Should Government be allowed to vote our morality?

Question

Okay Christians before you jump in here and say YES, No division between Church and State! Think about… What if the Government is voting on an issue that you feel strongly about? I mean it is not always going to be about Gay Marriage, abortion and the like…What if issues come up like removing tax-exempt status for churches or stem cell research. What if it is an issue that affects you and your beliefs that is coming up for a vote and say, it’s not looking good?

Onlylove41- look up above your answer, that is who I am talking about!

Answer 1

Great question! WE are the government, and so we, acting through our representatives, approve laws to regulate society. But Americans have a strong independent streak, and want to be left alone. I know that many people feel that Christians are trying to run everyone's lives by restricting abortion and banning same-sex marriage and the like. Let me try to give another view.

I agree that arguments based only on religion are ineffective in our society, because it IS a secular society and people have all different kinds of beliefs. But just because someone is religious doesn't mean they don't have a valid point. Dr. Martin Luther King was a devout Christian minister and used the MORAL AUTHORITY of his faith to shame America into seeing the injustice of racism and working to end it. He even gave his life for his cause, but NEVER gave in to violence and hatred. Truly Christ-like. He made this a better country and richly deserves the holiday honoring him.

Would he have been as successful, and convincing, without his faith? I don't think so. I think it gave him strength, and worked to convince others. I don't think he was a fool for believing, and I don't think he was a fraud just using religion to an end. And the phrase "you can't legislate morality" was first used by racists who said "why does the government have a right to tell me whom I have to hire?"

So it cuts both ways. Many people have heartfelt concerns about abortion and same-sex marriage, and I agree they should be able to make their case by relying on more than just their view of the Bible. I think many do.

And again, religious people worked to end slavery, and based their opposition to wars, partly on their faith - throughout history.

As for "whom does it hurt," the US government undertook a vigorous campaign to wipe out polygamy back in the late 1800s. Was that wrong, or based on some misguided sense of "telling others what to do?" Maybe we will decide so - does it affect me if my neighbor has two wives, or husbands? But the trick is to strike a balance - permit maximum freedom, be fair to all, and do what's best for society. The Iraq war probably "doesn't affect me" directly unless I am fighting in it (or a oved one is), but I still have strong feelings about it. We all have an idea about the society we want to be in, and what we don't want OUR government to be doing in our name. And we all get to make our case.

Sometimes this issue comes up with euthanasia and prostitution too. People say "why should the government say you can't do something?" Again let me play devil's advocate. Some will say that society has a right to say that certain conduct is so harmful that it must make it illegal to protect people, even from themselves. Again, I have BIG issues with this idea, but here's an example or two. If euthanasia is legal, then won't Grandpa feel pressure to "do the right thing" and end his life, rather than spend all his money on doctors? The kids are waiting to inherit, and they will pressure him into ending it all. There were many atheists who thought Terry Schiavo should have been allowed to live; they were disabled themselves and were worried about what could happen in the future. Or if prostitution is legal, then what would prevent the unemployment office, financial aid office, welfare/workfare office or family court judge to cut off aid, payments, or alimony because someone refused to work in a brothel? This happened already in Germany! Or at the very least, what's to prevent someone from telling their daughter (or son!) that they will not support them during college because "they could make the money themselves"? Again, I have problems with society protecting people from themselves, but there's something to be said for a strong stamp of DISapproval of certain conduct that "hurts no one."

It's a bit more complicated than "evil right-wing religious zealots trying to tell everyone what to do," as many people think. I hope I gave you another side.

Answer 2

The problem with Morality issues is they are always religion based and they really don't affect the people that vote against them. I really don't care what a couple of homos do. Let them marry and hit the higher tax bracket. As long as they are of age and it is two people I do not care.

If the baby is aborted, use the cells to try to understand life and cure the living, let some good come out of it.

All laws are not based on religious morals. Killing was against the law long before the bible. Are there any laws based on commandment one, two, three (most of the hypocrites don't keep this one anyhow!), four, five (respect is earned, don't care WHO you are) seven and ten? Don't kill (I've been thinking about this and it might be OK if the person is a different religion or a WITCH), lie (in a court of law or sworn statement, so to an extent that's legal) and steal. Sounds like common sense to me.

