Is "legislating morality" actually about legislating against the poor?

[ck4829]

To me, legislating morality means considering the social justice aspects of legislation and protecting the welfare of the people inside our nation. However, when the Right talks about it, they completely scrub those parts out of it and talk about homophobia, restrictions on contraceptives and abortion, adultery laws, etc.

People often consider the religious qualities of "legislating morality", but do we ever consider the socio-economic consequences of it and who it would affect more?

Take adultery for example. Some Conservatives want to make it illegal. We as a people swoon over the latest affairs of celebrities and elites and the media talks about it non-stop. Now, on the other hand, take poor people, they are ridiculed on shows such as Jerry Springer and whatever else, not the best example of poor people out there, but it is easy to see who adultery laws would affect more.

Abortion and contraceptives, that's easy. If abortion and/or contraceptives are banned, a rich woman can easily fly or go to somewhere where they are legal. Poor people may not have that option.

What do you think. Does the Right Wing version of "legislating morality" open the door to discrimination against the poor?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Let's take another example

Prohibition, which went the farthest in legislating morality. What did it do? Well, rich folks never had a problem getting their booze. The poor had to pay more for bootleg booze, or they risked their health by trying to brew their own (many went blind using the wrong kind of alcohol to make bathtub gin). The other element to this is the rise in crime. Illegality means money, and that's what attracts crime. The violence that comes with crime generally is harder on the poor, who can't afford to live in gated communities. One historical irony: Al Capone set up soup kitchens for the unemployed and was considered a hero in certain parts of Chicago.

[Nickster]

2. In short, yes. They want to keep the lower classes fighting amongst themselves for the crumbs. If we

ever unified and started focusing on them, they'd be out of luck. They keep us seperate so they can fleece us both.

[Ron Green]

3. The traditional arbiter of morality, the Church, occasionally has its function

performed by the State: sometimes for good (the Public Accommodation Act of 1964) and sometimes not so much (the drug law of 1937.) I think the difference is when the State seeks to do the bidding of the Market, with "morality" as a cover, poor people are hurt more.

My view is that the State can and should enact policy that is informed by our shared ideas of what "higher" behavior entails, just as it makes policy that encourages economic growth. The problem is when the Church itself is corrupted into a narrow-minded and fear-based position, as we have seen throughout history and certainly now, then "moral" decisions made by the State tend to oppress large numbers of people, rather than ennoble them.

[truedelphi]

4. Yep all laws discriminate against the poor

I was watching to see in all the vast coverage of Paris Hilton's plight over her
driving with a suspended license furor if it would be mentioned, even once, how much in fines she paid.

She and her family keep insisting that the penalty to Paris has been far greater than what a "normal" person would suffer.

But a normal working class person would be put back by just paying the fines (In CA the fines are
on the order of several thousand dollars a pop) The fines are easy for an individual like Paris - but when a working stiff can't come up with the money - they have to serve time.

[Warpy]

5. Of course it is!

You see, Calvinist god determined the course of your life before you were born. A select few were born rich because Calvinist god smiled on them. Good fortune would follow them and they would all have superior morals because they wouldn't need to lie, steal, cheat, and the rest.

Most people were cursed by Calvinist god before they were born, and they were born to poverty, squalor, privation. The poor have terrible morals, all of them, because of this.

Good Calvinists just KNOW that these unfortunate rabble need to be saved from themselves! They just know that all of them are vile and deceitful! Good Calvinists are afraid of these people and want to ban that behavior!

Of course, the real issue is that these good Calvinists are themselves total sinks of depravity who desperately want an outside force to curtail their own sin, but they'll never admit that, not even (or especially) to themselves.

Until Dispensationalist Calvinism is finally exposed and discredited, we'll continue to have a nanny state oppressing all of us. That's why every time a Swaggert or Haggard or priest is exposed as a vile cesspool of human sexuality*, it's just one more crack in the dam holding back a flood of well deserved contempt for the lot of them.

*:sarcasm: