Do you think all immoral acts should be punishable by law? Who do you think should define what is or is not im

Answer 1

While it is absolutely true that the law upon which the US was founded upon is Biblical, it is also true that the Constitution also gives us the right to choose our own religion. That freedom also gives us the right to choose whether or not we follow a certain set of values and morals. I do not agree that a certain or any religious group should define what "immoral acts" are. Along with the commandments God gave us free will.

Not only would it be difficult to know which sets of values and beliefs to use to make these laws, enforcing these becomes a nightmare. How is it that we're going to enforce these laws?


What if someone makes the "murdering" of bugs, spiders, roaches, etc a crime? Or let's say that someone makes adultery or sex before marriage a crime. How will we enforce them? Shall we have cameras inside each and EVERY building? There would be real opposition to this. When we dream up these efforts to make ALL immoral acts punishable by law or crimes then we must dream of someway to enforce them, and make these efforts Constitutionally Sound.

Answer 2

Immorality is defined by basic human principles. It's wrong to kill, steal, rape, etc. The level of the immoral act is placed in the intent of it, mental illness/capacity, premeditated or not, etc.

The founders of this country were all Christian and the constitution and all laws built from there on are built on Christian values and perspectives; that is why we find it cruel when Middle Eastern law permits cutting off of hands for thieves, etc. Instead we find it better to fine a person and keep them in jail for a long time. Schools of law also apply; western philosophy is different than eastern philosophy about morality and law. In between states, law differs; certain states are very strict; Nevada's laws are quite lax in a few ways because of the fact Las Vegas is a major hot-spot for all sorts of "sin" per se.

QUICKLY, a tip: Don't type the question in the title. It's just a title for the question. You could say, "How do you define immorality in law?" or something, then clarify in the "Details" section. It will cut out all the people now that will type and insult you for the way you typed this.

Answer 3

No I do not think all immoral acts should be punishable by law. I think each person defines their own morals. Some universal morals have been made into law, but on the whole it is not the government's right to tell the rest of us what morals we should live by.

Answer 4

no one can answer that, because EVERYONE has a different opinion of what's right and wrong. You would have to make a universal definition of "immoral" to make all immoral acts unlawful. The US law system does its best to see what the majority of citizens will be happily agreed on as what is "immoral." You can't go farther than that without a universal agreement of people on what is right and wrong. Everyone wants everything immoral to be punishable, but since everyone has a different idea, we have to settle for the current laws.

Answer 5

Immoral acts should not be punished by law.That is (i believe)called sharia law and can be interpreted to repress certain segments of a society.Also moral values change over time.

Answer 6

Society is the overall definer of what's moral or immoral. As a general rule if you have to ask if it's immoral then you probably already know that it is.

Answer 7

Our US constitution was written from the pages of Deuteronomy. Our capital offenses are defined by Mosaic Law. Whether you like this or not, it is true that we have always legislated morality based upon Biblical principles. Further still, countries that do not have had the very worst difficulties, both in the way of human rights and also organizationally and how well they sustain themselves financially.

Daniel
iPowerGRFX Tampa Website Designers
http://www.ipowergrfx.com
http://www.publicadjuster.com

Answer 8

listed decrease than are some issues to operate to this; one, the bill also delivers existence in penal complex for one gay act. The bill proposes that any citizen who does not record a suspected gay ought to correctly be imprisoned for 3 years. Scott lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge, 3 American Evangelicals, all of whom are stated for his or her anti-gay and "gay ought to correctly be cured" stances held a convention in Uganda that inspired the law. even as requested about it, Schmierer and Brundidge reported they did not help the shortcoming of existence penalty (yet likely haven't any issue with existence in penal complex) and lively gave a lengthy explaination of why they Ugandans felt this changed into mandatory. Nor has Rick Warren, who has close ties with Ugandan ministers, denounced the degree. extra, David Bahati, author of the bill, is a member of the relatives, a similar C highway team that contains Senator John Ensign, Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Jim de Mint, and others. For extra documents, see my article, Kill a Queer for Jesus.

Answer 9

I think morality proves quasi-religious: a Christian and a Jew might have similar views, but what about a Muslim or a Budhist? It's really hard to seperate religion from government, but we can try and keep politicians from becoming metaphysicians!

Answer 10

No, absolutely not, what occurs between two consenting adults is their and only their business, the government has no business legislating morality, in any way shape or form.