Legislating Morality

[DavidB]

Did not want to derail the other thread, if mods so deem I have no issue with this being combined with the conformance v freedom thread.

One argument I have heard oft repeated, here and in Church, about certain taxes or government programs, is that the tax or program is akin to satans plan because it takes away the choice of the person taxed to decide for themself to support a program that is intended to benefit the poor, widowed, etc.

If taxes are akin to Satans plan, wouldn't legislating morality also be akin to satans plan? As the choice to engage in a said behavior has essentially been removed by the State.

Now, I know some will claim one can still choose to engage in a prohibited behaviour, one can also choose not to pay taxes.

Edited October 9, 2012 by DavidB

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Did not want to derail the other thread, if mods so deem I have no issue with this being combined with the conformance v freedom thread.

One argument I have heard oft repeated, here and in Church, about certain taxes or government programs, is that the tax or program is akin to satans plan because it takes away the choice of the person taxed to decide for themself to support a program that is intended to benefit the poor, widowed, etc.

If taxes are akin to Satans plan, wouldn't legislating morality also be akin to satans plan? As the choice to engage in a said behavior has essentially been removed by the State.

Now, I know some will claim one can still choose to engage in a prohibited behaviour, one can also choose not to pay taxes.

Taxes and government programs are Satan's plan? Who knew?

What I have an issue with is the the private sector always (with the exepction of military) out performs what the government does esp. in the way of charity. Government cost more and is less effective.

I guess for, if one were to argue the former, of your points then the later does seem to make sense.

Also I have never once thought that Taxes are evil or of the devil. Currently with US politics it seems to be the in thing to demonize the rich. Why should the rich pay more taxes when, considering that the rich with regards to tihitng are only asked to pay 10% which if you are in poverity you are still asked to pay 10%?

That is what our taxes should be accross the board. Not 0 % for some one making under 30,000 and not 39% for some one making over 250,000. Any way I guess I agree with your point if one were to say that taxes and government are akin to Satan's plan.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[DH]

Well, one could argue that making theft and murder illegal is legislating morality. So the question becomes where are we to draw the line? Or is it okay to legislate morality across the board?

One way to handle it is to take a hands-off approach except when an action affects another person/other people or the common good. For example, it may be immoral for a person to hate another person because of the color of their skin, but it doesn't cause actual harm to another person, and so we wouldn't legislate against it. (Plus, it could be hard to prove!) But if a person assaults another person because of the color of their skin, we'd probably make a law against that. From one point of view that's legislating morality, but with limits that prevent taking away too much freedom.

[Danzo]

I think the analogy goes like this:

If I decide to take your car and give it to someone I think needs it more, I would go to jail for stealing

If I got elected to the legislator and did the same thing . . .

[RobertAC]

Interesting topic. Certainly governments have, in the past, tried to legislate morality (e.g. Iran) to some disasterous results. However, there are some religious communities with very strict rules for their members which seem to do fine.

[rpn]

I've not heard it that way. Rather, no one gets sanctified by paying taxes. Plenty of people get sanctified by giving personally to those in need. I doubt that many LDS object to paying taxes so the widows and orphans (or modern equivalent poor) are taken care of. It is just so very rare that a government program works, is efficient at meeting real needs, and inspires people with hope and skills to change their lives.

[MorningStar]

You can choose your actions. You can't choose the consequences.

[Saints Alive]

I'm pretty sure it was Christ who said "render unto caesar..." don't think there is a problem with taxes.

[blackstrap]

The " render unto Ceasar" quote only holds if Ceasar is not too greedy. I wonder what Jesus would have said about a 50% rate.

[Saints Alive]

I don't know that the response would be different

[Stargazer]

The " render unto Ceasar" quote only holds if Ceasar is not too greedy. I wonder what Jesus would have said about a 50% rate.

I think Jesus would say: "If you don't like it, then elect legislators who will amend the law to collect at a lesser rate." In fact, that's pretty much what He said in DC 134.

