Politics
Politics, schmolitics. It seems that the more passionate I get about politics, the more angry I get in general, and with people in particular. Politics, at it's best could be seen as moral application in all it's pragmatic glory.
At it's worst, however, it seems to be a refuge for people to espouse evil, and enforce moral restrictions on those to whom it does not apply.
It's a tough decision, because on the one hand, I think most of us would agree that morality has to come into play. For instance, we do not think murder, theft, rape, etc. should be allowed or condoned, but on the other hand, we definitely do not want it to go to an extreme.
I'll give an example: I personally have no moral qualms with drinking, smoking, dancing, or listening to "rock 'n roll". Now, to the Southern Baptists, these are all perilous evils that threaten our very souls. And I even think fundamentalist Muslims would agree with that. However, some want all or some of those criminalized (and that includes people from both sides of the political aisle).
It is obvious though that we need some type of morality in our law making. The question is, whose and what morality?
Should the Judeo-Christian morality be made law? If so, why? Why not the Babylonian ethical view point, or the Roman?
As a Christian, I of course know the Judeo-Christian morality to be right, however not everyone believes that. So do they owe respect to laws and morals that they don't believe apply to them?
It's a tough and treacherous path to walk along, deciding the "common morality" known as public law. But I believe that the founding fathers instituted a perfectly suited method when they set up our democratic republic.
This is shown perfectly by the fact that neither side is completely content, which is probably how it should be.
But how do I think the laws should align? I think most people agree and hold to a common morality. Most cultures throughout history have all clung to the same basic moral precepts, such as do not kill, do not steal, do not rape your brothers donkey, etc.
I also think that most people, in the right situation would bend most if not all of these ethical guidelines. The problem comes in the continual, slow bending of these ideals until they are no longer being applied and held to.
Yes, the slippery slope argument may be a logical fallacy, but the slippery slope is a moral reality. And one we must constantly struggle with.
The constant battle between freedom and law is one constantly being fought, but I am glad it's being fought. Yes, I may not agree with the ACLU, but thank God we have morons like them to help keep us in check.
I think the lazy part of our nature longs and yearns for a society with no competition, no checks, no balances, one in which all of our ideas will be followed out, but only a fool craves that.
Entropy being what it is, and people being who they are, it's only a matter of time before any political ideal gets twisted to an extreme that's hardly recognizable, and I think the beauty of this country is the creative friction that exists in all of our political debates.
Yes, you may be an idiot for thinking differently, but thank you for having the passion to engage me. It's when apathy takes over that we're in for a real nightmare.
This person has an opinion
Wayward Son said:
OK... here I go. Please consider this a discussion that serves as much to help me refine my beliefs and point of view as it does to convince you they are worthy of consideration.
Morality cannot be legislated successfully on any issue. Why? Because legislation is requires enforcement and you cannot force people to do anything. One, or many, can influence people to behave in a certain way but to force them is to ultimately have them choose between enslavement or death. This is, in part, why the separation of church and state is so crucial to the evolution of civilization—to the evolution of our species. To legislate morality is to disregard our ability to influence and be influenced in favor of forcing others to behave in a way that reinforces a singular, minority or even majority moral perspective. It is not the collective and will always, without exception, cause pain and suffering to to the innocent, for lack of a more appropriate descriptor for a part of humanity. God does not punish. Man does. God only loves and it is through love, not punishment, that God works miracles, provides fulfillment, joy and prosperity. If you prefer to use a different set of semantics in reference to God—your higher power, our creator, the source energy—whatever— the concept fits perfectly into most any belief system I can imagine, though I do not know them all.
To analyze politics in terms of morality is even more implausible. Politics is about compromise and morality is not. What can we as humans control? Only our own behavior. What can we influence? That is endless and the success of it depends on whether we command others to think as one or whether we lead by example and demonstrate the reward of being loving, joyous and forgiving beings. THAT is the likeness we are created from. It is impossible for me to entertain any other belief with the same certainty. We fail ourselves, not our God and not our government.
As an entity we are perfect as we are. It is our situation that is imperfect. It is our situation that we can influence for the better. It is our situation that will enable us to know fulfillment —to know God. we must if we are to find our own happiness and fullfillment consider our situation and also the situation of others. these are not mustually exclusive considerations.
Yes these are difficult and complex concepts to navigate when implementing a governing approach to how we live in modern times—the current times. Difficult but not impossible.