They are not "our" morals. They are trying to impose someone else's morals.

Answer 3

Do you want the Christian answer or the Democratic answer? The problem with Christians is that there is no division between church and state. The idea of division is only paid lip service. Find this truth in the laws of every Christian society. The laws are a reflection of acceptable morality. Minorities have few rights.
The definition of Democratic society is: The minorities forgo all rights and everyone gives total authority to a bureaucracy in exchange for one vote.

Answer 4

I think that the government should legislate morality only to the degree that is necessary to perserve individual rights and freedoms in the pursuit of happiness. Laws against rape, murder, theft, etc... are necessary to maintaining personal liberty and freedom. These crimes involve one person violating the will and freedoms of another and really can be separated from the concepts of morality as soley defined by religion. No one wants to live in a society where someone can violate your personal autonomy. I believe in freedom of religion although I find the pushy side of the Christian majority very annoying and it seems sometimes that the only freedom of belief SOME (not judging all here) really approve of is freedom for their beliefs. Since I want to be free to practice and live by my beliefs everyone must be free to do so. I think they should have the right to pray and speak thier beliefs in public and display their icons on their private property. I disagree that they should be able to dominate the public spheres with their icons/teachings since there are other people of different beliefs who share these spaces and this is disrespectful to others. I think the idea of separation of church and state got it right on this.

I disagree with government legislating morality on issues which are those of personal choice where the individual is not violating the rights of another, such as birth control, sexual regulation laws, censorship, gay marriage, etc... These things are individual decisions that do not impact others ability to live their lives differently if they disagree. I am concerned about the standing of separation of church and state right now with the whole faith based initiatives thing. You now have the government giving money to organizations that actively engage in discriminatory hiring practices such as a christian organization that openly states that it only considers hiring those who share its religious vision. I would have an equal concern over the government giving money to an Islamic or Jewish organization that only hired people who share their faiths. I don't think the government should fund any religious organization. I also have seen law suits where people who didn't share the organization's beliefs were forced to utilize its program because another wasn't available; a Catholic teen forced to attend a baptist based alcohol program. The first day in the program they took his rosary beads away from his because they were considered idolatry by the group. So much for his freedom of religion. Also, what about people who are not religious but need help? Is the government going to fund secular programs as well with its faith based initiatives?

I guess I went off topic with the faith based initiatives stuff but I think it is an important part of separation of church and state.

Answer 5

Morality cannot be instilled in people by the government. If government wants to address morality, it should serve as an example -- for example, witness the shameful response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and now the supposed rescue of Americans in Lebanon -- days later than other countries, full of excuses, and asking citizens to pay for being rescued from a war zone. Allowing government to legislate morality is a slippery slope whether you consider yourself conservative or progressive.

Answer 6

To a point- murder boils down to morality, and I for one wouldn't disagree with the State's decision to outlaw it. But for other subjects, like abortion or gay marriage/civil union, I don't think the government should have much of a say. Its a grey area in which personal decisions become state decisions, and that's exactly why we need to use our heads, and have organizations like the ACLU, Amnesty International, and the like.

Keep fighting the good fight is all I can tell you.

Answer 7

The government SHOULD vote the way the people want. It is the government that should make the laws the way the majority of the people want. Then is the job of the courts to say if the law is constitutional. The courts don't have the power to make laws or change them, unless we sit back and let them.

Answer 8

Govenment shouldn't be allowed vote on morality.

No state has a right to interfere in body issues. This is not the state territory but a part of ones individuality.

Answer 9

Morality has never, and should never, be controlled by the gov't. Attempts have been, and are being, made to do just that, and it's not right. It removes 'freedom of choice' to have laws governing EVERYTHING in personal life. Further, laws mandating morality are doomed to failure -- See the 18th Amendment,i.e,, Prohibition of alcohol. All laws do is make criminals out of honest citizens.

Answer 10

the morals of a person is his or her personal rights. If the goverment were to dictate what my moral values are that would be just like living in a country that is ruled by the church and I would not go for that.