If something is immoral should it also be illegal? In America, we should not pass laws where the primary concern is morality; we should only pass laws which have civil values as their primary concern. Civil values in this case are values which either ensures the safety or order of a society, such as, traffic laws or zoning laws. Also involved are more important values such as freedom, democracy, and liberty which have been laid out by our founding fathers.
I have two basic reasons for holding this view. First, we live in a secular society. There is a supposed wall of separation between Church and State, and I think rightly so. Church and State should only be united in a theocracy America is not one of those and could not become one without changing the character of the nation. However, I am aware that the moral basis for the tradition of English law that the U.S. legislative and judicial systems are deeply rooted in, are based on essentially Christian principles. As I think that morality without Christ is ultimately empty, then to legislate true morality would be to legislate Christianity, thus violating the Church and State separation.
Seeking to mend the religious backsliding in the United States by this sort of method is not right. It is trying to get the government to cover a moral problem by redefining it through political change rather than dealing with the spiritual issues first. That is to say that legislating morality is an attempt to control behavior without dealing with the spiritual roots of the problem. This case offers both a secular argument and a religious argument. Having a religion based law is fine, but if that is all you have then you should not vote for it. To become a law, there must be...
... middle of paper ...
...uating an issue as evil, and another side defending the issue as a non-evil one. To successfully legislate morality based laws, both sides must conform to the same view.
I feel that we have no right to legislate morality, unless, it has common civil functions as well. A person's concept of morality is dependent upon their own moral and religious beliefs and the United States was founded on principles of freedom and liberty for all, regardless of religion. The foundation of liberty is that we all have the right to do whatever we want, provided what we do affects no one without his or her consent. Man has a mind in order that he may understand and make choices. Man's survival results from moral integrity not from counseling obedience set up by an external agent. He must have his freedoms because knowledge comes not from obedience from authority but from reason.
This example of a Supreme Court case shows that the court is not above politics. Even though most Americans, including government officials, practiced some form of Christianity, the judges were not willing to compromise the information in the Constitution for the popular beliefs of individuals. I agree with the Supreme Court in its decision to ban the practice of prayer in public schools. Not only does it violate the Constitution, but it encroaches on our freedom of thought and action. Being excluded from a public classroom because of personal beliefs does not sound just.
When it came down to the government during the convention of May 1776, instead of protecting our rights they had passed them down causing us to be under common law. If one had denied the Christian faith and went against everything it believed in, such as, “there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military,” (Jefferson 176). This is what most people had thought about if you did not follow their religion. Thomas Jefferson believed that the wall between church and state should be very high in order to keep out and prevent hostile situations. Using an example from today’s news, many people get uncomfortable in the United Stated with the Muslim religion because of the previous horrific events that led to many cruel deaths in our history. By this, the way that we look at these people is forever changed because of the incidents and who knows if we will ever not be hostile with one another because of it. If church and state hadn’t been separated we may have not become a true democracy from what our developing country was seeming to lead towards. More people would not be as accepting of each other, and not that they are still not today, but I feel as if it may
America today still maintains the separation of church and state, an idea that was founded by some of the earliest colonists.... ... middle of paper ... ... William Penn, Quaker and founder of Pennsylvania, soon after wrote the Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges and Liberties, a constitution for the colony of Pennsylvania, which enabled the people to freely practice their religion of choice without fear of government punishment. American colonies were clearly established with the intent to all live together with Christian beliefs, but with so many interpretations and versions of the same religious scripture, freedom to practice whichever adaptation feels right became most important in colonial life. And as a safe haven for those who were persecuted in their home countries, America truly flourished as a place for the religiously tolerant.
Nearly two millennia later, Salic law seeks to introduce a similar law code to that of Hammurabi. Religious influence binds these two legislations showing, once again, the importance of religious law. During the medieval times education and literacy took a sharp decline, leaving religious officials such as priests and monks in a state of power. Priests sought to influence kings in order to spread their faith and ensure that all people held a similar foundation in beliefs. Salic law sought to incorporate the rules of the ten commandments of Christianity and Judaism, as the foundation for this law code. This law code parallels Christian beliefs through its moral guidelines of not to kill, steal, fornicate, and be dishonest. However, unlike other law codes, Salic law does not hold any physical punishments for crimes such as murder, rather majority of the crimes ask for some sort of fine to be paid; “If any one shall have killed a free Frank, or a barbarian living under the Salic law, and it have been proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 8000 denars.” The purpose of this seems to be influenced by priests consulting with Clovis during the making of this law. Fines help build both the government and church, allowing for an increase of conversions and land to be obtained. Religious officials see Clovis as an opportunity to ensure the survival of their faith through Salic law hoping to bring unity within the nation and church. This cooperation with the church gave the monarchs the ability to keep power, making their reign a god given right. While this helps maintain power for the ruler, citizens are ostracized for disagreements with the ruler. The use of religion establishes the law’s authority, ensuring none question the decreeing of the king, unless that person wishes to be subject of
It appears the United States government has had a history of favoring Christianity. The United States government's favoritism of Christianity is a clear violation of the Christian faith. the First Amendment. This amendment states that "Congress shall make no law. respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This relates to the previous points made above about religion not being a problem as long as it is not causing harm to anyone, and in this case causing harm to the state as well. To validate this point we can simply refer to the first amendment. Our freedom of speech right allows us to be able to say anything as long as it does not set off any alarms; for instance, yelling out there is a fire in a public facility when there is no fire can result in individuals being injured. I use that example to say religion, nonetheless, has not caused anyone any harm thus far. Furthermore, this is why it has remained a freedom we
Putting this law into place, resulting in removal of religion from school systems will give a continuous cause for more negative effects than good. If this law were to not go into effect, I believe that schools, students and families would be better as a whole in many different ways.
