What a week in politics (both US and Australian)! What was very evident to all was the passionate actions and reactions of individuals and groups within our communities on a range of topics including marriage of homosexuals and abortion. Rather than focus on the political, let me unfold a fascinating accusation that caught my attention during the war of words.
One pro-abortion politician (names omitted), accused an anti-abortion politician of “using this issue to boost their own political aspirations, and their own political ambitions … while putting women in harm’s way, in order for them to step up on the political ladder.” This led me to ask two questions. What makes one person’s opinion in politics more important that another persons? When a consensus cannot be reached, who is right and who is wrong?
What makes one person’s opinion in politics more important that another persons? This question is one that has been around as long as government. Is it the one who argues the loudest, the longest, or the most charismatic? None of these superficial skills should make a difference when we are talking of legislation. Legislation is a matter of truth, not preference. The government is a place where elected representatives come together to represent their communities in a fair and indiscriminate setting. An indiscriminate setting does not imply that everything is accepted and legislated because this is clearly impossible. The answer to this question is that while each individual’s opinion is important, it is no more important than that of the collective government in forming legislation. The danger for any person is that we arrogantly hold to our position without the ability to listen to and respect the opinions of others.
Before moving to the second question, it would be beneficial to mention the argument of Church and State at this point. Often Christian politicians are enthusiastically engaged on the need to leave their faith and worldview at the door when they enter government. Without going into too much detail in this article, the original conception of the argument of Church and State was that the State should never be allowed to establish a State church to whom all people must adhere. All people should have the ability and freedom to participate in whatever religion they choose, this despite the fact that some religions must be false because all cannot logically co-exist in truth. There was never any intention to keep all influence of Christians from impacting the State. The world would be a much different place if this was the intention.
When a consensus cannot be reached, who is right and who is wrong? This question cuts a little deeper than the first. Hopefully a consensus can be reached on common standards, usually found in a community despite gender, race or religion. This is becoming more and more infrequent in our western countries as our common community standards become less aligned. Because legislation is a matter of truth and not preference, the intention must be to seek that truth as both an individual and a collective for the legal sake of the community. What makes this difficult is the infiltration of relative truth that is self-defeating in nature and therefore makes for ineffective legislation. In addition, just because someone says something with passion and sacrifice, it does not insinuate truth (fallacy of Argumentum ad Miserecordiam). The answer to this question, I believe, does not lie in legislating the Scriptures, but morality. Rather than having individuals arguing from differing personal worldviews (Christian or otherwise) that they’re emotionally invested in, morality gives us a common ground from which to legislate. Legislating morality by Frank Turek and Dr. Norman Geisler helps to expand this idea further and provides a helpful, practical application.
The answer to my title question is of course in the negative because the State is not the living Body of Christ and it was never intended to be. The State is a governmental institution that, despite gender, race or sexual preference of individuals, protects the community and gives us freedoms and liberty through law based on absolute morality, not the Bible. This does not excuse us as individuals impacted by Christ from living with purpose and intentionality in our communities. We need to be discovering and implementing morality while seeking Truth with humility.
Legislating morality is exactly wrong. Not only is such a goal anti-secular and doomed to failure, but It reveals a profound misunderstanding of the necessary boundary between religious belief and public law.
Law is about equality rights and freedoms for all. You and I enjoy exactly the same rights and freedoms in law as any other citizen regardless of our beliefs, our morality, our ethical values. And it must be so to function. It is on this basis – legal equality and not some vague notion of ‘truth’ – that legislation is predicated because it applies to all. Relative opinions about truth has no place in the legal functioning of the rules and regulations that govern the public domain where equality laws are paramount to represent the entire public and not the selected interests of this group or those few people. When you cross this boundary and attempt to use the hammer of legislation to enforce a morally relative viewpoint, you are abusing the public domain of the secular state and creating victims of your piousness. This is intolerable.
