I would say that you've let it all out here. You've made a critical elision between "moral" and "religious." Of course you prefer to use the word "moral" instead of "religious."
It is a caricature of legal self-regulation of society to propose that there are serious, vying constituencies based on opposing moral notions for rape, theft, child abuse, scofflaw, prison breakouts, fraud, extortion, embezzlement, battery, incest and murder.
<<<Laws against theft, murder, rape, spousal abuse, etc. all represent one set of moral beliefs, and impose those on people who do not universally share them.>>>
In fact, law violators virtually universally embrace the existence of laws per se, but have very special private views of why they themselves break them. If this were not the case, the anarchist movement would be as powerful in the society as is the Democratic party.
Societies large and small, and of every degree of complexity, arising from the most diverse moral and religious backgrounds, generate prohibitions against the basic, core, anti-social activities that lead to societal disruption. It is not complicated.
For the record, you have now acknowledged that it is your opinion that you are entitled to enact your specific religious beliefs into law, and have the government force compliance with them on those American citizens who do not share them.
All you have offered us is a specious rationale for the obfuscation of deleting the word "religious" and substituting for it the word "moral."
I will add a codicil to this post in a few minutes, I have something to attend to now. |
