I was having a discussion with my grandson when he brings up this concept. He says, laws can impose my morality on others. Now, his intention is to become a lawyer and he has interned with the States Attorney. Of course he is feeling a bit more qualified to speak of law than he believes I would be. I am, after all, old. I have never studied law or had an internship. To be fair, he is correct in those two statements, the old part is subjective. But it is an interesting thought and we talked at length about that. The discussion centered around the issue of abortion. He doesn't support that but being the true attorney he was defending the position of Roe V Wade. In short his argument really was that I had no right to impose my moral beliefs by making a law barring that practice. I countered with, he had no right to impose his morality on me. The question boiled down to, if I am not hurting anyone else by doing this shouldn't I be allowed to do it? Naturally my position is you are murdering a human being and that does indeed affect me. My morals are deeply offended by that action. It was then the issue of law and morality came up. The discussion pretty much ended there as he had places to go, things to do. He left me with something to think about and I hope I did the same with him. I offered this thought for his consideration. I wish it was an original one, but it isn't. I read it somewhere. " What we tolerate today, will be embraced by our children tomorrow. " In short, tolerance becomes acceptance.
After he left I continued thinking about all of that. I think the question to be answered is, do governments have a base in morality? And if they do, what is the basis for that morality, what doctrine or creed? It is often spoken of, and used as an excuse in my opinion, this separation of church and state we enjoy in the United States. There are no state sponsored religious beliefs or practices. Now, the United States has always been a predominately Christian nation. I don't believe anyone can reasonably argue otherwise. I would also say our laws have been influenced by that. Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Abraham Lincoln is often attributed with that statement but it was first written by John Wycliffe in his prologue to his translation of the Bible. He said, " The Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. " I suggest Lincoln felt the same way. I think the founding fathers had similar thoughts as well, that the Bible was the basis for Government. John Wycliffe is also considered to be a precursor to the protestants, notably Martin Luther, as he opposed the power of the church. He did not believe that church leaders should wield the power and influence in government that they did. But I think it was more about the clergy demanding more money, lands and authority than the imposition of moral behaviors that concerned him. I think the founding fathers held the same concerns and that is why that separation was written into the Constitution.
Presently my thinking is this; whatever moral values a country has is reflected in its' legislators. In the United States it has been traditional Christian values. Those values have changed over time and it is that I question. The reformation was mostly concerned with Papal authority and little was disputed about the dogma of Christianity. That has changed since the reformation, without doubt. And today I am seeing more and more change. I was astonished and wrote about it, some Christians are now using the Bible itself as justification for legalizing abortion! A reformation? Or is it an abandonment of principle? In that lies the question of government. Does government owe moral guidance to its' citizens? My position is that it should. What is the purpose of law? Is it to punish or instruct? Should law tell you what to do or what not to do?
The next time I see my grandson we will discuss this further. I will present these arguments to him. It is a pleasure to have such talks with him even when the arguments heat up a bit. I believe it is important to his education and development. He doesn't have to agree with me but my feeling is he should. Isn't that the way we all feel? And I do hope he considers that statement about tolerance and what the implication there really is. Roe V Wade is a prime example of once you allow something it is very difficult to prohibit it in the future. We need to be very careful about what we legislate remembering it is not about winning the argument, it is about deciding what is the best course of action. The legal highway ends with our death, the moral highway stretches to eternity. We can never be certain of our destination, as that choice does not belong to us.
After he left I continued thinking about all of that. I think the question to be answered is, do governments have a base in morality? And if they do, what is the basis for that morality, what doctrine or creed? It is often spoken of, and used as an excuse in my opinion, this separation of church and state we enjoy in the United States. There are no state sponsored religious beliefs or practices. Now, the United States has always been a predominately Christian nation. I don't believe anyone can reasonably argue otherwise. I would also say our laws have been influenced by that. Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Abraham Lincoln is often attributed with that statement but it was first written by John Wycliffe in his prologue to his translation of the Bible. He said, " The Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. " I suggest Lincoln felt the same way. I think the founding fathers had similar thoughts as well, that the Bible was the basis for Government. John Wycliffe is also considered to be a precursor to the protestants, notably Martin Luther, as he opposed the power of the church. He did not believe that church leaders should wield the power and influence in government that they did. But I think it was more about the clergy demanding more money, lands and authority than the imposition of moral behaviors that concerned him. I think the founding fathers held the same concerns and that is why that separation was written into the Constitution.
Presently my thinking is this; whatever moral values a country has is reflected in its' legislators. In the United States it has been traditional Christian values. Those values have changed over time and it is that I question. The reformation was mostly concerned with Papal authority and little was disputed about the dogma of Christianity. That has changed since the reformation, without doubt. And today I am seeing more and more change. I was astonished and wrote about it, some Christians are now using the Bible itself as justification for legalizing abortion! A reformation? Or is it an abandonment of principle? In that lies the question of government. Does government owe moral guidance to its' citizens? My position is that it should. What is the purpose of law? Is it to punish or instruct? Should law tell you what to do or what not to do?
The next time I see my grandson we will discuss this further. I will present these arguments to him. It is a pleasure to have such talks with him even when the arguments heat up a bit. I believe it is important to his education and development. He doesn't have to agree with me but my feeling is he should. Isn't that the way we all feel? And I do hope he considers that statement about tolerance and what the implication there really is. Roe V Wade is a prime example of once you allow something it is very difficult to prohibit it in the future. We need to be very careful about what we legislate remembering it is not about winning the argument, it is about deciding what is the best course of action. The legal highway ends with our death, the moral highway stretches to eternity. We can never be certain of our destination, as that choice does not belong to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment