Legality does not equal morality

[ihopehefails]

Dukakis was once asked in 1988 about abortion and he said something similar to its up to someone's own moral and ethical code to decide for themselves on the issue. While I think that abortion is immoral I generally agree with the general liberal philosophy that someone's own moral and ethical values should determine their own lives but this same liberal philosophy never seems to apply to ones own economic freedom.

I do not believe that the modern left is "liberal" in the sense that it was once used a hundred of even fifty years ago. It was considered "liberal" to believe in free enterprise as a right to every individual and what level of wealth the obtain is decided by their own moral values (just like Dukakis said). In other words, if Jesus, Mohamad, or their mother told them that they were to rich then they would stop seeking wealth. They really never had the power to determine the morality of others over the same area unless they adhered to the same moral philosophy as themselves.

There was a great deal of freedom in this philosophy because moral authority has a unique power over human behavior that legal authority does not have. Morality, unlike legality, has the power to shape our personalities. A person who runs a red light might be breaking the law but is not considered immoral but the same person who routinely lies through his teeth is condemned by the moral standards of the community. This will cause that person to evaluate his own personality and might change because of that. This is the power of moral law that legal law does not have. It shapes individuals and the society they compose while legal law only restrains us from becoming a danger to the community such as running a red light.

What is happening with with our modern political world is that people's own religious moral authority are being replaced with the authority of the state for the end goals of equating the state's legal authority with moral authority. Its the reason why the religion's own moral authority is always under assault by the left because the goal of the modern progressive is to create a state that has the same power of religion to shape individuals in society by equating moral law with legal law.

In order for freedom to exist there must be a clear distinction about the purposes of both legal and moral law where the purpose of moral law is to shape the behavior of individuals within society and legal law seeks to protect us from harm from others such as is the case of running a red light.

 

[rightwinger]

What is happening with with our modern political world is that people's own religious moral authority are being replaced with the authority of the state for the end goals of equating the state's legal authority with moral authority. Its the reason why the religion's own moral authority is always under assault by the left because the goal of the modern progressive is to create a state that has the same power of religion to shape individuals in society by equating moral law with legal law.

Do you believe then that the state has no reason to object to Gay marriage because of moral reasons?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think you make some very interesting points - but I also think that a tolerance of diverse religious beliefs (which I advocate) necesitates the seperation of church and state that our founders advocated. We cannot hold people to a consistent standard through moral/religious enforcement without imposing a state religion.

The law is the standard to which men will hold you accountable.
Religion is the standard to which your god will hold you accountable.

btw - I believe that a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under our legal system.

 

[ihopehefails]

What is happening with with our modern political world is that people's own religious moral authority are being replaced with the authority of the state for the end goals of equating the state's legal authority with moral authority. Its the reason why the religion's own moral authority is always under assault by the left because the goal of the modern progressive is to create a state that has the same power of religion to shape individuals in society by equating moral law with legal law.

Do you believe then that the state has no reason to object to Gay marriage because of moral reasons?

I do not but I and others still reserve the right to object to it.

 

[ihopehefails]

I think you make some very interesting points - but I also think that a tolerance of diverse religious beliefs (which I advocate) necesitates the seperation of church and state that our founders advocated. We cannot hold people to a consistent standard through moral/religious enforcement without imposing a state religion.

The law is the standard to which men will hold you accountable.
Religion is the standard to which your god will hold you accountable.

btw - I believe that a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under our legal system.

I think the abortion example was poorly picked on my part because I could have picked prohibition and it would have sounded less offensive to the anti-abortion crowd. My point is is that moral law belongs in the realm of natural law which is law separate from legal law. The separation of natural and legal law is essential for freedom and a functioning society because most of our free human interactions in society have their own social laws that we create voluntarily through those mutual interactions. When legal law seeks to replace these naturally developing laws it ends up perverting them and gives the state the power to determine how society and individual within it are going to operate.