Imagine if the senator or court officer or military or public school teacher or pharmacist attempted to use their public office where they are to represent the legal rights of all to implement private values they favoured rather than the legislated public interest for all they are obligated by professional standards to perform. The result would be what we see in Egypt and other failed ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings: either mob rule championed under the name of ‘democracy’ or the imposition of martial law under a strongman. Without legal equal rights for all citizens held paramount over and above all other considerations (like sharia law), the public domain becomes a battleground for the political supremacy of this group over that group, this religious belief over that, this social value over that, this gender’s privilege over that gender’s submission, and so on. By assuming legislation is about these competing moral values, you are advocating for these kinds of results of social upheaval and violent revolution where power – not rights and freedoms – becomes the objective. When you misunderstand the role of those in the public domain to respect the common law, the common legal rights, the common freedoms held in trust by all, you undermine your own!
I understand why you would want your religious beliefs to be supported and enforced by the power of the secular state, and I understand why you want to support agents in the public domain to advocate on your behalf, but you need to appreciate why the same wants by others with competing beliefs equally deserve what you yourself want. This is a recipe for disaster based on selfish, unwise, short-sighted goals that adversely affect your rights and freedoms as much as mine. Supporting those who would favour your religious beliefs in the public domain is a sure sign of either an uncaring opinion that is seditious and treasonous to the very notion of individual rights and freedoms (upon which justified government rules by the consent of the governed – of the people, for the people, by the people), profound ignorance about the proper legislated role of agents who hold public office (and exercise its power in the name of the public that empowers it), and a very real danger to the very rights and freedoms we share. Morality is a secondary concern, concerned with the private domain, and subservient to the primary concern of equality law for all.
Tildeb,
Thanks for responding to this article, I do appreciate your opinion and interaction.
First let me say that I agree with your statement, “Relative opinions about truth have no place in the legal functioning of the rules and regulations that govern the public domain.” I think we both agree that relativity needs to be guarded against. How we do that is obviously were we differ.
You seem to be adverse to truth and relativism. Is that right? How would you define truth? Is it absolute or relative? How can we legislate if we do not know what the truth is? If we use relativism, we will just end up with the Arab Spring reoccurring over and over again like you suggested. Isn’t our legal system based on truth and justice? Help me understand how you can legislate without truth.
Two comments you made in one paragraph are confusing me so may I ask you to expound on them a little further? The first is, “When you cross this boundary and attempt to use the hammer of legislation to enforce a morally relative viewpoint, you are abusing the public domain of the secular state and creating victims of your piousness. This is intolerable.” The second statement is, “Law is about equality rights and freedoms for all.” If we all have the freedom that you desire, why is anything intolerable? Doesn’t your intolerance remove someone’s freedom? How do you reconcile that? It seems like a self defeating argument. By the way, I never implied that I wanted to legislate my relative moral viewpoint.
You create a strawman when you accuse me of encouraging people “to implement private values they favoured rather than the legislated public interest for all they are obligated.” I never said that and do not encourage that at all. I said that together, we must seek what is the truth for mankind. Is that objectionable to you?
I agree with you that, “the public domain becomes a battleground for the political supremacy of this group over that group.” That is why we need to find a platform on which we can all come to an agreement on what is best for our communities, despite gender, race or religion. What do you suggest that is if it is not a common absolute morality that we all live under as mankind? You do understand that morality transcends religion and is integral within cultures right?
You speak of common law, common legal rights and common freedoms. What are these? What are they based on? How do you define them and who legislates them? Are they an agreed consensus from a majority in government? If so, why cannot sharia law be common law in Saudi Arabia? if they are based on what is best for the community, isn’t that rather subjective and relativistic in nature? Can you please explain your philosophical understanding in regard to this?
“By assuming legislation is about these competing moral values, you are advocating for these kinds of results of social upheaval and violent revolution.” You would find these results from a basis of moral truths is the abnormality produced by a minority who abuse their positions AGAINST the philosophy of absolute morality. In the case of atheism (which I am not implying that you hold to), these results are actually the norm because they are CONSISTENT with atheistic philosophy. It is important that this distinction is understood when analysing the actions of those aligning with specific worldviews.