[Rob Osborn]

Did not want to derail the other thread, if mods so deem I have no issue with this being combined with the conformance v freedom thread.

One argument I have heard oft repeated, here and in Church, about certain taxes or government programs, is that the tax or program is akin to satans plan because it takes away the choice of the person taxed to decide for themself to support a program that is intended to benefit the poor, widowed, etc.

If taxes are akin to Satans plan, wouldn't legislating morality also be akin to satans plan? As the choice to engage in a said behavior has essentially been removed by the State.

Now, I know some will claim one can still choose to engage in a prohibited behaviour, one can also choose not to pay taxes.

I can assure people that our taxes are not part of Satan's plans. Laws in general ensure freedom. Think of heaven for a moment...do you think there are allowance laws there that permit sinfulness? Why not? Because sin always leads to a loss of freedom, a loss of choices, the loss of agency. Moral legislation is a preventative measure to help ensure the righteous have freedom and the guilty are punished. There is a law for everything, every action whether we like it or not. We are either obedient or disobedient to all actions we do. Choice or freedom is not thus removed.

[blackstrap]

I think Jesus would say: "If you don't like it, then elect legislators who will amend the law to collect at a lesser rate." In fact, that's pretty much what He said in DC 134.

And exactly how would the Jews have elected Roman senators at that time ?

[TAO]

The difficulty on this issue is:

A) We pass laws related to morality already. Examples: laws against murder, stealing, animal abuse, drugs, hate crimes, etc.

B) We pass freedoms relate to morality already. Examples: freedom of religion, freedom to bear arms, freedom to eat McDonalds, etc.

So you see, the entire dicussion is over shoudl we pass laws related to morality, or have freedoms related to morality. And the answer comes to this: People will rarely fully agree with one or the other. Usually, we are somewhere in the middle; we think certain things should be included in laws, and other things should not.

[MiserereNobis]

Because sin always leads to a loss of freedom, a loss of choices, the loss of agency.

This is the traditional Catholic understanding. Freedom means freedom to be free from sin. True freedom thus is not sinning. This is different from the current Enlightenment era understanding of freedom, where freedom is the freedom to do what you want.

[Rob Osborn]

This is the traditional Catholic understanding. Freedom means freedom to be free from sin. True freedom thus is not sinning. This is different from the current Enlightenment era understanding of freedom, where freedom is the freedom to do what you want.

Exactly.

[thesometimesaint]

That same Jesus walked the roads paid for by Roman taxes, enjoyed a certain amount of protections paid for by Roman taxes. Moreover EVERY member of the Church that lives in America today benefits from the physical, and legal infrastructure of the US paid for by themselves, and others. More to the point the US is a secular country that allows for the freedom of religion

Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized society.

Adam Smith.

[MiserereNobis]

That same Jesus walked the roads paid for by Roman taxes, enjoyed a certain amount of protections paid for by Roman taxes.

This reminds me of a hilarious scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian" where the Jewish rebels are discussing the terrible things that the Romans have done to them:

REG: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.

LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.

REG: Yeah.

LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.

REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!

XERXES: The aqueduct?

REG: What?

XERXES: The aqueduct.

REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.

COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.

LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?

REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.

MATTHIAS: And the roads.

REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--

COMMANDO: Irrigation.

XERXES: Medicine.

COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh...

COMMANDO #2: Education.

COMMANDOS: Ohh...

REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.

COMMANDO #1: And the wine.

COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah...

FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.

COMMANDO: Public baths.

LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.

FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.

COMMANDOS: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.

REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

XERXES: Brought peace.

REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

[thesometimesaint]

This is the traditional Catholic understanding. Freedom means freedom to be free from sin. True freedom thus is not sinning. This is different from the current Enlightenment era understanding of freedom, where freedom is the freedom to do what you want.

