Are Our Values Under Attack?

[CV75]

What I find most interesting about the more conservative responses to this thread are the ones saying they can as a person force their morality on people who don't agree with it, or believe the same way.

 

The Affordable Care Act has little to do with morality. It is about opening up the private medical insurance market so those insurance companies can make even more money. The little morality that is involved is in having citizens pay for their own insurance so the rest of us don't have to pay the medical bills. Very much like Arizona's mandatory automobile insurance. State funded abortions are not permitted under the Affordable Care Act. In fact they specifically excluded from coverage. Contraceptives are a legal medicine when prescribed by a physician. They provide a level of control over reproduction some 97% of all US Women will at some point in their lives use. They actually cost less, and have fewer adverse side effects than live birth. Not to mentions the added expense of another child.

 

BTW I like kids I have 3 of my own, and my professional life was spent serving their psychological needs.

 

I have already discussed welfare, and my liberal ideas as to how to deal with it.

 

I kinda like the idea of having my input on the formulation of our laws. But I don't demand that others live by my morality. Which BTW are more straight laced than any Mormon, Christian, Catholic, Protestant, or Jew I've ever known of, or about.

I can’t appreciate the “you can’t legislate morality” arguments because they erroneously assume that legislators are somehow imposing upon the conscience of citizens certain “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.” That is patently impossible.

 

Legislators do rightly impose rules, regulations, laws, etc. that reflect and support their society’s assessment of right and good behavior. Anyone involved in the legislative process has the right to work toward that assessment and establishing certain standard behaviors or behavioral limits. These may run counter to the conscience of some, but never of themselves alter one’s morality.

 

So the straight-laced certainly have the right and option to influence the legislative process, and are the last to attempt the impossible, which is to "force the human mind" (Hymn 240).

[california boy]

I edited it to clarify.  It is one storm of erosion.  It may not seem like much, but one storm after another can turn a mountain into a sand hill.  It will not be long before the legality leads to the morality of it in the public eye.  I am not too conserned that this will lead to a gay epidemic or anything.  Again, it may not seem like much, but...  By voting for our secular views over our religious views, we only add to that erosion.

 If you were to go before the supreme court and argue that the government should pass laws against immorality in order to make this country more righteous and less immoral, what laws would you have the government adopt besides not allowing gay marriage.  How would you want the government to legislate against divorce, adultery and fornication? (all of which are FAR bigger morality problems than gay marriage btw)

[Stone holm]

I can’t appreciate the “you can’t legislate morality” arguments because they erroneously assume that legislators are somehow imposing upon the conscience of citizens certain “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.” That is patently impossible.

 

Legislators do rightly impose rules, regulations, laws, etc. that reflect and support their society’s assessment of right and good behavior. Anyone involved in the legislative process has the right to work toward that assessment and establishing certain standard behaviors or behavioral limits. These may run counter to the conscience of some, but never of themselves alter one’s morality.

 

So the straight-laced certainly have the right and option to influence the legislative process, and are the last to attempt the impossible, which is to "force the human mind" (Hymn 240).

Legislatures when functioning properly make arguments and compromises based on facts. They may from time to time get the facts right, or wrong. Faith by definition is not about facts, but truths the evidence of which is not seen. Since it cannot be seen or logically worked out, it cannot be the basis of common communication. When legislators cease communicating with each other then democracies break down. I would say that religion is not a negotiable subject. Because of this it cannot be the basis of the legislative process. It is a matter between a person and his God. He may share beliefs with those who worse the same God in the same manner, but he cannot use it to compell another to conform. That is not the American way, and truth be told it is not the Mormon way. If it were, The Lord would not have inspired men to write the Constitution in a fashion which protected religious belief or non belief in the manner the Constitution clearly does .

[AZ in GA]

What I find most interesting about the more conservative responses to this thread are the ones saying they can as a person force their morality on people who don't agree with it, or believe the same way.

 

The Affordable Care Act has little to do with morality. It is about opening up the private medical insurance market so those insurance companies can make even more money. The little morality that is involved is in having citizens pay for their own insurance so the rest of us don't have to pay the medical bills. Very much like Arizona's mandatory automobile insurance. State funded abortions are not permitted under the Affordable Care Act. In fact they specifically excluded from coverage. Contraceptives are a legal medicine when prescribed by a physician. They provide a level of control over reproduction some 97% of all US Women will at some point in their lives use. They actually cost less, and have fewer adverse side effects than live birth. Not to mentions the added expense of another child.