“Supporting those who would favour your religious beliefs in the public domain is a sure sign of either an uncaring opinion that is seditious and treasonous to the very notion of individual rights and freedoms”. Can you clarify if you are criticising my freedom to chose who I wish to vote for? Also, can you apply the same argument to yourself? When you vote, who do you vote for and why? Is it fair for me to expect that, if you where a die hard Democrat, that you would vote for Romney in the last election? Of course not, you vote for the person who best represents the beliefs and views that you hold to.
I am curious as to what you believe falls under the classification of morality when you say, “Morality is a secondary concern, concerned with the private domain.” Are you just talking about sexual morality? Merriam Webster defines it as, “conformity to ideals of right human conduct.” By this definition, I would have thought you would classify it as a primary concern since morality takes into account the ideals of right human conduct. Adultery, stealing, murder, pedophilia, public nudity, speeding, deformation, and DUI are all chargeable offences in our current western legal system. Everything we do in life impacts other persons, that is living in community. Even behind closed doors, our personal actions impact our attitudes and which in turn impact our community. My point is not that government needs to control our attitudes but that we each impact one another both directly and indirectly.
It seems that rather than directly commenting on my article, you have introduced baggage from other arguments on this topic. I too believe we should all be able to live in freedom. The problem absolute freedom for all is an imaginative utopia that will never exist as long as we are human beings prone to selfish desires, greed, pride, and personal preservation at the expense of others (otherwise known as sin). Can you tell me which worldview throughout history inherently provides the best frame work for freedom of a community? That is not to say that religion should be the religion of the State because I obviously object to that. I believe the Christian worldview, despite the crazies that have been the anomaly, provides the best framework for giving the entire community the opportunity to live in freedom. If you have not, read the book I referenced to help fill in the gaps a little.
I look forward to hearing your argument for the alternative to absolute morality from which to legislate.
Wow, Kit. that is a thorough, on-point response to tildeb.
tildeb? Will you engage over these questions?
Thanks Terrell. It is one thing to simply disagree but another to provide an reasonable alternative.
I was rechecking some of the articles I’ve commented on (for whatever reason, no notice comes up on my system that a response here has been made) and just now discovered your response. My deepest apologies for my lack of supervision! I did not mean to leave your lengthy comment just hanging here. Sorry about that.
The point of my comment was to highlight the need for separation between the public and private domains. This is important for us to get along. I say this because I am Canadian who has lived in many countries. This matters because my homeland has had to find a way for disparate groups to coexist if the nation is to survive as a cohesive whole. The same battle is being fought around the world this very minute. And the world can learn a very important lesson from our Canadian struggles, namely, how to find a way to get along peacefully and create prosperity and unity from sustained and celebrated diversity. Although we have a way to go, our national evolution is in the right direction. I am proud to be Canadian and am proud of the great strength that can come from a shared citizenry that is remarkably diverse in language, culture, religion, ethnicity, and geography. The latest men’s national hockey team had more than a dozen ethnicities from north and south of the equator, half a dozen native languages, and a
shared love of a single winter game. I have no doubt that in a few years we can include different genders and sexual preferences as well. Now that’s Canadian, eh?
I point this political framework out because it matters on the ground… in other words, in practice not just in Canada but everywhere I’ve lived. Our laws have had to be strong enough in principle to overcome the pressures to favour different constituent populations. And one of these populations are those who earnestly believe that government should do so. You fall into this camp. And you’re not alone; many millions do, but all are equally wrong if they desire peace and prosperity and good government.
It starts with law – one that is supportive in principle to all equally. This point requires a moment of reflection to really grasp what it means in practice: law is not first a matter of application of some set of rules and regulations upon all equally (although it does this) but a matter of intention to protect institutionalized support for all citizens equally. Law is not enacted and followed because it is enforced by officers of the court – judges and advocates and court officers like police and sheriffs and bailiffs – but because law as an institution is supported by the Armed Forces, constituted by the likes of thee and me in our volunteer capacity. We – the common citizen – empower the law by owning and operating the Armed Forces and not the other way around. This matters because when a particular population attempts to use the law upheld by the common citizen to enforce a privilege or favour for an uncommon portion or subset of the citizenry, it threatens the institution itself by undermining this principle of the commons. Why should you, for example, support a law that elevates a particular right or particular freedom of mine while reducing your own (usually in the name of something else)? You wouldn’t. You would quite rightly claim that this wasn’t fair… to use the political power you have loaned to a government in good faith to enact legislation to reduce your political power while increasing someone else’s! The role of law, then, is to establish and support a common basis shared by all citizenry.
This common basis is often misunderstood. And you have done just that. I cannot have a freedom in law that comes at the price of your same freedom. This is against the principle of the common. You cannot have a right in law that comes at the price of my same right. This is against the principle of the common. Your rights are my rights, your freedoms my freedoms. We must in principle share the common to be a common. Hence the name of the highest parliament in the land: the House of Commons from which legislation is made to become law but subject to review by the Supreme Court that measures this fairness of law against the litmus test of the common!
When someone introduces legislation (like under the guise of ‘morality’, for example) to undermine the principle of the common to restrict a freedom or right, it bears the burden of proof to have to demonstrate an increase to the public good, the common good. For example, the age of majority is curtailed for exactly these reasons. We have all kinds of restrictive laws that reduce the freedoms of some in the name of enhancing the public good. But remember, laws that have failed to show this (for example, prostitution, Prohibition, and the current War on Drugs) reveal the kinds of laws that simply don’t work; they cause great harm to the society they purport to ‘protect’ because they each fail to adequately regulate in pursuit of some hoped-for unachievable elimination. The laws harm peace, harm prosperity, and harm good government. Morality that fuels this misguided attempt at elimination of personal behaviours by public law causes the creation of legal victims, so much so, for example, that more black drug-related ‘criminals’ are incarcerated in today’s US prisons than there were slaves ever owned at the height of slavery! Misguided laws that attempt to coerce and force private conformity are not based on supporting the common rights and freedoms of all but are targeted attempts to control individual behaviours selected for dubious ‘moral’ reasons that divide people and create victims of institutional abuse. Sure, all of us fall under the same law, but they have zero effect on those who do not behave this way to begin with! These laws target these populations, and they only do harm to them without improving the public good.
It is important to understand the proper limitations of the public domain, and these limitations are defined by the private. In the vernacular, my public right and freedom to swing my fist stops at the tip of your nose. And the same common right and freedom is also yours curtailed by mine. The private supersedes the public until the common is breached.
Morality as behaviour is a private domain issue. You can practice whatever you wish right up until it infringes on my own. And the same is true in reverse. The role of law is to support this common boundary and not to help either of us cross it… for whatever reasons we believe entitles us to do so. And nowhere has this point been revealed by as much bloodshed and hardship and infringement of rights and freedoms than here in Canada where historical enemies had to learn to get along, to get past differences of religion and ethnicity and culture and language, to respect the other as one’s self, and face the exterior threat of US imperialism together, to face down the hostilities and feuds brought from other far away places to our shared home, to learn to value what we share in the public domain while allowing our neighbours the freedom to behave differently at home, to eat strange food, pray to strange gods, speak strange languages, celebrate strange holidays. wear strange clothing, and so on, marry strange people, while insisting on the same tolerance and respect be shown for our own strange behaviours… right up until any of these practices interfered with the other. Both of us, all of us, have had to accept these necessary boundaries – these common boundaries – in order to maintain peace, prosperity, and good government. This method works in practice.
Not all of us are willing to support this approach, however, and so vigilance against legal and civil encroachments of our common rights and freedoms must be kept up and legal battles constantly fought to be able to successfully pass them on to the next generation. By all means argue about morality all you want and apply conclusions to your own life and behaviours, but don’t think for a moment that coopting the law to impose your preferences will stand unchallenged. Hopefully, one day you too will be an ally in the cause of the protecting the common and not a threat to undoing it.