 

[rdean]

Legality does not equal morality

I totally agree. You can have someone like the CEO of Cigna make nearly a quarter billion over 5 years. He has two corporate jets to choose from. He lives in a mansion. His Board of Directors eat off gold plated sliver and plates. Cigna gets every cent from skimming insurance policies. They make nothing and their job is to stand between you and your doctor. Republicans say, "It's legal". They don't get why it's immoral.

Of course, these are the same people who call other people "born" a certain way, "immoral". And worse, if they ever met their "so called" messiah from a primitive Middle Eastern Desert Religion, they would turn away in horror. Why, this guy looks like Bin Laden dressed as a dirty wizard and can't speak a lick of English.

 

[ihopehefails]

Legality does not equal morality

I totally agree. You can have someone like the CEO of Cigna make nearly a quarter billion over 5 years. He has two corporate jets to choose from. He lives in a mansion. His Board of Directors eat off gold plated sliver and plates. Cigna gets every cent from skimming insurance policies. They make nothing and their job is to stand between you and your doctor. Republicans say, "It's legal". They don't get why it's immoral.

Of course, these are the same people who call other people "born" a certain way, "immoral". And worse, if they ever met their "so called" messiah from a primitive Middle Eastern Desert Religion, they would turn away in horror. Why, this guy looks like Bin Laden dressed as a dirty wizard and can't speak a lick of English.

I find it deeply immoral to stand in the way of a personal choice two people make in the form of a contract. Has it ever ocured to you that most people are satisfied with the insurance they do get as they know that any contractual agreement will be upheld by the government. I find it deeply disturbing that "third parties" not involved in the contract want to stick their nose into the agreement when no one asked them to and make choices for both parties.

As for your really stupid likening to Jesus and Osama...grow up and stop being a troll.

 

[rdean]

Legality does not equal morality

I totally agree. You can have someone like the CEO of Cigna make nearly a quarter billion over 5 years. He has two corporate jets to choose from. He lives in a mansion. His Board of Directors eat off gold plated sliver and plates. Cigna gets every cent from skimming insurance policies. They make nothing and their job is to stand between you and your doctor. Republicans say, "It's legal". They don't get why it's immoral.

Of course, these are the same people who call other people "born" a certain way, "immoral". And worse, if they ever met their "so called" messiah from a primitive Middle Eastern Desert Religion, they would turn away in horror. Why, this guy looks like Bin Laden dressed as a dirty wizard and can't speak a lick of English.

I find it deeply immoral to stand in the way of a personal choice two people make in the form of a contract. Has it ever ocured to you that most people are satisfied with the insurance they do get as they know that any contractual agreement will be upheld by the government. I find it deeply disturbing that "third parties" not involved in the contract want to stick their nose into the agreement when no one asked them to and make choices for both parties.

As for your really stupid likening to Jesus and Osama...grow up and stop being a troll.

The government doesn't "protect" as much as you think it does. If a case does go to court, insurance companies try to string it out long enough the person dies.

Jesus and Bin Laden came from the same area and the same culture. All the pictures I've seen of Jesus, he's dressed just like Bin Laden. They probably even speak the same language. How is noting those similarities being a "troll"? That doesn't even make any sense.

 

[ihopehefails]

Legality does not equal morality

I totally agree. You can have someone like the CEO of Cigna make nearly a quarter billion over 5 years. He has two corporate jets to choose from. He lives in a mansion. His Board of Directors eat off gold plated sliver and plates. Cigna gets every cent from skimming insurance policies. They make nothing and their job is to stand between you and your doctor. Republicans say, "It's legal". They don't get why it's immoral.

Of course, these are the same people who call other people "born" a certain way, "immoral". And worse, if they ever met their "so called" messiah from a primitive Middle Eastern Desert Religion, they would turn away in horror. Why, this guy looks like Bin Laden dressed as a dirty wizard and can't speak a lick of English.

I find it deeply immoral to stand in the way of a personal choice two people make in the form of a contract. Has it ever ocured to you that most people are satisfied with the insurance they do get as they know that any contractual agreement will be upheld by the government. I find it deeply disturbing that "third parties" not involved in the contract want to stick their nose into the agreement when no one asked them to and make choices for both parties.

As for your really stupid likening to Jesus and Osama...grow up and stop being a troll.

The government doesn't "protect" as much as you think it does. If a case does go to court, insurance companies try to string it out long enough the person dies.

Jesus and Bin Laden came from the same area and the same culture. All the pictures I've seen of Jesus, he's dressed just like Bin Laden. They probably even speak the same language. How is noting those similarities being a "troll"? That doesn't even make any sense.

Its insulting someone's own personal beliefs because you could have said that he was more like Mohamad since they actually were a part of the same religion (they even dressed the same ) but you chose to make some really stupid broad linkage to two different people that have nothing in common.

The only time that insurance companies go to court is when they feel that they are not obligated to pay under the contract they signed. The courts enforce that agreement which usually results in people getting what they are entitled to or a giant settlement of some form.

 

[California Girl]

I find it immoral that some think it is acceptable for government to dicate the pay of anyone - no matter who that person is or how much they earn. Yes, insurance company pays it's executives breathtakingly outrageously, however, if that is acceptable to the shareholders then it is no business of ours. I find it ridiculous that sports people are paid such vast amounts but, again, it is not our business what they are paid.

Yes, the health system needs reform and yes the companies need to be regulated to ensure that they do not pull coverage from people when they are ill and that they honor their contractual obligation to meet whatever costs are necessary to ensure that person gets the best treatment possible. We do need to stop this ridiculous strawman about how much people earn.

Personally, I find abortion morally reprehensible and I am totally opposed to abortion. That does not give me the right to dictate the morals of others. I find it even more reprehensible that anyone - be it another citizen or my government thinks they have the right to tell me how to live my life.

 

[JW Frogen]

I find it immoral that some think it is acceptable for government to dicate the pay of anyone - no matter who that person is or how much they earn. .

I think rather than dictate salaries the government should do democracy and pass a law that says a share holder vote, (not the flunky board) determines all salaries.

I know this is not very pirate American MBA (the markets are just guidlines really arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!) it is not the American just take the bonus and destroy the company in the name of the invisible hand, but that hand quite frankly has jacked America off.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Dukakis was once asked in 1988 about abortion and he said something similar to its up to someone's own moral and ethical code to decide for themselves on the issue. While I think that abortion is immoral I generally agree with the general liberal philosophy that someone's own moral and ethical values should determine their own lives but this same liberal philosophy never seems to apply to ones own economic freedom.

I do not believe that the modern left is "liberal" in the sense that it was once used a hundred of even fifty years ago. It was considered "liberal" to believe in free enterprise as a right to every individual and what level of wealth the obtain is decided by their own moral values (just like Dukakis said). In other words, if Jesus, Mohamad, or their mother told them that they were to rich then they would stop seeking wealth. They really never had the power to determine the morality of others over the same area unless they adhered to the same moral philosophy as themselves.

There was a great deal of freedom in this philosophy because moral authority has a unique power over human behavior that legal authority does not have. Morality, unlike legality, has the power to shape our personalities. A person who runs a red light might be breaking the law but is not considered immoral but the same person who routinely lies through his teeth is condemned by the moral standards of the community. This will cause that person to evaluate his own personality and might change because of that. This is the power of moral law that legal law does not have. It shapes individuals and the society they compose while legal law only restrains us from becoming a danger to the community such as running a red light.

What is happening with with our modern political world is that people's own religious moral authority are being replaced with the authority of the state for the end goals of equating the state's legal authority with moral authority. Its the reason why the religion's own moral authority is always under assault by the left because the goal of the modern progressive is to create a state that has the same power of religion to shape individuals in society by equating moral law with legal law.

In order for freedom to exist there must be a clear distinction about the purposes of both legal and moral law where the purpose of moral law is to shape the behavior of individuals within society and legal law seeks to protect us from harm from others such as is the case of running a red light.

Your insight is really quite eye opening. I will submit this to you for your opinion.