 

BTW I like kids I have 3 of my own, and my professional life was spent serving their psychological needs.

 

I have already discussed welfare, and my liberal ideas as to how to deal with it.

 

I kinda like the idea of having my input on the formulation of our laws. But I don't demand that others live by my morality. Which BTW are more straight laced than any Mormon, Christian, Catholic, Protestant, or Jew I've ever known of, or about.

I would like to hear Obama state for the record that the affordable care act was created to enrich the insurance companies. I have heard much more talk about how as a society we have a moral obligation to those less fortunate without care.

Incidentally, I am not completely opposed to government sponsored healthcare. I actually believe that single payer catastrophic coverage, combined with open markets for routine care would be appropriate. The single payer would cover anything huge and unexpected, and normal care like check ups, contraception, chiropractic visits, etc. would be payed by those consuming the care. In a catastrophic situation, you cannot make a rational decision. However, separating paying for routine care from those paying for it contributes to massive waste like insurance/government sponsored penis pumps and the like.

I am actually relatively fine with SSM laws the way they stand today. I would and have voted for more liberal alcohol/drug laws. However I believe that there is a HUGE contradiction when liberals say that conservatives can't legislate morality.

They themselves do it all the time, they just happen to agree with that morality.

[CV75]

Legislatures when functioning properly make arguments and compromises based on facts. They may from time to time get the facts right, or wrong. Faith by definition is not about facts, but truths the evidence of which is not seen. Since it cannot be seen or logically worked out, it cannot be the basis of common communication. When legislators cease communicating with each other then democracies break down. I would say that religion is not a negotiable subject. Because of this it cannot be the basis of the legislative process. It is a matter between a person and his God. He may share beliefs with those who worse the same God in the same manner, but he cannot use it to compell another to conform. That is not the American way, and truth be told it is not the Mormon way. If it were, The Lord would not have inspired men to write the Constitution in a fashion which protected religious belief or non belief in the manner the Constitution clearly does .

Inasmuch as this dovetails with my remarks, i agree.

 

But "facts" (what are they, really?) are not the basis for "proper" legislative decision-making, but rather a meeting of the minds on what constitutes valid consideration, which is no more rational than purely religious discussion. Yes, communication is absolutely necessary, but there is both good and effectual communication and corrupt and filthy communication--which of these is "proper"?

 

Just as I explained how morality cannot be legislated, neither can religion or belief, but these non-tangibles are certainly worth bringing up in the many ways to consider and influence a piece of legislation honoring the will of the people and the rule of law. It is not the mind that is being restricted, but the behavior, as part of properly establishing a society.

[Stone holm]

I would like to hear Obama state for the record that the affordable care act was created to enrich the insurance companies. I have heard much more talk about how as a society we have a moral obligation to those less fortunate without care.

Incidentally, I am not completely opposed to government sponsored healthcare. I actually believe that single payer catastrophic coverage, combined with open markets for routine care would be appropriate. The single payer would cover anything huge and unexpected, and normal care like check ups, contraception, chiropractic visits, etc. would be payed by those consuming the care. In a catastrophic situation, you cannot make a rational decision. However, separating paying for routine care from those paying for it contributes to massive waste like insurance/government sponsored penis pumps and the like.

I am actually relatively fine with SSM laws the way they stand today. I would and have voted for more liberal alcohol/drug laws. However I believe that there is a HUGE contradiction when liberals say that conservatives can't legislate morality.

They themselves do it all the time, they just happen to agree with that morality.

The principle problem I suspect is with the word "morality" . The Church has reserved the right to enter the political arena on moral issues. But generally the Christian Right has defined "morality" primarily in terms of sex, with an occasional reference to things like gambling. Whenever a religious leader, like Pope Francis defines morality in a more expansive manner consistent with say distributive economic theory, he gets attacked. So, both sides manipulate the "morality" issue. Either morality means something very narrow or it is virtually all encompassing. As a result the reservation by the Church pretty much is a meaningless thing which allows the Church to cherry pick issues. As we have seen by the conservatives on this site, a very expansive view of religious values is used to say everything is value based. Thus in a nation where we have recognized the historical problem of oppression which inevitably follows where one sect gains political leverage by being in the majority, the only way to effectively curb that oppression is to say yes your preference for one side or another of a legislative act may be motivated by your religious beliefs, but you still have to articulate a secular reason for the act, it can't just be because God told me so. That is the crux of the problem and the irony, in that a secular basis for legislation actually becomes the greatest guarantor of religious freedom.

[thesometimesaint]

Why?  Because secularism can never be misguided?  I'm not suggesting that secularism is corrupt.  I do think it has it's place in our society and laws.  I am simply suggesting that we need to vote according to our personal religious values, and not our secular values when they are in conflict.  Otherwise, we become prone to the gradual erosion of religious values in society.  That endangers us all.

 

It is often misguided. Neither is corrupt, but we find corrupt people in both. I too think they should have a voice in our society and laws, but just not the only say in our society and laws. To a more or less extent, in the privacy of the voting booth, the reason(s) we vote for(or against) any person or law is between us and our God, or lack of God. I don't believe my, or any one's morals/religious beliefs/values should be open to a vote. My secular values are pretty simple. My secular right to swing my fist ends at you nose.

[thesometimesaint]

I would like to hear Obama state for the record that the affordable care act was created to enrich the insurance companies. I have heard much more talk about how as a society we have a moral obligation to those less fortunate without care.

Incidentally, I am not completely opposed to government sponsored healthcare. I actually believe that single payer catastrophic coverage, combined with open markets for routine care would be appropriate. The single payer would cover anything huge and unexpected, and normal care like check ups, contraception, chiropractic visits, etc. would be payed by those consuming the care. In a catastrophic situation, you cannot make a rational decision. However, separating paying for routine care from those paying for it contributes to massive waste like insurance/government sponsored penis pumps and the like.

I am actually relatively fine with SSM laws the way they stand today. I would and have voted for more liberal alcohol/drug laws. However I believe that there is a HUGE contradiction when liberals say that conservatives can't legislate morality.

They themselves do it all the time, they just happen to agree with that morality.

 

The Obama  administration took "medicare for all", and the "public option" off the table before they were ever on the negotiation table. IMNTBHO We do have a moral obligation to help our fellow man. However we in the US live under a Capitalistic economic system. We're in it to make a buck. It is finding the correct balance between the two we find so difficult.

 

I'm for the same health care available to our Congress and Senate critters. Medicare for all. I think that if we wait till a catastrophe happens many easier less expensive medical treatments get overlooked just to keep the person alive. IE; An ingrown toe nail is painful but simple to fix. While waiting for it to turn gangrenous is expense to treat and potentially fatal. I'm now retired, and in the middle class, and have some of the best medical insurance there is. I pay a lot for it, but I  don't have to worry that going to the doctor will bankrupt me.  So I'm financially pretty secure, but I do know many that aren't as well off as I am. As a general rule people don't like going to the doctor. I personally like my doctors, but they're always poking, prodding, and having me take vile tasting stuff. So actually we do wait, until we absolutely have to go to the doctor, when easier less expensive treatments are available. Medical fraud by patients is actually very rare, as anyone with a sick/injured child will tell you. Why should penile pumps not be covered? An active sex life is important not only in our marriages, but mental health as well. I charge $75 per 45 minute hour as a psychiatric social worker. You either pay's me now when it easier, and cheaper solve, or you pay's me later when it is harder and more expensive to solve. It really is your choice.

 

I've never said that. But the simple matter of fact is that doing so creates more problems than it solves. So we're back when do you want to pay me? But pay me you will.

 

We all do it all the time. I made my living help solving the problems it creates.

Edited April 12, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[why me]

What I find most interesting about the more liberal responses to this thread are the ones saying we cannot as a people force our morality on people who don't agree with it or believe the same way.

Yet these same people are more than willing to legislate morality when it comes to things like "Obamacare" or welfare, or state funded abortions, or contraceptive requirements. If you believe that it is the moral thing to do to find these things, why not fund them yourselves? Why require people who don't agree to labor and work for a cause they don't agree with? Why are you subjecting them to forced labor in order to fit your version of morality?

Like it or not, almost every law we pass is in some way legislating morality. The only time you will ever feel like that though is when you disagree with the morality being legislated at the time.

You do have a point when it comes to the forcing of values on the population. For example, the television is far from family friendly and yet, the hollywood elite has been in the values game from its inception. I remember Hazel when I was a boy. Butch would always say his prayers before he went to bed because Hazel told him too. And Leave it to Beaver was pretty good too in leaving us kids with a moral message. Not bad values coming from the TV.

 

But today...it is a total opposite. And to believe that we are not influenced by the media in value creation would be wrong. So, yes, people are forcing their values on the lds population and when the lds population fights back they are called bigoted and unenlightened. It is a little hypocritical on the part of the secular relativists.

[rodheadlee]

No our values are not under attack everything is wonderful no need to touch your keyboard everything is normal.The government has everything under control.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2014 by rodheadlee

[Stone holm]

The Obama  administration took "medicare for all", and the "public option" off the table before they were ever on the negotiation table. IMNTBHO We do have a moral obligation to help our fellow man. However we in the US live under a Capitalistic economic system. We're in it to make a buck. It is finding the correct balance between the two we find so difficult.

 

I'm for the same health care available to our Congress and Senate critters. Medicare for all. I think that if we wait till a catastrophe happens many easier less expensive medical treatments get overlooked just to keep the person alive. IE; An ingrown toe nail is painful but simple to fix. While waiting for it to turn gangrenous is expense to treat and potentially fatal. I'm now retired, and in the middle class, and have some of the best medical insurance there is. I pay a lot for it, but I  don't have to worry that going to the doctor will bankrupt me.  So I'm financially pretty secure, but I do know many that aren't as well off as I am. As a general rule people don't like going to the doctor. I personally like my doctors, but they're always poking, prodding, and having me take vile tasting stuff. So actually we do wait, until we absolutely have to go to the doctor, when easier less expensive treatments are available. Medical fraud by patients is actually very rare, as anyone with a sick/injured child will tell you. Why should penile pumps not be covered? An active sex life is important not only in our marriages, but mental health as well. I charge $75 per 45 minute hour as a psychiatric social worker. You either pay's me now when it easier, and cheaper solve, or you pay's me later when it is harder and more expensive to solve. It really is your choice.

 

I've never said that. But the simple matter of fact is that doing so creates more problems than it solves. So we're back when do you want to pay me? But pay me you will.

 

We all do it all the time. I made my living help solving the problems it creates.

a bump for this one. Was very upset when they gave up Medicare for all, and went with Romneycare instead.

[thesometimesaint]

You do have a point when it comes to the forcing of values on the population. For example, the television is far from family friendly and yet, the hollywood elite has been in the values game from its inception. I remember Hazel when I was a boy. Butch would always say his prayers before he went to bed because Hazel told him too. And Leave it to Beaver was pretty good too in leaving us kids with a moral message. Not bad values coming from the TV.

 

But today...it is a total opposite. And to believe that we are not influenced by the media in value creation would be wrong. So, yes, people are forcing their values on the lds population and when the lds population fights back they are called bigoted and unenlightened. It is a little hypocritical on the part of the secular relativists.

 

The solution is right in your own hands. It's called the remote controller. Every one of them has an off button. We didn't have a TV until our youngest started school and then the TV was a treat for after the school homework, dinner, and the dirty dish cleaning, was done.

[Tacenda]

The solution is right in your own hands. It's called the remote controller. Every one of them has an off button. We didn't have a TV until our youngest started school and then the TV was a treat for after the school homework, dinner, and the dirty dish cleaning, was done.

Oh, wow, that's amazing to go that long without a TV, good for you and your family. Like my MIL says, our minds aren't a Garbage Disposal or are, can't remember, but I always think what is put there, can stay forever, our minds take a picture or a recording.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Tacenda

[pogi]

 If you were to go before the supreme court and argue that the government should pass laws against immorality in order to make this country more righteous and less immoral, what laws would you have the government adopt besides not allowing gay marriage.  How would you want the government to legislate against divorce, adultery and fornication? (all of which are FAR bigger morality problems than gay marriage btw)

 

I agree, those are far bigger morality problems in society than gay marriage.  My only argument would be that in issues of morality, the decision be left up to the vote of the people and not to one single federal judge.  

[pogi]

I don't believe my, or any one's morals/religious beliefs/values should be open to a vote. My secular values are pretty simple. My secular right to swing my fist ends at you nose.

 

So, basically remove all moral restrictions and otherwise, so long as they do not infringe upon other's life, liberty, or property?

[thesometimesaint]

So, basically remove all moral restrictions and otherwise, so long as they do not infringe upon other's life, liberty, or property?

 

Essentially yes, but I do believe in the idea that we do have a responsibility to each other. IE; My children are all out of the nest. They have children of their own. But I still pay taxes to support the schools, libraries, parks, etc., etc., etc., that my grandchildren, my neighbors and fellow citizens use.

