IndianaJones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 03:11 PM
Original message |
"To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy... |
|
is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."
Barack Obama
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 03:14 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Principles of behavior |
|
Yes, our law codifies morality. Murder, stealing, child support, marriage. And yes, much of morality in the US is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
It's a reality that has to be dealt with.
|
terisan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. actually the Code of Hammurabi, with our rights from the French Enightenment nt |
|
The Judeo-Christian code prohibited adultery as well as the coveting of the wives and goods owned by others. These have been abandoned in American law
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Grounded in, not duplicated |
|
There have been various philosophies throughout time that attempt to explain our existence and relation to each other and a supreme being, our morals and ethics. We then codify the results into law. When we become more enlightened, we sometimes change laws. But it will be a long time coming that THIS country will be able to say that the behaviors considered right and wrong aren't grounded in the Judeo-Christian religion.
|
terisan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. I respectfully disagree. It is just a part of our cultural heritage and often not the |
|
best part. Slaves wisely used it to justify freedom while slaveowners used it to justify slavery.
|
Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 03:15 PM
Response to Original message |
|
"Judeo-Christian" is something of a contradiction -- unless I missed something, and I invariably do...
And there's a good point to his comment. A collective morality is more encompassing and less vigilante/militant than a personal morality.
Mind you, a collective morality can be seen as fascism too, but most people agree that stealing is wrong.
|
patrice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 03:18 PM
Response to Original message |
3. The various kinds of attorneys in my family tell me that Law is NOT about morality. |
|
It is a codification how individuals and the group are to treat one another. That used to be called "ethics" and was held to be distinct from "morality" which traditionally was about what is good and what is bad.
Personally, I do NOT want Law to tell me what is moral. I want it to manage the relationships within the group.
|
elleng
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Patrice, I'm a lawyer, |
|
and it seems to me that following your tack results in splitting hairs, looking for the 'perfect' definitions of law, ethics, morality. (Please excuse the mixed metaphor!) Such probably don't exist.
|
patrice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. I didn't mean to imply anything absolute. |
|
Of course our notions of how members of the group should treat one another, ethics, would be derived from the group's average sense of right and wrong, i.e. the over-all average of each individual's morality. Should the Law ever try to impose any external "morality" upon that? There are probably situations in which that is more-or-less necessary, but I'm not sure that it works, not sure that what is produced ends up actually being morality.
My point is that law should not be responsible for morality, because without individual identification and internalization of right and wrong, there is no morality for the law to build ethics upon.
|
Vincardog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 03:18 PM
Response to Original message |
4. We are not now nor have we ever been a theocracy. The First amendment |
|
guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion. The Constitution explicitly states that "No Religious TEST' is allowed for a candidate in our government.
|
elleng
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I would not call it a practical absurdity, |
|
doing so feeds into the 'don't teach about religions in schools,' and other foolishness.
We should work on ways to recognize and understand all without imposing any, in particular recognize what our law is and from whence it comes; this is history. This might be considered a 'moderate' approach.
|
NMMNG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message |
|
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-05-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. That's not what he said |
|
He said the morals of this country are grounded in, (not founded on), the Judeo-Christian tradition. And that laws are passed based on a society's morals. You deal with it every single day, why would you deny the reality of it?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:17 AM
Response to Original message |