The liberal Democrats are suppressing religion and any reference to it in the public arena in order for them to further their leftist agenda under the guise of the separation of church and state.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Legality does not equal morality

I totally agree. You can have someone like the CEO of Cigna make nearly a quarter billion over 5 years. He has two corporate jets to choose from. He lives in a mansion. His Board of Directors eat off gold plated sliver and plates. Cigna gets every cent from skimming insurance policies. They make nothing and their job is to stand between you and your doctor. Republicans say, "It's legal". They don't get why it's immoral.

Of course, these are the same people who call other people "born" a certain way, "immoral". And worse, if they ever met their "so called" messiah from a primitive Middle Eastern Desert Religion, they would turn away in horror. Why, this guy looks like Bin Laden dressed as a dirty wizard and can't speak a lick of English.

I find it deeply immoral to stand in the way of a personal choice two people make in the form of a contract. Has it ever ocured to you that most people are satisfied with the insurance they do get as they know that any contractual agreement will be upheld by the government. I find it deeply disturbing that "third parties" not involved in the contract want to stick their nose into the agreement when no one asked them to and make choices for both parties.

As for your really stupid likening to Jesus and Osama...grow up and stop being a troll.

The government doesn't "protect" as much as you think it does. If a case does go to court, insurance companies try to string it out long enough the person dies.

Jesus and Bin Laden came from the same area and the same culture. All the pictures I've seen of Jesus, he's dressed just like Bin Laden. They probably even speak the same language. How is noting those similarities being a "troll"? That doesn't even make any sense.

Osama doesn't speak Aremaic....and they were NOT from the same culture. Their respective religions engaged in the slaughter of each other for thousands of years.

 

[California Girl]

It's kind of a shame that there seems to be an inability with some to be able to debate at all without every thread being turned into a photo gallary and flame zone.

Intelligent people should be able to debate without the need for pictorial input and nonsense remarks.

I know we have free speech and all that but sometimes its a shame that we need to consistently dumb down. Thankfully, I have somewhere to go where everyone knows the meaning of the word 'debate'.

Just sayin'.

 

[ihopehefails]

Dukakis was once asked in 1988 about abortion and he said something similar to its up to someone's own moral and ethical code to decide for themselves on the issue. While I think that abortion is immoral I generally agree with the general liberal philosophy that someone's own moral and ethical values should determine their own lives but this same liberal philosophy never seems to apply to ones own economic freedom.

I do not believe that the modern left is "liberal" in the sense that it was once used a hundred of even fifty years ago. It was considered "liberal" to believe in free enterprise as a right to every individual and what level of wealth the obtain is decided by their own moral values (just like Dukakis said). In other words, if Jesus, Mohamad, or their mother told them that they were to rich then they would stop seeking wealth. They really never had the power to determine the morality of others over the same area unless they adhered to the same moral philosophy as themselves.

There was a great deal of freedom in this philosophy because moral authority has a unique power over human behavior that legal authority does not have. Morality, unlike legality, has the power to shape our personalities. A person who runs a red light might be breaking the law but is not considered immoral but the same person who routinely lies through his teeth is condemned by the moral standards of the community. This will cause that person to evaluate his own personality and might change because of that. This is the power of moral law that legal law does not have. It shapes individuals and the society they compose while legal law only restrains us from becoming a danger to the community such as running a red light.

What is happening with with our modern political world is that people's own religious moral authority are being replaced with the authority of the state for the end goals of equating the state's legal authority with moral authority. Its the reason why the religion's own moral authority is always under assault by the left because the goal of the modern progressive is to create a state that has the same power of religion to shape individuals in society by equating moral law with legal law.

In order for freedom to exist there must be a clear distinction about the purposes of both legal and moral law where the purpose of moral law is to shape the behavior of individuals within society and legal law seeks to protect us from harm from others such as is the case of running a red light.

Your insight is really quite eye opening. I will submit this to you for your opinion.

The liberal Democrats are suppressing religion and any reference to it in the public arena in order for them to further their leftist agenda under the guise of the separation of church and state.

I do think that there is that element on the left because you don't know how many times I have been told "seperation of church and state" whenever I talk about religion or might have a low opinion of someone else's religion.

I think the motivations for this kind of thinking is the confusion of state and society because how can you confuse an amendment that starts out with "congress shall pass no law..." as a way of saying you can't supress someone else's religion when that only applies to congressional laws? Me, you, and everyone else can treat religion anyway we want and are not subject to the constitution's authority over the matter.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Let's face it. No religion is perfect but what it's supposed to do is teach morals and the difference between right and wrong. Do all members of a particular religion HAVE morals or know the difference between right and wrong??? No. We have seen that with the Catholic Church scandals and the 9/11 attacks by religous fanatics.

Now we are seeing the breakdown of society, gangs in place of families, rampant drug use, teen suicide and a host of other ailments that represent the breakdown of the family unit.

Morals are no longer taught by the churches, parents and grandparents. They have been legislated out of existence by the ACLU threatening lawsuits against anyone promoting religion in the public arena.

 

[Thinman]

Teaching morals is a parental responsibility. My parents were not religious but the taught us right from wrong. Schools should teach honesty, integrity and responsibility. I think most of our problems today are caused by parental failure.

 

[rdean]

I find it deeply immoral to stand in the way of a personal choice two people make in the form of a contract. Has it ever ocured to you that most people are satisfied with the insurance they do get as they know that any contractual agreement will be upheld by the government. I find it deeply disturbing that "third parties" not involved in the contract want to stick their nose into the agreement when no one asked them to and make choices for both parties.

As for your really stupid likening to Jesus and Osama...grow up and stop being a troll.

The government doesn't "protect" as much as you think it does. If a case does go to court, insurance companies try to string it out long enough the person dies.

Jesus and Bin Laden came from the same area and the same culture. All the pictures I've seen of Jesus, he's dressed just like Bin Laden. They probably even speak the same language. How is noting those similarities being a "troll"? That doesn't even make any sense.

Obama doesn't speak Aremaic....and they were NOT from the same culture. Their respective religions engaged in the slaughter of each other for thousands of years.

Whaaaaat?

Just as Christians have the Bible, Muslims have the Quran. They believe the Quran was dictated to Mohammed by God through the angel Gabriel. Muslims are also told in the Quran to read three other holy books: the Torah (which are the first five books of the Old Testament), the Zabur (which are the Psalms of David), and the Injeel (the gospel of Christ).

ISLAM: An Overview for Christians - ChristianAnswers.Net

Muslims also believe in Satan and in a Day of Judgment on which God will send people to either heaven or hell. They also believe that Ishmael (the father of the Arab world), not Isaac, received the promise from God through Abraham; this helps to explain why Arab Muslims feel that their claim to the Holy Land is a God-given right.

NOTE: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe their religion comes from Abraham.

Islamic timeline.

Timeline of Islam - ReligionFacts

That makes Islam much less than 2 thousand years old.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm not going to argue semantics here. They lived in the same part of the world..so fucking what? That doesn't make the culture of Judaism, Christianity and Islam the same. They all have a specific set of beliefs. In the bible it could say read Marvel Comics "Superman" and it wouldn't mean a damn thing. You better check your history...they have in fact been killing each other in that part of the world...OVER RELIGION .....for THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!! I could care less what name they put on it throughout time because it didn't change a thing now did it?

 

[ihopehefails]

Let's face it. No religion is perfect but what it's supposed to do is teach morals and the difference between right and wrong. Do all members of a particular religion HAVE morals or know the difference between right and wrong??? No. We have seen that with the Catholic Church scandals and the 9/11 attacks by religous fanatics.

Now we are seeing the breakdown of society, gangs in place of families, rampant drug use, teen suicide and a host of other ailments that represent the breakdown of the family unit.

Morals are no longer taught by the churches, parents and grandparents. They have been legislated out of existence by the ACLU threatening lawsuits against anyone promoting religion in the public arena.

I don't disagree with what you are saying but morality is a function of natural law who's moral authority is derived from the religion that society happens to believe in. The state should not have any "moral authority" over its citizens. That was the point I was trying to make.