Edited April 13, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[why me]

So, basically remove all moral restrictions and otherwise, so long as they do not infringe upon other's life, liberty, or property?

It does sound satanic doesn't it? I wish that the bible was full of such advice. But I just can't find such advice in the bible. I think Sodom had this philosophy and perhaps some aspects of ancient rome. And look what happened to them.

[thesometimesaint]

It does sound satanic doesn't it? I wish that the bible was full of such advice. But I just can't find such advice in the bible. I think Sodom had this philosophy and perhaps some aspects of ancient rome. And look what happened to them.

 

Same thing that has happened to every empire. Byzantium was neither the first nor the last Christian empire to come and go.

[california boy]

I agree, those are far bigger morality problems in society than gay marriage.  My only argument would be that in issues of morality, the decision be left up to the vote of the people and not to one single federal judge.  

Wait, the church members throw 40 million dollars to fight gay marriage to deny gays the right to marry, but shrug their soulders at divorce, fornication and adultery?  It is estimated that 3% of the population is gay.  Of that only about 10% choose to marry. So you are dealing with a problem of only .03% of the population.  Quite honestly, this looks solely like a targeted attack on gays and not an attack on immorality.   Perhaps this helps you understand why gays feel like the church hates them.  

 

The church didn't simply leave this issue of morality up to a vote, the church out spent every single group combined for a problem tha effects .03% of the population.  How much does the church spend when legalization of prostition or marajuana comes up for a vote?  Can any member in good conscious sit there and say that the church does not have a problem with gays?  Would you say that the reputation of the church being bigoted against gays has some grounds for being true?

[thesometimesaint]

Wait, the church members throw 40 million dollars to fight gay marriage to deny gays the right to marry, but shrug their soulders at divorce, fornication and adultery?  It is estimated that 3% of the population is gay.  Of that only about 10% choose to marry. So you are dealing with a problem of only .03% of the population.  Quite honestly, this looks solely like a targeted attack on gays and not an attack on immorality.   Perhaps this helps you understand why gays feel like the church hates them.  

 

The church didn't simply leave this issue of morality up to a vote, the church out spent every single group combined for a problem tha effects .03% of the population.  How much does the church spend when legalization of prostition or marajuana comes up for a vote?  Can any member in good conscious sit there and say that the church does not have a problem with gays?  Would you say that the reputation of the church being bigoted against gays has some grounds for being true?

 

Christ didn't tell the woman taken in adultery to go sin some more.

[california boy]

It does sound satanic doesn't it? I wish that the bible was full of such advice. But I just can't find such advice in the bible. I think Sodom had this philosophy and perhaps some aspects of ancient rome. And look what happened to them.

Wait, "look what happened to Rome???"  The Roman empire started in 500 BC.  It split in two in 475 AD,  The Eastern Roman Empire lasted until 1453 AD.  That is about 2000 years.  The United States has to last another 1800 years to match the Romans.  Looks like the Romans system of allowing individuals to make morality choices worked pretty good to me.  It actually wasn't until the Romans embraced Christianity that the empire began to fall apart and eventually split.  So if you are going to use the Romans as a judge, it would be much safer to outlaw Christianity than to pass laws against morality.  

[california boy]

Christ didn't tell the woman taken in adultery to go sin some more.

Christ also didn't spend 40 million dollars passing laws to prevent her from committing adultery either.  And that is  my point.  No one has a problem with the church telling others to repent do they.  They have a problem taking away their legal right to marry.

Edited April 14, 2014 by california boy

[thesometimesaint]

CB:

 

The Eastern Roman Empire(Byzantium) was Christian.

[thesometimesaint]

Christ also didn't spend 40 million dollars passing laws to prevent her from committing adultery either.  And that is  my point.  No one has a problem with the church telling others to repent do they.  They have a problem taking away their legal right to marry.

 

We don't know what, if any money, Christ spent on anything. He was a poor itinerant Jewish preacher who lived and died in relative obscurity. But whose ideas are still challenging and changing the world 2 millennia later. As to SSM I'm against it, but find no legally consistent way the outlaw it.

[california boy]

CB:

 

The Eastern Roman Empire(Byzantium) was Christian.

There was still 1000 years before the Christians took over.  And it wasn't the wicked immorality of the Romans that caused Christianity to be adopted as the official religion.  The whole premis is still false.