For the Sake of Discussion

Longtime blog reader and poster, adam h, posted the following comment:

OK, one more for the sake of discussion:
“…all laws are morality…it is really impossible to not legislate morality.”

No argument here, but the pronoun is crucial. I am saying I do not want anyone legislating *their* morality. I want governement leaders legislating *our* morality, meaning the people of the country and not a particular interest group. That’s what a democracy does. What happens when someone like Clinton or worse gets in and begins legislating *their* morality? I am saying that I don’t want either Huckabee, or anyone else, imposing their worldview on the country, but rather implementing the will of the country. The debate over morality and the attempt to change minds and influence life should occur at the family and friendship level, not the Presidential politics level.

I thought I would make this it’s own point for the sake of facilitating its own discussion among everyone who reads this blog. This is a great topic for Christians to truly engage. It really is the paramount issue surrounding the convergence of faith and politics. PLEASE ENGAGE IN THIS DISCUSSION, a lot of good could come of it. (note: my decision to make this comment its own post has nothing to do with not wanting Ryan’s “Huckabee” post to surpass my “Beckwith” post as “most commented”).


6 Responses

  1. Good point. The legislating morality canard is thrown around all too frequently. Keep your morals off of my body, blah blah blah. The problem is when unelected Judges enact laws by fiat (i.e., Roe V. Wade). I am having a hard time picking the wheat from the chafe when it comes to my presidential pick. I am leaning towards Cynthia Mckinney (Green) because I think she is a strong black woman, and I always base my vote on pigmentation and genitals.

  2. This is an interesting conversation and I think one that we have to take to the next level. What is our worldview? All of us have one, it is the foundation and basis for how we view the world and how things ought to be, and why they ought to be that way.

    The trouble with our political process is the competing worldviews that are now vying for the right to shape “our” morality. Yet there is no “our” morality anymore.

    A progressive secularist will say we need to give choice on abortion and take care of the enviornment because it is the right thing to do. In other words it is the moral thing to do.

    The conservative religious voter will say we need to ban gay marriage and abortion because it is the right thing to do.

    The libertarian will say we need to have minimum government and lots of liberties, because it is the right thing to do.

    And these are just a few of the moral frameworks competing for our agreement today.

    So it comes down to worldview, what do you believe to be moral and on what authority? Your own? Majority opinion? or God’s?

    This is why I think religion matters in elections because it gives us a strong indication of the moral framework and worldview that a candidate is operating out of.

    For a good example of how this plays out and how it affects how we view issues, see my “A-Bomb” post. For some their moral worldview makes them see it as a moral obligation to protect life. For those in favor of abortion they see a moral imperative of choice.

  3. Gone are the days when the religious conservative can expect to get whatever he or she wishes from the election cycle. Like it or not, the last two Presidential elections have been pluralistic, and that is not likely to change any time soon. The pluralistic America is just ramping up, friends. It will get tougher still.

    The real danger is that Evangelicals will hardline on every issue and find themselves leaving a political coalition that can get them *some* of their goals for a lonely outpost outside the main political system where they will get *none* of their goals.

    McCain, Romney, and Guiliani are not ideal candidates for the Evangelical by any stretch, but they will need to at least let Evangelicals in to the dance in order to get and stay elected. They can win.

    Huckabee may be the ideal Evangelical candidate (I am not saying he is), but he cannot win. Look at who does win then and ask if they would be more favorable as President by giving no voice to Evangelicals than would a flawed candidate like Guiliani, Sure, it’s a tough choice, but some love is better than no love.

    Why do we think that there will be a perfect candidate? Has there ever been?

  4. RON PAUL 2008

  5. johnnypeepers wrote:

    > The problem is when unelected Judges enact
    > laws by fiat (i.e., Roe V. Wade)

    Actually Roe v. Wade is an amazing example of the job of the courts in our country. If you read that decision you notice quickly that the Justices struggled to reconcile two conflicting principles – The right of American Citizens to have sovereignty over their own body and the right of the state legislatures to protect life. In my view the court did not enact any new law in roe v. wade but merely struck a compromise between two existing tenants of the law.

  6. Mark – how did that decision allow state legisaltures to protect life? Were a state to enact any type of anti-abortion law, it would be struck down citing Roe v. Wade. I am not trying to argue – I really would like to understand your point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: