Legislating Morality: Is It Constitutional?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2010
- Legislating Morality - Is It Constitutional? Frank Turek reviews the question from a biblical, philosophical, legal, and historical perspective.
Please visit www.CrossExamined.org for more on Legislating Morality and the Constitution.
Also, go to www.ImpactApologetics.com for more resources on Christian Apologetics and Christian Worldview, including the entire DVD of this teaching series.
Powerful. Very logical. Thank you.
God bless u Frank!!! ure doing God's work!!
Love Frank Tureck !!!! 💚 God bless his life 🙏 Hes truly inspirational.
this is awesome!!
So sad that so many people Kant understand the logic of what you said, the Bible calls this; "Willful Ignorance".
Frank, Should the Chinese government have the same authority to legislate according to their moral standards that you advocate for in the US?
very true
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity; RELIGION and MORALITY are indispensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness."
--George Washington
Farewell Address,
September 17, 1796.
We need to come up with a good definition for "sense", lol. Everybuddy's is relative, right?...since we are each in our little bubble of an earthly outpost. I have noticed this to be true, that one can adopt with free willingness, "the joyful spirit of a sound mind". I wonder where I got that Good Advice from...
@@InnerMittenSignal You are speaking rhetorically of course, knowing that whether we choose for the good or the wrong, there must be a perfect absolute and infinite Good, and that Good, being infinite, stands beyond the realms of time, space and matter.
We do legislate morality. That’s why people don’t fornicate in the middle of Wilshire Blvd. But we are so arbitrary in what is law.
I’m a Christian and these are the things that anger me! Thank you for this great lecture.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
One thing which I have seen people imply is the expression of religious morality could be limited by the "free exercise" clause. This is being "short circuited" by activist judges. The amendment denies Congress from limiting the expression of Religion, however, some are saying that SCOTUS on the other hand can do all the limiting it wants because it is not Congress. Is there a clause in the Constitution which restricts the drafting of laws to Congress and only Congress.
We need a procedure where if SCOTUS finds a law unConstitutional, the only action available to the Court would be a directive to Congress to legislate a fix.
These are good distinctions to reiterate. It is the government's duty to reinforce God's law in regards to safety and security of the citizenry and their God given liberties. Our government was largely based on biblical truths and has been more successful and free than any prior.
We CAN vote for our religious views. The separation of church and state was originally called the freedom of religion. It means governments cannot tell us what to believe. We can believe what ever we want, where ever we choose, when ever we choose. The author of the separation of church and state was the Reverend John Lathrop That's right it is a Christian concept. Not a secular one. I am proud to say I am Reverend John Lathrop's 11Th great grandson. Secularists who claim we cannot practice religion openly and any where we want are lying.
While I simply love Frank's logic on matters of God, Scripture, religious historicity, religion and morality I wonder how Frank would answer the problem, the 800lb gorilla, in the room, known as "justification".
If a government proposes a moral position then that position needs to pass the justification test. Failing that justification test means that the government's moral position is either based on determinism or personal opinion. Frank has said that neither of those options is rational or perhaps better put, those positions are not based on absolute truth.
Frank often argues that atheists may easily have moral positions but they cannot justify those positions unless they fall back on non-material or supernatural rationale. How then does one justify the moral positions a government makes if one does not rely on a supernatural basis, e.g. religion, as that justification's source. In that way all justified moral laws are a product of some religious entity. Thus the problem.
I believe that our founding fathers were well aware of the dilemma that moral positions require a source and that source is all too often God which they banned as a legal justification via the First Amendment. To alleviate this problem the framers of the US Constitution created a new entity called "rights" to replace their dependence on morality. Strangely though they stated in the Declaration of Independence that these rights came from our Creator seemingly contradicting themselves.
Also I disagree with Frank that all laws are morality based or at least strongly morality based. Many laws are procedural or administrative in nature, intent and execution. For example the law that states that drivers must keep to the right lane while driving in the US is an administrative law. If it were a moral law then all drivers in England where they drive on the left would be immoral. While one could dig deeper and explain that choosing a consistent side to drive on reduces chaos one has to dig even deeper to explain why chaos is a bad thing. There is just too much logical distance from saying "drive on the right is the law" and "chaos may result in death" and "killing someone in an auto accident is immoral" to characterize "drive on the right" is a moral law. One could argue that the law is rational because of financial concerns such as the expense of fixing damaged vehicles, lost time not being able to get to work, inability to care for loved ones, and paying for hospital stays. One could also argue that auto insurance and "no fault laws" are pseudo-godlike since they mitigate suffering and are passively transformational in nature.
Then there are laws that are from a Christian point of view immoral in nature. There include no fault divorce laws and the right to an abortion neither of which is based on any theological logic or justification.
I could summarize these two points:
1) A statement is devoid of moral content if it cannot be justified while acknowledging that justification cannot be accomplished via personal opinion or deterministic creation.
2) The depth that one has to dig to find the moral basis for a law is inversely proportional to the moral content of that law.
I wouldn't want a law that says all children have to pray in school, but I also don't want any law or policy that punishes children who want to pray in school. It is perfectly legal to use the Bible in public schools, so long as its not made mandatory for every student. Many states have introduced Biblical studies as an elective, and there's no law saying teachers can't use instruction that's consistent with Scripture, either.
And secondly, there is no difference between religion and morality. Your morals are rooted in your religious views and vice versa.
ignorant crowd... no response to "whats the 1st amendment?", nefarious.
in a world where there's been so much focus on the 2nd AMENDMENT, it's little wonder they couldn't recall the 1st amendment. it doesn't mean they're all ignorant. I blanked too. I'm also not American.
Ha, if I couldn't remember that in my Law Enforcement class, my instructor would probably just tase me in the face, and then explode.
