🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jgauvin.439.004FC25E@symbios.com>,
Jeff Gauvin <jgauvin@symbios.com> wrote:
>> Any intrusion of religion into government is against the principles
>>upon which this country was founded.
>
>Fine. Next Sunday I think I'll buy a new car and drive it down to the liquor 
>store to buy some whiskey, then pick up a hooker, and go gambling. On the way 
>home I think I'll go shopping for a 3rd wife to complement my other two; maybe 
>a 13-yr old this time.
>
>D'oh! I can't because these are all illegal, at least in Colorado, but I think 
>you'll find nearly every state has blue-laws or other laws based on 
>Judeao-Christian, or at least "western" morals.
>
>Personally, I'd be much happier if/when religion (or the more secular term 
>"morality") is no longer a basis for laws, but we've got a long way to go!
>
>On the other hand, should a person forsake all his/her beliefs when he/she 
>enters the voting booth? "Well, I'm personally opposed to XXX, but since that 
>is a moral issue not a legal one, I must vote for it." I think most people 
>would have a hard time with this.

No, the trick is to avoid both simplistic extremes.  It *is* possible to
distinguish between prohibiting murder (admittedly a "moral" value, with
widespread support), and prohibiting a couple from touching each other's
genitals with their mouths (another "moral" value).  It's not true that
you have to accept both or reject both.  Some guidelines (not algorithms,
just study aids): how many would object to such prohibitions and on what
grounds (legalizing murder is not a major issue here), who is being
harmed if the activity is not prohibited, is coercions or consent
involved, are there less intrusive ways of accomplishing things, how much
are we imposing on those being restricted, what kinds of rights or values
would we have to surrender for enforcement, will it work or backfire or
have unacceptable side effects.

Any times we as citizens are contemplating encoding morals (religiously
inspired or not) into the government, we need to ask these questions and
others.  And to deal with gray areas in the answers, as best we can.

People who are too ready to impose their own moral dictates onto others
who are only threatening to their worldview but not to their material
being, are a problem.  To feel threatened because somebody makes their
living from acosting passersby with a gun and demanding money, and seeking
to use the government to prohibit such immorality, is one thing.  Using
the government to avoid the nagging feeling that somebody somewhere is
having more fun in bed than you are is another.  There are gray areas
between.

And yes, people do have a hard times with this.  Some prefer simple
absolutes which don't require thinking or heart choices.
   Z