Should our government enforce morality?

[Technosoul]

Yes.
No.
It all depends (see remarks)

[lsbskins1]

Define morality.

[Matt W]

Indeed. I get the impression this shoulda been a poll....

[belverron]

No. It devalues the choice of morality over immorality if there is no legal choice. Then, too, different takes on "morality" make it impossible to do it fairly. If the question is "Should the government enforce Christian morals?" the answer is absolutely no.

[belverron]

Quote by: Matt W Indeed. I get the impression this shoulda been a poll....

That wasn't just me, then? Heh.

[Chalk]

Perhaps discourage the outright immoral.. but morals tend to be shaped by a persons' individual experiences and views, meaning there is arguably no one correct moral stance. I don't think it's possible to enforce morality without enforcing a type of ideology on people.. and you only need to recap the history books to see that ends in disaster.

[Samildanach]

Government already enforces morality to a certain extent. I dont think it needs to go any further.

[tinybear]

I don't know about our government, but I've always believed that the law enforces morality in quite a number of instances. Should it do so? Yes, but only when it's absolutely necessary and when the morality being enforced is clearly defined and definitely mainstream.

[Aaron Spicka]

Hell no. For one, no one would agree on whats morally sound and whats not, and two because it would be abused far too easily.

[belverron]

If it does happen to enforce morality it should be coincidence rather than design.

[tinybear]

But some laws are enacted specifically to enforce morality.

[Lou Minotti]

But some laws are enacted specifically to enforce morality.

And? Read the title of the tread...

[Technosoul]

Yes it was going to be a real poll but my computer has problems staying connected so it posted just as a message. Sorry about that.

One example of morality would be stem cell reasearch. We do enforce two of the 10 Commandments (murder and stealing) but those are rights as well as morals.

Not sure how to define "Christian" and other fundamentalist religions also have moral codes based on the Koran and whatever, so I left it open ended.

The strongest advocates of governmental enforcement of morality would be the "Christian Right Wing Political Party" which is less of of problem defining.

A whole bunch of people voted for President Bush because they thought he could influence Congress and he could make judgeship appointments that would establish or bring back a moral foundation for our country, so I wondered if those objectives were really popular or not.

During the early 1970s we (the population) had much more freedom to do things that are now concidered immoral and also illegal. Today we have much less freedom in that respect, so do I see a trend away from personal choice and into governmental control, relative to moral standards?

technosoul.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Of course the Government is going to moderate morality. The thing most of you miss is simple, the PEOPLE vote representatives in office to enforce thier views on the government. This is how the system works. If the Reps are doing their JOBS as they are supposed to, then "morality" will be enforced, and that will be the morality of the voters. Should that morality change, on wahtever subject, those currently in office will be replaced by the voters with people who will change things.

That's how it's supposed to work. The real monkey wrench in all of this are activist judges and special interest groups, like the ACLU for example.

Take that case out west with the Cross that's been on a hill top for 50 plus years, it was all fine and dandy till Clinton made that land "federal land" now the ACLU wants the cross DOWN. Here's the rub, they win, and Arlington National Cemetary will be forced to remove ALL the crosses there, as well as any other FEDERAL property (think National Cemetaries)

I don't think anyone would sya that is a pervailing view of the voters to see such taking to an extreme like this, but the ACLU will, and they knwo the right judges to go too, and the system, gets hosed.

[PatrickHenry]

My position(as a libertarian Christian): The Government is to prevent or punish crimes that have victims. My viewpoint is that if a clear victim cannot be shown, there is no crime, hence no cause for government interference.

Example: prostitution. Two people who engage in a (to me, morally reprehensible) act of intercourse outside of marriage as a financial transaction. I believe it damages the souls of both of the parties, but unless there is a clear "victim" I believe it should not be a criminal act.

Example: drug possession and use. Who is the victim?

Example: lying. Should every lie result in a jail term? Answer: No, only those that victimize others in cases like fraud.

Example: drunkenness. I find it repulsive and morally indefensible. Should every episode of overindulgence be subject to criminal penalties?

Can you folks see where this is leading? Government is too powerful a force to promote morality by legislation and a police presence. Societies that go this way end up with Taliban-like agencies for the Enforcement of Public Morals.

[lsbskins1]

Another example of appealing to the emotions of the audience, rather than relying on factual arguement. Take a look at this (http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/ima...S/image09.html ) and show me the crosses that will be removed from Arlington.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Another example of appealing to the emotions of the audience, rather than relying on factual arguement. Take a look at this (http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/ima...S/image09.html ) and show me the crosses that will be removed from Arlington.

Heh, you're right, lsb! But give Vicchio a break, even swingin' Dick Cheney got it wrong: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cheney.htm
'Course, that was years ago and the mistake was noted in the national press. But Vicchio was likely dittoheading this: http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/aclucross.html

[Lou Minotti]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!...sorry....

[asterix404]

I was gonna say.... it's a moot point they don't put crosses up anymore... as for morality, since hte governemnt is one of the most immorial things ever to exist on this planet, it would be so funny seeing them pass moral legislation. At every turn eventuiolly morality goes against advancement. Think about stem cells... or birth control, or electricity, or butons... all of which at one point went against preached morality at some time. Murder was legal in many cultures and rape has been acceptable in many many countries for decades. Mind you rape is one the most horrid things that can ever happen and none of it ever good... and most deff should be outlawd and people killed in brutal ways who commit the crime. Musder gets fuzzy with euthensia and assisted scuicide... morality is very very wierd. So no it shouldn't be legislated in any way. Common sence... sure... but moality no.

[tinybear]

But there are instances where there are no victims and yet the law can justifiably outlaw an activity which the majority in our society regards as repugnant/immoral.