Not so much. Freedom of action is not the same thing as the freedom from the consequences of that action. You are free to jump off of a cliff, you are not free from the consequences of hitting the bottom of that cliff.

[thesometimesaint]

This reminds me of a hilarious scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian" where the Jewish rebels are discussing the terrible things that the Romans have done to them:

Monty Python. Still funny after all these years.

[MiserereNobis]

Not so much. Freedom of action is not the same thing as the freedom from the consequences of that action. You are free to jump off of a cliff, you are not free from the consequences of hitting the bottom of that cliff.

That is a perfect example of Enlightenment thinking on what freedom means. The traditional Catholic response might be that, since jumping off of the cliff limits your choices (you die) then it is a contradiction to say that one is free to jump off of the cliff.

Now, while this may seem an academic distinction, it does have practical consequences, such as when the idea of "religious freedom" comes into play. The Catholic Church traditionally champions "religious tolerance" but not "religious freedom" because of the non-Enlightenment idea of what freedom means.

[thesometimesaint]

That is a perfect example of Enlightenment thinking on what freedom means. The traditional Catholic response might be that, since jumping off of the cliff limits your choices (you die) then it is a contradiction to say that one is free to jump off of the cliff.

Now, while this may seem an academic distinction, it does have practical consequences, such as when the idea of "religious freedom" comes into play. The Catholic Church traditionally champions "religious tolerance" but not "religious freedom" because of the non-Enlightenment idea of what freedom means.

I'm a child of the Enlightenment. I find its ideas enlightening. Also I'm a product of over 40 years as a member of the Church. To us freedom of religion isn't just a good idea it is one of the central tenets of our faith.

[MiserereNobis]

I'm a child of the Enlightenment. I find its ideas enlightening. Also I'm a product of over 40 years as a member of the Church. To us freedom of religion isn't just a good idea it is one of the central tenets of our faith.

Yup. I'm in a medieval religion, and you're in an American one

[thesometimesaint]

Yup. I'm in a medieval religion, and you're in an American one

While I believe the Catholic Church is older than the medieval period. The Restoration goes back even further to a time when the Catholic Church as such didn't exist yet. I honor the Catholics heroic attempt to save what it could, but it was all over, but the shouting no later than 120 CE, and probably much earlier.

[Darren10]

Did not want to derail the other thread, if mods so deem I have no issue with this being combined with the conformance v freedom thread.

One argument I have heard oft repeated, here and in Church, about certain taxes or government programs, is that the tax or program is akin to satans plan because it takes away the choice of the person taxed to decide for themself to support a program that is intended to benefit the poor, widowed, etc.

If taxes are akin to Satans plan, wouldn't legislating morality also be akin to satans plan? As the choice to engage in a said behavior has essentially been removed by the State.

Now, I know some will claim one can still choose to engage in a prohibited behaviour, one can also choose not to pay taxes.

First, off, I have NOT heard here or in church that taxes is Satan's plan unless one is being a bit facetious. I agree taxing directly is a bit of a form of legal theft but that's how legislation works. It legalizes action for certain members of society. Second, most people I have met, myself included, agree that there is a need to tax. The debate is who will be taxed, what will be taxed, where and when it will be taxed, why it'll be taxed, and how it'll be taxed.

Third, legislating morality is an absolute necessity or there would not be any legislation whatsoever. People *always* use their sense of morality to support or oppose legislations as well as to craft and design legislation. Satan wanted to take away man's ability and freedom to choose for him or herself. Passing laws and establishing consequences for behavior does not take away one's freedom to choose. Parents set rules and expectations all the time. That does not take away a child's freedom to choose.

Forth, yes, one can choose not to pay taxes. That doesn't mean that there's no consequence for doing so.

My position on taxing is to remove power from government to tax its citizenry directly. Remove all forms of income and investment taxes and go with an indirect sales tax. There are thsoe who'd disagree with me and that's fine.