Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (37208)	2/11/2005 9:02:54 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Hi all. Forgive me for jumping into the middle of a discussion, but I think this is a key point in the current division between the New Left and the New Right. IMHO, it is certainly not the business of a US legislature to attempt to regulate morality. It is their business to protect the rights of its citizens. Laws are designed not to steer the population around some idea of 'right and wrong', but to ensure that the Constitutional rights of all Americans are protected. There are many who believe that monogamy is a basic point of morality, even a requirement, for marriage. Others firmly believe that monogamy is old fashioned, and engage in swinging. Although the majority of Americans seem to find the idea of swinging morally wrong, there is no (legally justifiable) attempt to legislate that morality on the minority who believe in it. Why? Doesn't this concept directly attack the majority's view of the 'sanctity of marriage'? Certain laws do seem 'moralistic', but in fact their basis in law is to protect the citizens. You are allowed to drink, but if you are underage (protecting youth) or in danger of harming others (protecting everyone). The basis behind the outlawing of illegal drugs is protection of citizens, not a point of morality. If it were, then all potentially harmful drugs would need to be outlawed on moral grounds, and most of us would die of caffeine withdrawal (for some reason, caffeiene is considered safe and marijuana is unsafe - go figure). Any attempt to make a law that moralizes does so on very shaky legal ground. A local law may declare it illegal to kill and eat a dog, which some cultures consider a delicacy. Another community may attempt to outlaw public showing of the swastika, which was a religious symbol of Sikhism long before it was hijacked by the Nazis. When laws that seem to make moral sense to the majority are struck down by the courts, many people cry about the state of the judiciary system (and even call such judges 'activists'). These people have not been taught what the Constitution and our basic system of laws is all about. Republicans used to understand, and even defend, this basic truth of Constitutionality. It is only one of the basic tenets of Republicanism that has been tossed by the likes of Rush, Falwell, and the New Right. It's an indication of how topsy-turvy our world is when the Civil Libertarians have been tossed from their traditional right seat on the political spectrum to...the left? Obviously, a single dimension can no longer categorize the current political environment.

To: one_less who wrote (37208)	2/14/2005 3:19:43 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

>>>PARTYTIME: "But I think one mistake is to attempt to legislate morality, something Republicans seem very willing and very wanting to do." JEWELL O THE WEST: I see this comment so much that it almost gets by me without thinking. Today I thought about it. Morality, according to the dictionary is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior." That is certainly the business of a legislature. The tone of the comment, however, implies something more of a religious lean into morality than what would be commonly sensible without religious context. Is that right? If not what do you mean when you post that comment that has become so common? What specifically are you referring to by "one mistake"?<<< I appreciate the thinking. I love reading posts that make me think--! You're right, "legislating morality" is an oft-used phrase. When I use the term, more than not, I refer to attempts to legislate an unwinnable drug war, unstoppable prostitution, assumed sexual preference and forced religious symbolism, etc.--all categories of which have been mightily GOPwinger espoused.