For the longest time, I had believed by rote that in response to the heathen accusation, "You can't legislate morality!" - that I should simply respond with, "But every law is a legislation of morality!" Somewhere along the line, my conception of this argument changed. I don't know the When, but I can certainly extrapolate on the Why.
Simply put, though it is obviously possible to legislate morality (the Puritans tried to do this in England), I think such is a mistaken way to look at society and law. Even as it is entirely possible to legislate morality, it is likewise possible to legislate amorally (that is, entirely apart from moral value one way or another). And quite frankly, I think this is the way in which we should view the legislative system here in America.
Rather than viewing the legal system as one designed to make laws to prohibit immorality, we should view it simply as a system by which society regulates the behavior of its citizens to a manner desirable to itself. This doesn't necessarily reflect morality, though society's desired behavior for its citizens and morality often overlap. Two examples: anti-trust laws and murder. The legislative ability for society to regulate monopolies doesn't reflect any sort of moral values (i.e., it's not wrong to be so good in business that nobody buys any product but yours), but simply exists because Bill Gates makes society feel as though its freedom to compete is stifled (though it is, of course, wrong in thinking this). Murder is, of course, very wrong and murderers deserve to have the life wrung out of them by powerful Czechoslovakian women - but the reason society incarcerates murders (and sometimes removes them from earthly life) is that We Don't Like Murder Because Murderers Deprieve Us of Our Most Precious Commodity.
See, the thing is: once you intellectually give the government to mandate to legislate morality, you are forced to hypocrisy or forced to unbelievable extremism. If moral right and wrong is to be the measure for our legal system, then we cannot cease to write laws to cover every sin. A punishment for every crime is the only honest fulfillment of the legislation of morality. Did you lie and tell your wife you think her new haircut looks great? It's a night in the pokey for you. Did you chant, "We're Number One! We're Number One!" after you're team finished in top form in the Lower Oakland Bowling League finals? That's a $500 fine and 30 hours of community service. Did you let it slip out one too many times that the reason you had to break it off with your ex was that he struggles with pornography and a checkered past ("Details available for the asking")? Your driver's license will be revoked for six months.
Personally, I prefer to think that the purpose of law in this country is to protect our lives, our liberties, and our properties. Murderers rob us of life, which we as a society enjoy; therefore, we make it illegal. Thieves rob us of our property, which we as a society enjoy; therefore, we make it illegal. Liberals and fundementalists rob us of our liberty to speak our minds freely; therefore, we make them - uhm, well let's hope it's just a matter of time ;-P
In any case, this should really make the laws we stand for or against very simple choices. Law against murder? Yay! Law against drugs? Boo! Law against abortion? Yay! Law against homosexuality? Boo! Law against fraud? Yay! Law against prostitution? Boo!
And important to note: the legality of something doesn't mean anything morally. It's legal to lie to your mother and tell her you've finished your homework so you can play Nintendo. But it's still sin. Even if it was legal to go to a prostitute, it would still be sin. We should begin distancing our conception of law as a function of morality; this will keep our societal preferences seperate from our understanding of righteousness. Thank yo. Kind of rambling, but there you are.
8:49 PM 4 fruitless beatings