Wow
Homosexuality and premarital sex may be somewhat consistent with Biblical teachings, but they also apply to how we treat one another. Rape, incest, and child abuse also fall into this category. Homosexuality still remains among the top transmitters of STDs, while premarital sex does the same for unplanned pregnancies and abortion. How many married couples have you heard of, where both the husband and wife thought killing their unborn child was a good idea? Probably not a lot.
The separation of church and state was established when we were founded as a constitutional republic. Not a christian theocracy. Sure we have christian principles as our founding. But, are they exclusively christian? Nope.
"Prohibition didn't work!"
"Says who?"
"Public schools, the media and Hollywood...."
"Hmm. Imagine that."
Prohibition was actually very effective. Outside of major city centers, the majority of the country was overwhelmingly "dry." And we were better off for it.
Just because it worked doesn't mean it was a good idea. I can drink and you can't stop me. And prohibition lead to organized crime but I like gangster movies so I guess some good came out of it.
Where is the biblical argument? When someone says they are going to give a biblical perspective I expect scripture? Not that I agree or disagree with what he says but I don't consider his argument biblical. Moses wrote the law down however, it didn't reign in the people it set them up to be taught about grace and love, which we all need. It is the goodness of God that leads people to repentance. I agree, we can't throw morality and law out the window. The constitution was meant for that, no?
I definitely concede that abortion is one of the most thorny, difficult issues we face in moral terms. We're weighing up the rights and wellbeing of an already-autonomous human against the rights of a potentially viable embryo or foetus. We're weighing up issues like that potential child's life chances in the adoption/care systems, their wellbeing based on the parents' financial status...
It's not as easy as saying "it's a human", as much as you'd like it to be the case.
The idea that human life has an inherent value is one that we're easily drawn to, particularly those of a religious persuasion. But there's no evidence for that. We just *feel* it. Strongly. But the mothers who make these difficult choices feel that too. They also feel fear and anxiety for their baby's future and their own.
I highly doubt that this is ever an easy decision for a pregnant woman.
Legislating that the woman concerned cannot be trusted with this decision when it is highly personal and individual seems like the wrong way to go.
Well if you look at it from the perspective that it’s murder then what you say doesn’t hold up for a second
@@tipsy09
Surely arriving at the decision that it's murder happens after you've weighed up all of these things and decided that a woman doesn't have the right to decide what happens in her own body and decided that a foetus has the same rights as a fully individual and autonomous person.
This man truly infuriates me.
First of all, there is no 'pro abortion' side to this argument. There is, however a pro-choice and pro-life debate. Pro choice advocates do not impose death, in fact they do not impose anything at all. They are pro-choice meaning the choice can be made between two adults if necessary, or one adult as to whether the pregnancy is beneficial for the lives of all involved. Being pro-choice does not enforce any such legislation, it gives the woman the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body, which is important as many moral philosophers preached the idea of bodily autonomy and free will. Secondly, pro-choice advocates do not take the fathers out of the picture. But, at the same time, in most scenarios, it is not the life of the father or the body of the father or the future of the father that is forever changed after pregnancy.
Secondly, this morons idea of separation of church and state. The constitution, while important to many americans, is irrelevant sadly. Legislation keeps changing and laws keep changing and people should not be taking the words of people who died hundreds of years ago as the basis for current moral reasoning.
If the baby is able to survive WITHOUT the mother at all, then it it is a living being. However, during the first months of the pregnancy the baby is wholly dependent on the mother, therefore how can it be a living being. It is a clump of cells that does have the potential to be a living being, however if you want to say that abortion is murder then you must also deem a miscarriage as murder, as the baby dies either way. It makes no sense.
You can legislate moral laws. 100%. But it isn't wrong to legislate laws that are inconsistent with religion. Nobody has said you cant legislate principles consistent with the bible, people are saying that you should use the bible as a reason to legislate those laws, or that all laws in the bible are correct.
You're truly missing the point. Nobody should be able to legislate what a woman in any circumstance can do with her body, just as there is no legislation determining what a man is able to do with his. Pro choice does not mean pro abortion.
If, in the cases of rape, a woman did not want to carry her rapists child, in a pro-life world that baby would have to be born and carried to term. The woman would have to raise the child. It's truly inhumane.
The truth with pro-life advocates is that they have no intention of advocating for accessibility to birth control or contraception, or sex education or once the baby is born, advocating for continued support to the child.
"Nobody is pro abortion" you can't speak for everyone, speak for yourself, many have abortions because of inconvenience, and what's funny is that's 100% fact, rape, incest, pregnancy problems, are the lowest %. There are women who say "if I have raw sex and get pregnant, it's my right to abort"
You're just using rape victims to get abortion across the board.
He's just making it sound better, but his definition of morality is actually based on what is right and wrong according to his interpretation of the bible (having God as a standard in his own religion). Btw I'm Christian and I believe that if someone is against the legalization of abortion, also in cases of rape, risky pregnancy and anencephaly, you're much closer to the other side and lacking empathy for the woman (who is actually the one going to carry the fetus and suffering with all this).
This whole mental twist is just a moot point.
He seems to agree with the whole basis that you can legislate moral principles after. There are three major parts in this:
-debate on the academic content (where mr Turek and the whole of religions have nothing to say)
-democratic voices (which he gets every couple of years.. just like everybody)
-political decision to legislate (where religious interference is unconstitutional)
Seems his only problem is the fact that on the abortion issue he is on (or at least fears to be on -) the side that gets least support, both from the medical experts, and the democratic voice of the public.
I understand that sucks - happens to us all!
Wow, what idiocy. Medical experts are biased on the issue because they make money off it.
But it is fun how you are so happy to allow them to decide who gets to live. Makes me wonder whether same should be done for you...