid, they can never take it back because that would involve admitting that they’ve been wrong all along.”
The concept you’re looking for–or carefully not looking for–is projection.
“The Serbs are not war criminals”
The hell it hasn’t been proved. Technical errors may let a few prominent ones off, which has no implication to the guilt of the bulk of them. I support the “not guilty” verdict here in the US about obviously guilty people, as a check on conclusory police actions–it’s about the only way to keep them honest–but would never propose this means actual innocence on the part of the accused. I suppose you don’t share such scruples.
“The Albanian Muslim…to make money.”
None of which is an entry point to Al Qaeda, which came only when the barely Moslem, hard drinking, culturally European Bosnians were looking for support against the atrocities committed by the Serbs. Thanks Milosevic. Thanks Serbia, And thanks, Russia.
“Before you make…people an apology.”
The only thing the human race owes the Serbs, if they are proud of their crimes, is lead at as many feet per second as can be arranged.
Are you proud of your crimes, 1389AD, or are you covering for someone near to you?
“What do we mean when we say, “You cannot legislate morality?””
It isn’t rocket science.
Immoral is something you shouldn’t do.
Crime is doing it to someone else or their property.
If only everyone saw it that way.
“If only everyone saw it that way.”
Yeah, but think of how much less Chinese curse interesting…
Of course there’s more to it.
A recreational drug would be something you could do that effects only you immediately, but might negatively effect your ability to meet your obligations to other people later.
And so might rock climbing. Or cave diving. Or working in your own wood shop. And on and on.
We’ve stupidly decided as a society, the the first is impermissible and the others are ok.
Would we even be having a conversation about the 2nd amendment and gun banning, if as a nation we’d told the god-bothering Puritan idiots to stuff it RE alcohol prohibition? I don’t think so.
But then we would have been the nation that told FDR to stuff it too.
And we weren’t.
I disagree with (1) your assertion that being married has special perks, (2) your assertion that the government doesn’t have an objective interest in marriage, and (3) your assessment of what same sex marriage is “about”.
(1) There may be some special perks left to marriage, but I’m not sure what exactly those are. Most property and financial assets can be put in two separate individual’s names as well as a married couple. The old argument about hospital visitation (etc) are mostly obsolete. In fact every year when I do my taxes I wonder why I’m still married. It actually COSTS me money every year to be married, and even my insurance and other benefits are to spouses or same sex partners (but not cohabitants). My friends who are in same sex relationships have been granted most, if not all, of the benefits of marriage without the costs. The biggest difference is for those that don’t plan properly and the state has to figure out who will inherit in the absence of a will or other documentation. The efforts to make it possible to exercise the rights of marriage without marriage itself was an attempt to be fair on the part of people opposed to same sex marriage, but there still seems to be an impression that it provides some secret handshake that gets you into movies for free or something.
(2) Government has an interest in encouraging what is good for its people (and yes, I realize how liberal that sounds, but stay with me and please understand the narrow way I mean that). It is in our interest to have healthy families and children raised by opposite sex married couples. I don’t mean this to say that as a specific argument against same sex parents but simply to state that I disagree that the government has no business recognizing marriage.
(3) I don’t oppose same sex marriage necessarily as how it is being argued for. If they were to argue that marriage shouldn’t be recognized by the government as it is, and should be reorganized as more of a recognition of contracts then fine. But the methods used are attacks on the religious and people who oppose recognition of same sex marriage. What about lawsuits against bakers who don’t want to make cakes based on their own religion? While you may agree or not agree, the chilling effect on a person’s ability to decide with whom they would like to do business is chilling. For some I’m sure same sex marriage is JUST about being able to *feel* equal. But for many it is an exercise in the dis-assembly of people’s rights to exercise their religion as it relates to same sex relationships. It isn’t about legal recognition but absolute acceptance. In this case they seek to trample the rights of others to exercise their own thoughts and morality.
I agree with #1, my wife (who makes a little more than me) and I pay that marriage penalty. The tax code should be hugely simplified and should not differentiate between married and unmarried people.