The other purpose of this act was to “Provide result of a general or neutral law. ”(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA)The only exception to this rule is, If the government can demonstrate the following three things, that there is a compelling state interest, that a particular law, rule, decision or action actually furthers that compelling state interest, if there is a compelling state interest and this action furthers it, then the government must use the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Notice that the burden is on the government; the government cannot simply state that it has a compelling interest, but it must also demonstrate each of the three requirements above. This section also states that this Act provides a cause of action or a defense for any person whose religious exercise has been burdened, and provides for legal fees.
America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion recommends a practice that is contrary to public morals, such as polygamy, Congress may prohibit such a practice (Weidner, Daniel, 2002). The people of the United States also have the right to assemble peaceably under the First Amendment. The only restriction comes from the word peaceably. Assembly may not be prevented, as long as the proper authorities have reasonable assurance that the meeting will be peaceful (Weidner, Daniel, 2002).
The Government cannot legislate morals, even though laws are based on them. “All laws bear some relation, however distant, to a moral evaluation of good and bad. We cannot escape making moral distinctions” (Esolen). In the instance of prohibition there were two different views of morality. Those who thought drinking led to sinful behavior, and those who thought alcohol wasn’t a bad thing. In the case of prohibition, people wanted there booze and they found a way to get it. They thought that drinking was okay. This shows that everybody has a different moral compass. “One man’s theft is another man’s redistribution of income. One man’s defense of family honor is another man’s murder” (Esolen). The legislation of morals by the government has proved to fail more than once. Joe Messerli says that the governments’ legislation on marijuana is based upon assumed morals and that in infringes upon citizens basic rights. (Messerli). This ties to prohibition because People felt very strongly about something
...a was based on Christian beliefs, hence, a nation under God. Acts 5: 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority”(Holy Bible). This Biblical verse reflects the Christian beliefs of our founders that men should try to live their lives as God desires. Leviticus 18: 22 says that you should not lie with another man as a women; it is an abomination (Holy Bible). If the United States was truly obedient to God as it should be then there would not be any laws passed allowing gay marriage or abortion. These go against the Bible, the word of God, but the Government has deemed them acceptable. This issue shows how obedience to authority can cripple a nation. The Government is allowing an issue they should never have considered to become recognized as acceptable. If this path continues, society will continue to crumble and decay.
...und in ecstasy and various amphetamines. Is it only the recreational use of them that makes them immoral? Every year seems to have another state with the legalization of marijuana for medical use, but when used for recreation it is deemed immoral and illegal. In no way do I condone the use of drugs of any kind, but in no way do I see why drugs are illegal.
One year ago, the United States Supreme Court made two judgments in favor of marriage equality. This was once considered impossible, however, the United States has had a tremendous change of heart in supporting gay marriage. People even speculate that same-sex marriage will be legal in the whole U.S. within few years. Currently there are 17 states that have legalized same sex marriage, while in 33 states it remains banned. The majority of the states that still ban gay marriage have a very high Christian population. Many Christians believe that being homosexual conflicts the bible and refuse to accept it. In my opinion this illustrates why it is better to separate state from religion. We have also seen the church try to influence government decision in England, the archbishop of Canterbury recently stated "The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as covenant ...
First off, our nation was found by Christians that embedded their beliefs into their work in founding this Christian nation. The founders added a system of checks and balances from the understanding “…if men were angels, no government would be necessary” (America is a Christian Nation). A majority of the founders were in fact, Christian. Over 80% of the founders held a belief in a denomination, or section under, the Christian Church. There are constitutional religious references such as “In God We Trust” and “…one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” and are considered constitutional because they were accepted by our founding fathers and written into the constitution. These are not even required to be respected but they come across as constitutional.
... in setting standards for society to conform to. Therefor Hart supported the committee with a more liberal view and Devlin didn’t with a more authoritarian, paternalistic view. It is clear there are both case and statute law which reflect both viewpoints. In the case of Brown it shows how law enforces moral values and places the public good over individual freedom. However the law on homosexuality now reflect a more liberal view and so gives freedom and individual choice.