We are given a choice, my friends, and you must make up your mind as to what choice you seek to choose in this life. Do you wish that laws to be enacted that would manipulate your sense of morality or would you prefer that laws be a reflection of the morality of a nation? With a given that laws are necessary in a civilized society we need to make another choice. Do we wish for laws that will effect the greatest number of persons or do we wish for laws that would affect the attitude of the least number of persons?
Why are these choices necessary? Democracy is the reason. For in a democratic system laws are enacted by the majority of the people while the minority would reject the enactment of that law. So, guess whose attitudes would be effected by those laws and whose attitudes would not be effected?
Do we as a nation want to know ourselves as a people who forced its minority to accept the attitude of the majority or is democracy dependent upon a diversity of attitudes? Do we, as a nation, want to know ourselves as a people whose majority determined the attitude of the minority or would we prefer that each individual determine that for himself?
What value is the first amendment to our Constitution if we seek to effect the morals of others by the enactment of laws? Are we not implicitly advocating for the very thing that the first amendment seeks to prevent, a State religion? We would be creating a theocracy though not expressed as one, would we not?
For those of you that would deny that we would be creating a theocracy because it doesn't advocate a belief in the existence of God I can only ask this. Since when does a theocracy depend on a belief in the existence of God? Theology is just a study about God and it doesn't necessitate a belief in Him.
Remember, every belief is an recognition of a fact not yet proven. It is a recognition of a fact because we must acknowledged that one assumption or the other assumption which makes up the totality of that statement of belief is the fact. The only difference in attitude in regards to that belief is our own biases and prejudges thus choosing to accept one part of the belief over the other.
From strictly a logical point of view the acceptance of one over the other is to reject the possibility of the other without the evidence necessary to do so. So, again we must make a choice, my friends. We must choose whether to believe in the existence of God or we must choose not to believe in Him. We must make this choice because it will have an effect on our attitudes and morality.
We can choose God and recognize that His laws will be the laws that effect our lives and in the acceptance of that effect allow them to be the determinant on the laws of this nation. Or we can reject the belief in God and allow the laws of this nation force a change of our attitude without our consent.
Myself, I would much rather feel that my personal attitude and morality could be declared as being a small part of the determinant of the laws of this nation. What say you? Are we a nation under God or not?
7 comments:
Under God! Always!
Code is the law!
First, I would have to accept the premise that our attitudes are affected by the laws under which we find ourselves. And I do. But I don't necessarily make the leap to the next presumption, that this effect is a thing to be avoided. Think about this.
My attitude is affected by the fact that I am required to stop at a RED traffic light. How is it affected? Well, I might be annoyed, when there is clearly nobody else at the intersection, but I must stop BECAUSE the law mandates I stop for RED lights. On the other hand, my attitude is affected by the SAME law when, in rush hour traffic, I am able to proceed, taking "my turn" when the light turns RED for the other guy.
Taking that to the next level, morality, I simply do not believe this is something that can be mandated. For instance, murder. I'm not really sure that the majority of the population refrains from murdering others, simply because there is a law against so doing.... His laws or man's laws, the attitudes of people, when deciding to commit murder, are probably less affected by the laws or even their moral beliefs, and more by their emotions, and/or greed.
Are we one nation, under God? Yes. Are we living according to His laws? ummmmmmmmmmm.............
To me,the troubling practice of vilifying things such as smoking cigarettes (no I don't smoke - never have) or being overweight (no, I have never carried more than my fair share of weight) and the people who are (smokers, PLUS sized, etc.) is simply wrong. However, it is there that I see the attitudes being affected, to THEN, result in the "popular" enactment of legislation that is reported to affect our attitudes.
At any rate, great, thought provoking post, and I have rambled sufficiently here to confuse even myself!
Judy,
is it a manner of avoiding something or a matter of choice of which laws we want to effect us?
TG asked: Is it a matter of avoiding something, or a matter of choice of which laws we want to affect us?
Judy.... Both. We want to avoid being killed by a teenager who does not yet have the training necessary to drive a car, so, we choose to regulate the requirements for driving motor vehicle. And we choose to let the laws, the "group think" on matters we either have little interest in, or for which we hold different opinions, affect us, by choosing not to fight them.
I seriously see this as a circular deal. Old laws are repealed when popular attitude has decided they are "out of date" or just wrong. But attitude has to change before the laws are enacted or changed, propaganda that goes before... sometimes for years before, that eventually affect sufficient numbers of people so that the legislation passes. Of course there are those little lovlies that get put into law that were NOT enacted through popular vote, and those, can be brought down pretty quickly.... one I can think of immediately is a law that was enacted here in VA a few years back... the law charged VA residents an ADDITIONAL fine for traffic violations,and the additional fine was not minimal. The same offense for a non-resident was fined only for the violation, not the additional (I think they called it administrative fees). VA drivers were, therefore,penalized for having a VA driver's license..... that was repealed pretty quickly as I recall.
But did she answer the question????
Judy,
But did she answer the question????
not really and I can see from your question that a part of the reason is that I did not clarify the meaning of the "effect" in my post.
the effect I was speaking of is our attitude in regards to our sense of what is right and wrong.
the shiver that went up my back in the beginning of my post was the realization of that fact. i thought I had clarified it in the last sentence of my first paragraph.
in a more detailed question the question would be;
we have a choice, are we, as a nation, going to allow the laws of the state to effect our sense of right and wrong or do we as a nation wish that God's laws be the effect of our sense of right and wrong?
TG,
I get a little tangled up in the use of the word "effect" in this post. I keep reading it, but my brain keeps interpreting as "affect." So, I can "effect" a change (create a law) or something can "affect" me, (cause me to feel, react, change, etc.) So, forgive me for the confusion.
The laws of the state will never change my understanding of what is right or wrong... I know the difference... and much legislation violates my comprehension of what is right and wrong. God's laws are above all, in my way of thinking... and our nations' forefathers apparently understood that our nation was only one nation, when "under God"...
Judy,
yes, those two words do have the effect of confusing people. :)
and no forgiveness neccessary. like i say in my profile, i'm only here in hopes of inspiring thought not to convince people to my way of thinking.
Post a Comment