Regarding #3, it might be better of the state did simply recognize marriage as some kind of legal/financial arrangement and leave the religious aspects out of it.
You can already be “married” by a justice of the peace or other government official, without any assistance from any member of the clergy.
You have to acquire a “marriage license” from the state in order for the state to consider you legally married. This something else you can do without first standing up in a church/temple/synagogue/sacred grove and swearing mighty oaths before God.
What this seems to mean is, the state doesn’t care whether you’re “religiously” married – only whether you’ve filled out the proper government forms.
So in a sane world, religious organizations that don’t recognize same-sex relationships as “marriage” wouldn’t have to and organizations that did, could. There would be no more persecution of religious people by angry homosexuals and liberals, and no more homosexuals and their liberal supporters feeling any sense of injustice.
This, however, would require that the government recognize the right (a controversial word in this context) of ANY two people to set up a domestic partnership involving shared property and, possibly, the raising of offspring.
I think government should abandon the term “marriage” and simply use “domestic partnership” for any such arrangement between any two people. It’s a neutral, non-romantic, bureaucratic term with no religious or cultural baggage. Churches can “marry” people. You can say you’re “married.” But as far as the government is concerned, you’re in a “domestic partnership.” All it cares about is your money, your property, and the welfare of your children.
The only reason gays want to “marry” is so they can be refused by a church and then they can sue. They want to financially bankrupt all these nasty institutions who had the audacity to call their perversion an abomination.
That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.
I’m a Unitarian Universalist. Worship with people in same sex unions every Sunday, and all of the people I know who are of the same sex and married are perfectly happy to have their unions religiously legitimized in our church. They left main stream churches to for a faith that would accept them as they are. Your statement is much too broad and assumes an ill intent by all gays to destroy what your value, your Church or religious denomination.
Here is a concept. Before the marriage equality act was passed in my home state, a speaker at church said, “I am happy at the prospect at having my marriage recognized, but I am angry at the same time. How fair is it to have my marriage legitimacy put to a vote. This is outrageous.”
I don’t deny that there are “militant gays” out there with the mission of turning the social order “on its ear.” I have seen some of the so-called-gay pride parades that take place across our nation. But having lived around and befriended a number of middle class hardworking individuals, who happen to be homosexual in orientation, marriage is about attaining the same respect (not necessarily acceptance) as heterosexuals.
On another note, this article contains ideas that this liberal can get behind and support. It is this type of common sense approach to morality that some liberals/ progressives (or whatever we call ourselves) can relate to. I have long thought that I don’t want a world all that different than the one my conservative friends want. We do have very different beliefs about how to get there.
Now I will be done with this. No more comment from me unless specifically asked to elaborate on a point. I do not want to turn in to a troll and annoy anyone any further.
Duck;
Wouldn’t it be better to get government out of marriage completely? Let marriage be a strictly religious matter and let churches marry whatever combination of people they deem acceptable?
As Americans, we should not need government permission or approval to arrange our personal lives.
Bugs;
WHy limit civil unions to two people? Polygamy has a long history and polygamists have a much stronger argument to make in defending their partnerships. Same-sex marriage has no historical basis whatsover. If the gender of the marriage partners no longer matters then the number shouldn’t either.
“Government has an interest in encouraging what is good for its people.”
Yes.
“and yes, I realize how liberal that sounds”
What?
Um… The idea that the government has an interest in encouraging the people to be non-self-destructive is an *enlightenment* idea. Not “liberal”. Which century exactly are you from?
It’s not an Enlightened Idea, it is an Endarkened one. It is an aspect of pretending the General Will as described by Rousseau exists. There is none such, it is the Progressives’ founding myth.
The Enlightened idea, is that people find for themselves what is best, and the state only mediates quite black and white and contractual disagreements.
The Enlightened idea, is that people find for themselves what is best, and the state only mediates quite black and white and contractual disagreements.
That’s something that assumes technological stasis, and the real world is not that place. It was correct for the government to direct and fund the interstate highway system; indivuduals could/would not have been able to do this. Government *can* be used to do what private companies do not. Other examples of positive government include the postal system and air mail, the electronics industry as we know it today, and nuclear power. All of these things would be fundamentally different — and lesser — if not for the positive government role. In these cases government did uplift the lives of all.
The favourite meme of the tea party — smaller government — ignores the necssity of proper and reasonable government regulation; government and regulation grows side by side with technology by definition. This is where the tea party goes completely off the rails. And yes it certainly needs control at the federal level. The EPA used properly addresses issues such as State A having laws that allow industry pollute a river that flows through State C which does not; State A should not be allowed to negatively affect C. (That the EPA is used improperly at present isn’t germane to the idea that it can be used properly at all.)
Where the tea party is fundamentally correct is where we consider what is reasonable regulation. Certainly there is no reason for the taxpayer to fund stuff like the NEA. Nor is there reason the EPA should be the cudgel to beat power companies with due to popular leftist belief (CO2 is baaaad.) If the tea party were to not be do damnably absolutist it could get more traction.
As originally instituted, the differences between states was to be negotiated by the Senate. Senators were chosen by their state legislation, not the will of the people. If the senate stayed within its constitutional boundaries, we wouldn’t need all of these Executive agencies making rules and regulations that have been co-opted by whoever has political power at the time. The Tea Party rocks.
“That’s something that assumes technological stasis, and the real world is not that place.”
It assumes nothing of the sort. There’s nothing about technology that changes either human nature or what is right and wrong.
It’s a very convenient myth for the left to presume that’s so though.
You think roads can’t get built except by national government action, I think it takes a moron to imagine it might even possibly be true.
If I remember it correctly, the initial railroads built across the U.S. were built by private companies, not the government. I would think that railroads were the initial interstate travel system.
Mr Hudson you have a good brain keep up what you are doing we all can benefit
Clearly not. (Cf. the Gospel According to John, Chapter 8.)
A theory of limited government implies the enforcement of a limited morality. I’ll limit it to life, liberty, and property, thank you very much.
Yes. When I see militarized police executing no-knock search-warrants to look for hemp gardens, I know we have gone WAY too far in the wrong direction. I start to wonder if the politicians, DEA and local cops actually care about the pot, or if it is just an excuse to have a police state.
The uncomfortable truth surrounding the marriage issue is that heterosexual couples have long been subsidized by their unwed neighbors.
You have that backwards. It’s the unwed neighbors who are the free riders. They are the ones who depend on the doctors, and plumbers and auto mechanics and financial advisers that are produced by the heterosexual couples. Further in order for these children to grow up to be doctors etc. they have to be raised right which means being raised by an average mom and dad or an exceptional single parent.It’s easier to find average than exceptional.
The foundational axiom of this country is that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. You throw out the foundational axiom, you throw out the Creator and that means you throw out the rights.
“it becomes obvious that what animated Bush’s policy was the notion of bringing elections and social services to Iraq and Afghanistan—not protecting American lives.”
Mister Hudson I believe you have endorsed an odiously fatuous statement here.
I can see four approaches to adopt RE Islam.
1) Submit. –I hope that one doesn’t happen.
2) Destroy it. –Not especially plausible that we can militarily take over the planet, which is what that would require, I believe.
3) Grow so large and diversely placed while containing Islam, that it becomes an irrelevancy. –I think that takes far too long and is guaranteed to mean that many of our cities become glowing radioactive holes. That is a hundreds of years strategy and takes too long it does not protect American lives.
4) What Bush tried. — In 30 to 60 years time, Show the Muslim world there is a better way to live. That or something like it worked in Germany, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
Reject that path and you are picking 1 of the first three.
#2 does not require military conquest just lots and lots of munitions. An area mostly devoid of human existance does not really require occupation.
Thing is we’ve convinced ourselves we’re “Christian” and/or “Civilized” and lack the will to as our ancestors would have done. See Rome & Carthage. We’ve created the idea that wiping out your enemies is a bad thing, something that was done on a pretty regular basis throughout much of human history.
Now the Jews (Israelis) might still have the stones to do it but the pressure from other nations and the fact that they really don’t have the population will keep them from doing so.
So you’re most likely left with #1 as they are outbreeding Western nations, emmigrating to them, and establishing Sharia enclaves there. That puts paid to your #3. Number 4 won’t work either since since you seem to have missed it the 9/11 bombers were living in America for quite a while, well educated, and from middleclass familes. Maj. Hassan was a doctor in the US army. Despite our generosity (which they thinks makes us fools), our outreach, etc. we are and always will be Dar al-Harb in their eyes.
“#2 does not require military conquest just lots and lots of munitions.”
I do not think the rest of the world would acquiesce to our committing such a genocide even if we were to undertake it. We would be opposed.
“We’ve created the idea that wiping out your enemies is a bad thing”
Wiping them out politically is fine, wiping them out physically as a people is not, except to the extent it is required to wipe them out politically. When they cry Uncle, you quit.
“Now the Jews…from doing so.”
I don’t think they are capable of the hypocrisy, to the tune of 999 out of 1000 of them, of attempting such 4 continent genocide as eliminating the Moslems, still less do they have the capability physically.
“So you’re most likely left with #1 as they are outbreeding Western nations,”
No they aren’t, they are experiencing demographic collapse.
“emmigrating to them…Sharia enclaves there.”
Gosh I’d hate to have to try defend those on a tactical level, and they are abjectly indefensible in the long term.
“That puts paid to your #3.”
No, it doesn’t.
“Number 4 won’t work either since since you seem to have missed it the 9/11 bombers were living in America for quite a while, well educated, and from middleclass familes.”
Which has nothing to do with it.
“Maj. Hassan was a doctor in the US army.”
Which still has nothing to do with it.
“Despite our generosity…in their eyes.”
There is no precedent, for example, in Taiwan for representative Democracy, and very little in Germany. Yet they have it.
Iraq may yet have it, although the odds are quite lessened without the ballasting effect of US troops.
If they retain it for a few decades, then I suspect that example will yet prove the promise which attracted Bush to the concept.
You go for the term “genocide” which I deliberately avoided since the term has been so muddied over the years. You see what was done to the Jews (and where the use of the term began) is entirely different than the destruction of an enemy who would destroy you. Again I restate that we have convinced ourselves that the destruction of an enemy, and your enemy is rarely of the same culture, etnic group, or religion. Even when the nations of Europe were warring against one another they had diffences of religion, ethnicity (tell a Brit they’re the same as a Frenchman and see where that gets you), and culture. However, since people like you choose to ascribe to the Leftist philosophy that all people of a certain skin color are exactly the same and there can be no diversity unless you mix in “people of color”.
As far as the “cry uncle” thing…Go ask an Israeli about that one. Hezbollah or Hamas does something, Israel invades/bombs/whatever, they cry uncle and negotiate a truce/cease fire and in less than 24-48 hours rockets are falling on Israelis again. Take a look at Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, are you incapable of learning from others foolishness? You talk of a culture WMD…yet where are all the “moderate” Muslims coming out in favor of the US? Were they the ones dancing in the streets on 9/11?
You try and dismiss my points about the terrorists that are attacking us because you cannot rebut them. Also you point to Germany, Japan, Taiwan, as examples where “nation building” has worked. You neglect one very huge issue, our differences with those nations rested solely in the realm of the political. The differences with Islam are religious that spills over into the political.
Iranian kids are wearing jeans, drinking cola, and listening to Lady Gaga.
Western cultural WMD’s are taking their toll. If not for the cultural WMDs do you really think the fundie islamic governments would be so motivated? From my chair this is WHY they are so motivated. Great Satan indeed. Their kids are dancing to the strains of rock and roll. And they can’t stop it.
Your #2 and #4 are the same thing.
I have no idea why everyone is so animated here re islam. It is doomed, and it is doomed because of WMD’s like rock and roll.
2 and 4 are far from the same thing.
2 implies seizing the damn rock and sending it randomly and untraceably back into space, inviting any persons who want to of whatever creed to proselytize in Mecca and wherever in the Moslem world, and shooting anyone there who so much as peeps in opposition. By destruction, I mean accomplishing it in five years time. De-Islamization the same way we did de-Nazification–by execution, imprisonment, crushing the opposition and considering civilian casualties as the cost of doing what needs doing.
4 is far less intrusive, and will take a generation or so if it succeeds, and there is nothing about wearing jeans or listening to rock music, that means those same “yutes” won’t be strapping on a bomb belt next month in the meantime. Four takes far longer than two, and necessarily increases the risk of our losing cities.
The two approaches are nothing alike.
Sin hurts one’s self while crime hurts others. It may not be black and white but that’s as good as any place to start. That is, if liberty is a goal.
ROFLOL. A distinction without a difference. If you murder your neighbor you commit a crime and a sin. Some sins have been criminalized while others have not.
I did say it wasn’t that black and white. Of course, many sins are crimes and the other way round but, by your definition, is EVERY sin then a crime and vice versa? Masturbation? Jaywalking? We have to make distinctions and there IS a difference. The difference between intelligent and wisdom. Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in the fruit salad.
Not sure I agree with either definition. Is failing to get my car inspected a sin? Building an add-on to my house without filling out the proper forms? Paying my taxes late? Hunting out of season? Carrying a concealed weapon in a no-carry jurisdiction?
Those are, strictly speaking, neither sins nor “doing something to other people.” They don’t hurt my soul and they don’t directly hurt anyone else. They’re just doing things other people think I shouldn’t do.
Jesus did a number of things other people thought HE shouldn’t do. Were any of his activities either sins or crimes?
I suppose it could be argued that these things hurt others. Rules are for and because of fools, after all. If everyone drove safely, we wouldn’t need as many driving laws. That being said, I was generalizing and that’s always dangerous. Especially around nitpickers. Maybe it should be against the law.
Sin and crime cannot be eliminated. Some sinful acts can be discouraged or curtailed through legislation. For other sinful acts, government intervention only worsens the situation in various ways.
Problem is, the concepts of sin and of virtue have all but disappeared from modern parlance. This is nihilism and it is truly demonic.
Modern-day liberals contend that right is wrong, and wrong is right. To them, the only “real” wrong is the attempt to hold to any actual standards – including, for example, traditional Christianity.
Those who resent traditional Christianity will, like commenter “Tom Perkins” above, believe anything negative they hear about Christians, and have no compunction about spreading around those accusations. Seems there was something about “do not bear false witness against thy neighbor” that especially cramps their style. Until such time as somebody falsely accuses THEM of something.
“Sin and crime cannot be eliminated.”
No, they can’t.. one is God’s to punish alone, and the other appointed to us.
“Some sinful acts can be discouraged or curtailed through legislation.”
Which must only inadvertently be legislation’s outcome, because sin is no concern of Caesar’s.
“For other sinful…in various ways.”
Glad you can occasional recognize reality.
“Problem is, the…is truly demonic.”
Like Putin. All that really matters to him is that he stays in charge. Christianity has nothing to do with it.
“Modern-day liberals…for example, traditional Christianity.”
True as far as it goes.
“Those who resent traditional Christianity will, like commenter “Tom Perkins” above, believe anything negative they hear about Christians, and have no compunction about spreading around those accusations.”
The accusations are not false.
“Seems there was something about “do not bear false witness against thy neighbor”
that especially cramps their style. Until such time as somebody falsely accuses THEM of something.”
There’s nothing Christian in shelling villages or burning them out, or with sweetening a political opponents tea with Po219, or the planned rape of thousands of women, or dioxin poisoning like Yuschenko, or sniping children going to school like Sarajevo. The Slavs who are proud of these crimes own them. You own them, Christ would weep at them, surely those are the cause themselves of even several minutes agony he spent on the cross. He paid for them, the least you can do is admit them. Russe delenda est, if they will not be free, they are a millstone to the rest of humanity otherwise. Nekulturny the lot of them, if they will not turn from Third Ceasarism.
In the universal search for good, we must (and do not) recognize reality. Most, not all, religions state that mankind is flawed; we are both evil and good. The purpose of religion is to nurture improvement in behavior; each has formed rules of conduct which foster good performance. Governments do the same thing, except from a secular, earth bound, perspective. To my knowledge, no sane government envisions an eternal reward of 72 virgins, based on temporal conduct. Religions commonly promise heaven, a rewarded life after death.
Governments, at best, do basic, simple things well: build roads, dig canals, develop winning armies, or provide basic education. They are extremely poor at developing high level performance: good manners, talented artists, scientific genius. The best it can do is to pour money into centers of excellence. Success is measured by an effective expenditure of taxes, wealth taken from the citizens. If it is conquered, debases its currency, lowers its population into poverty, with it attendant sorrows, or enslaves them, we say it is a failed government, e.g. Zimbabwe, Nazi Germany. Every government in history has failed; none have survived a thousand years. Few religions remain intact after a millennium.
This is the goal of every organization, to survive over time. Every generation must win the struggle, or end their organization, normally with disastrous consequences. This is reality.
This fact of life has been largely ignored by US leaders for generations. We have fought many wars, but the last time we won was in 1945. Our economy is in a shambles, yet we have not passed a federal budget in years. On paper, our money is becoming worthless due to epic debt, as we quibble about the size of rifle magazines. We waste tens of billions on energy technologies that do not work, based on a scientific theory that can not be proven to exist. And we hotly debate whether our public schools, or parochial schools rape more children, now or in the past.
We struggle against evil, with uneven results, with near certain consequences. We could do a lot better.
“In the universal search for good…”
I’m not sure how universal the search for good really is. Conservatives are searching for “good enough,” which is not universal. Liberals are searching for “universal good,” which is not good at all.
Admittedly a personal view but I think everyone seeks good. Conservatives accept reality, that history is clear: organizations are only capable of a limited good, and any further attempt by the organization injures as well as improves. Example: limited government vs a dictatorship “for your own good.” Big government liberals are motivated by two concepts, a naivete, there is no real evil, just misunderstandings, or a grasp for centralized power, e.g. Nazism.
An example, Gays in the Military: I conclude that liberals seek this goal even if it destroys our military, which would be OK with them. They win either way. Their unspoken axiom is that the US is eternal, nothing can defeat her. I, a conservative, know America can be conquered and enslaved people experience horror.
The left searches for universal good and does not find it because they are blind to their own sin, and thus fall into the traps of pride and idolatry.
Mr. Hudson I must respectfully disagree with the folloing statement.
“However, the immorality of drug abuse does not violate the rights of another individual. And since government informed by objective morality would exist only to protect rights, it would not act to prohibit drug abuse.”
Like many on both the Left and Right you fall into the familiar pitfall of only looking at something as an isolated thing unto itself. Absolutley nothing is free or without consequences. Drug abuse always leads to the violation of the rights of another person. You cannot isolate the act of drug abuse from the consquences of doing so. Whether that violation is use by a woman while pregnant, domestic abuse & neglect, criminal acts to support the habit, driving under the influence, spreading disease, or the need for public support and health care just to point out a few.
Also, I believe your comparison fails as well due to the fact that your premise that “Life has value” under Objectivism where Rand supported abortion. You cannot state that life has value and then proceed to kill it without very specific reason to do so. There were no constraints on her belief in the use of abortion like rape, incest, etc. While she admits that there might be “some” validity to an embryo’s right to life after the first trimester it is clear that she is rather dubious about that claim.
“Like many on both the Left and Right you fall into the familiar pitfall of only looking at something as an isolated thing unto itself. Absolutley nothing is free or without consequences.”
I think Mayor Bloomberg would agree with you on that.
Obviously, your dietary choices affect us all, therefore we all should have a say in planning your diet. And we’re not entirely happy with your fashion choices, either. That shirt might have been made using sweatshop labor. And your children have expressed some very antisocial opinions in school – we may need to ask you to refrain from teaching them your “values” so they’ll think more like us.
Not sure how far down the “everything has consequences” path you want to go. You’ll end up thinking like a neurotic liberal.