I think much of this conversation overlaps with the other post we have been interacting on at http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/08/18/boys-in-the-girls-locker-room/
I would again say that I agree with much of your definition and role of the common law. But again, you claim that what you wish to legislate is not morality but ____________. What do you call it again? Merriem Webster defines morality as, “conformity to ideals of right human conduct” and Oxford as, “a particular system of values and principles of conduct.” Shouldn’t our common law reflect this common ideal or system of right human conduct? If not, what does the common law reflect? Law must legislate and is therefore discriminatory in nature. To allow everyone to do whatever they please would render the law ineffective.
You speak of how the law has not helped against prostitution or drugs. You also suggest that it is the people who empower the law. Does this mean that any law that people do not agree with should never be legislated? You talk of a law derived directly from the intentions of the people, or the mob. Isn’t this what they have done in Afghanistan? Most people there agree on Sharia Law so who are you or I to say that it is wrong for them (based on your philosophy)? Is that right? Please correct me if I am wrong.
I agree that moral law has been abused and used for personal advantage throughout history but that does not mean it is wrong. It means that someone has abused the system for their personal gain. The natural law, in my understanding, is the most consistent and fair law under which mankind can live. I would be curious to see how much of the Canadian law fits under the natural law. Maybe that is why is has been successful until now :).
Still, you ask me to stop “coopting the law to impose my preferences.” You say that the fist stops at the nose. Can I ask you a question? Have you ever held a newborn son or daughter in your arms and admired the gift of a new life? Tell me who is coopting the law for personal preferences that would allow one of these new borns to be killed only hours before he leaves the womb? The knife never stops at the womb my friend. The baby is a different person from the mother, yet the mother often chooses to abort the child for emotional wellness reasons. What about the transgender child (female) walking around my son half naked in the boys locker room? Who is imposing preferences there? Did the fist stop at the nose? Heck no! My son just had his innocence violated.
What do you do in the instances where 99% have to have their rights violated to appease the 1% choosing to live a lifestyle contrary to their natural order? If you tell the 99% to suck it up, why not tell the 1% to suck it up? You seem to think your philosophy will work fine, as long as everyone does it your way. I am not saying majority rules because it is critical we include the minorities. Don’t get me wrong. It is just that there are differences between fighting for the rights of women and ethnic minorities versus homosexuals and transgender (not necessarily intersex). One is encoded into the DNA, the other is a choice (it is not in the DNA, it is behavioural).
It sounds like you would just be happy if the majority continually “sucked it up” for the sake of the minority. I would agree many times but there are times when somethings are just wrong. You also agree, we just might disagree on what exactly those wrong things are.
I hope my initial response didn’t appear as though I were against the subject? You are right, it is important ( if not vital ) to discuss this, especially in this present age where, as you point out, minorities and marginalised people are living in difficult situations.
I hope too to see more discussion.
Thanks for your support on a subject often avoided because of it’s nature.
First of all, let me say that I really appreciate this post Kit.
I grew up Anglo Catholic in the Church of England, with a very wise and learned parish priest who helped develop what is, I hope, a deep faith and a broad and open mind.
One thing I came to understand, as a young and which has been enhanced as the years have progressed, is that Church and State simply don’t mix. Jesus’ own words about rendering each to each spring to mind.
To echo your own words, “the State is not the living Body of Christ and it was never intended to be,” and the more they meddle with each other, the greater and muddier the muddle.
Kind regards, and prayers.
Thank you Michael. This is a subject that often causes reactions of one extreme or another, either to legislate the Scriptures or to completely ignore our faith and worldview. I think it is important that we discuss this topic so that we know the Biblical way to interact with people of different and opposing beliefs in our community, especially in governing. I currently live as a minority in my community (approx. 0.01%) so this is a daily reality for us.