And Bloomberg is absolutely right in his logic. Your rights basically stop at the end of your nose. If you want to chug a case of beer a day and smoke four packs a day you can, but don’t look for public assistance when your health deteriorates. You own both your freedom and the consequences. If you live poorly and can afford the medical care to extend your life then go right ahead and do so, more power to you. If not then you accept a much shorter lifespan. It’s the idea that society has a responsibility to subsidize or even foot the entire bill for your healthcare that is the heart of the issue.
Have you ever heard the phrase “You live under my roof, you live by my rules” uttered? Well same thing, when you take public support (especially support you haven’t paid into) you are essentially living under someone else’s roof and thus are subject to their rules. However, the left has de-stigmatized being on support, you can get sushi, lapdances, and liquor with your EBT card. Let’s not forget the free cell phones.
If you make society/government responsible for the consequences of your choices, then like a parent to a child they have a responsibility in helping you make your choices. Government has no place doing either one, yet we’ve made it responsible for the consequnces. So by what contortion of reason do you believe that government saddled with the responsibility of the consequences woudln’t soon make the grab for the power to dictate your choices?
“And Bloomberg is absolutely right in his logic. Your rights basically stop at the end of your nose.”
Bloomberg is exactly wrong because they stop at the end of someone else’s nose.
What size of soda some one drinks, whether bought or sold, is no one’s business but theirs. If you object your tax moneys being spent on a fat person’s care, then vote to end that. That’s where your rights are violated, not someone choosing to sell, buy, or drink a 17 or 64 oz soda.
You must love to see yourself post, do you love to hear yourself talk too? You attempted to rebut what I said by confirming what I said here:
“It’s the idea that society has a responsibility to subsidize or even foot the entire bill for your healthcare that is the heart of the issue.”
“Government has no place doing either one, yet we’ve made it responsible for the consequnces.”
It is incorrect that morality can be derived from reason. Reason is just an algorithm. Garbage in, garbage out. One can reason about morality. This derives form the ancient Greek Tradition — the branch of philosophy called Ethics. If someone believes they have reached a moral result through pure reason, then they have forgotten that they already internalized a moral code or tradition which has become second nature — taken for granted or presupposed by them. Those are the principles which are grinding through the algorithm of reason.
This is a start but only that.
Ayn Rand’s theory of rights ought to judged within the 2500-year-conversation which began with Plato and Aristotle, was thoroughly Christianized by Thomas Aquinas, further developed by Suarez, and has been reapplied by many sound modern philosophers.
For a really valuable modern discussion of this question see TEN UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES by Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D.
In short we have to go back to the natural law, that is, the principles of our human nature which lead to our happiness or fulfillment and which can be known by the light of reason.
Not peace but the sword
Peter Leithart
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/02/not-peace-but-a-sword
You’ve hit on something (again) Mr. Hudson. A couple of the reasons I’m especially looking forward to heaven is that there are no sins and and there are no laws. Now THAT’S heaven.
Once the door in heaven is ready to be open the one thought you are focused on : YOU MUST OBEY when THE ETERNAL ONE
To begin to reverse the damage , woman OBEY your husband . Man look at who YOU MUST OBEY.this is no game to be saved from the other place where it feels eternal separation that begins to feel like eternal torment
Revelation 4
Revelation 4
New International Version (NIV)
The Throne in Heaven
4 After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” 2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. 3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald encircled the throne. 4 Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads. 5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. In front of the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits[a] of God. 6 Also in front of the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal.
In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. 7 The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. 8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:
“‘Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord God Almighty,’[b]
who was, and is, and is to come.”
9 Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:
11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.”
Mr Hudson
I don’t believe you even do justice to Ayn Rand’s philosophy in this article, much less the whole issue of the intersection of law and morality.
At a minimum, go back to your example of drug use, and carry it beyond the immediate result to the individual of taking his little pill. Does reason allow us to foresee that reglar use of, say, heroin will possibly, probably, or even inevitably, affect the rights of others? If so, in a society of more than one, can it possibly be just that those not using take some steps to avoid those effects?
You attempt to limit the idea of morality to a religious view of it. Isn’t morality really about how people effect others, to include God- if you are a believer. And about how we and those others deal with, or should deal with, those effects?
All laws have a moral basis, or no one would bother with them. All are necessarily compromises, and/or arbitrary, and subject to change, acceptance, debate, and all the other useful adjectives/adverbs. They are necessary, unavoidable, and infinitely debatable- but they are part of life and philosophizing about whether they should exist is as useless as objecting to the sun rising. It just does.
The issues are where they should come from, whether a specific one is useful, necessary or excessive, etc. Ayn Rand knew that, and so do you, so what is the point?
This is the second piece by Mr.Hudson I have read here at PJM. This one much like the first suffers from a neglect of studying the Torah upon which much of his own religion is based.
This weeks portion of the Torah was Jethro. It was Jethro, the father in law of Moses, who instructed Moses himself that Courts of Law MUST be set up to teach G-ds Laws to the people and adjudicate disputes. In fact setting up courts of law are one of the Seven Noahide Commandments that are obligatory upon the entire world, not only we Jews. We have an obligation to legislate morality. The question of whose morality is one that can only be made out of ignorance.
The claim that drug use only hurts the user is also divorced from reality. How many children have suffered neglect and abuse because of the drug use of their parents? How many refrigerators have been empty of milk and bread because the welfare money was spent on drugs? To say this plague only affects the user is to be blind to reality.
And the Golden Rule was only the first half Hillels famous comment- ” That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.”
Good advice then and even better today.
“We have an obligation to legislate morality.”
Leads to hell on earth every time.
Jesus say the old religious leaders but heavy burdens on the people beneath them and they themselves would not lift a finger and the make their converts ready for hell not the the Eternal God
so Jesus went to the temple and do his business
“So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.”
I hope Jesus remain in the invisible and not have to convert all the Jews to Christian. The priests of Israel how will they be made holy before God and keep God’ s Holy temple holy?
Tormenting the people with self -righteousness is not holy , the sheep and the cows will get tongues to speak up against unholy priests so all priests of God ,Christian and Jew must somehow know how to become Holy for With US is God to take place. Then holy priest have sweet holy smile on their face and Annasis and Saphira come to them deceiving the people about holy and the drop dead at feet of holy priest not by the hand of holy priest but by the invisible to the flesh eye holy spirit
Interesting analysis. Would you then say that the preferential treatment given to heterosexual marriages (“traditional” marriages in your terminology) such as preferential tax and inheritance treatment, is an abridgement of the rights of the rest of us who aren’t in such unions? Is it a “taking”? And if not, why use the pejorative “Covet” to describe the homosexual his or her desire to partake of the societal benefit accorded to his or her heterosexual brothers or sisters? (And sometimes quite literally from the same household).
“The Distinction Between Sin and Crime.”
Man will sort out what is crime according to mans laws and God will sort out what is sin according to Gods laws.
Funny thing about people and all the ‘religions’ they chose to endorse. Since the beginnings of recorded time, self serving pholosophers have intellectualized religion to make it meanings complex beyond any realms of common understanding and aristocracts have used their interpetations of religion to divide and conquere the masses.
From the beginnings of time and more in the modern world, man or a small group of men find personal disagreement with a particular religions doctrine and they split, forming a new religion (church) and write a new self serving donctrine.
The only thing in the history of religions that has remained constant by man, is its self serving uses for dividing and conquering societies by various means of psychological warfare and war itself. All about mans self righteousness and wicked needs for self serving power and control over others!
American laws are based on a notion of rights (as specified in the US Constitution). It is not, strictly speaking, based on moral obligations. Suppose a person goes for a walk and sees a child drowning in a swimming pool. Suppose further that the adult decides he doesn’t want to get his clothes wet, so he continues on his way. The child drowns. The man has violated a moral duty, but he has not broken any laws. I believe this is (ultimately) a good thing. Do we really wish the government to dictate to citizens what their “moral duties” are? (That would include duties to visit the sick, make charitable contributions, clothe and feed the impoverished, etc) With the government then enpowered to punish the offenders? Ridiculous. The best government is less government.