Legislate Morality!
I have recently decided to join the “legislate morality” camp. I was listening to an audio recording by a pastor of a two-family Bible church, and it just hit me all of the sudden. I believe that we should punish immoral actions, because, well, that’s just why we have government. To punish sin.
Now, of course, I’m not tyrant. I sin a lot, and as a Christian, I believe everyone sins and deserves death. But I won’t let this get in my way, because I want to punish evil people. Nono, I mean people more evil than the typical evil person.
So how do we decide? Simple. If it’s a threat to the foundation of civilization, then we outlaw it. If it corrupts the general morality, well dang, that’s bright-line enough for me. And pretty much everyone out there who wants to legislate morality agrees with this standard. So let’s get at it.
Lust, Sexual Immorality and Adultery
Now, I think porn should be illegal, because, well, do you really want that stuff legal? By banning it, we will stop males (and females!) everywhere from thinking lustful thoughts. Because you can’t lust or commit adultery without porn. And lust will destroy the foundation of civilization. You want proof? Well, heck, I got proof. Every civilization that has ever fallen had people who lusted in it. So we have to use government to stop it. Or kiss civilization goodbye.
Now, on that note, I think mini-skirts should be illegal too. Because those things are just ASKING for sexual attention, and cause little boys to lust. Oh, and pretty eyes have to be altered with orange contacts. After we do this, there wouldn’t be any lust. Now, we have to ban some other clothes, and a bright-line is hard, because it isn’t in the Bible. So we have to make one up.
Don’t worry though. I have a solution. It’s pretty simple to know if something is worn only to attract sexual attention. It’s something you know if you see, which is why there’s so much agreement on the issue. So I’ll leave it to the experts. Insert Rebecca Modestee, a Mennonite homeschool mom from Georgia. She’ll be the one deciding what we ban.
And if anyone disagrees with her, you’re living and sin and probably aren’t making it to heaven. Tough. Life isn’t fair. Get over it.
Remember, the goal isn’t just to ban porn — it’s to ban lust, to save civilization. And we have to ban the things that cause that lust. Porn is just part of the picture. We have to keep going from porn to miniskirts to sleeveless and other things. And makeup. Because unfortunately, all some girls need to wear is makeup and bam, you have guys thinking lustful thoughts. Hot girls are only “hot” because they come from Hell.
Now that we have the lust issue out of the way, let’s talk about the other biggy.
Pride
Pride is scary, and is condemned all throughout the Bible. If a heart doesn’t turn to God because of pride, God roasts it for eternity. This means that it’s more than slightly important. Pride is also the root of all other sin.
So I think we should ban pride if we ban ANY sin. Because this is the root of them all. This is so obvious, I’m not even going to waste pixels by writing any more about it.
Plan
Now, you might be wondering how I want to enforce the ban of adultery (including porn, indecent clothes and other stuff) and pride. It’s simple. I’m going to do it the way Jesus did it. With a good, old-fashioned stoning.
He who has no sin will cast the first stone. But after that first one, boy oh boy, we’ll save civilization.
Note: The above is satire. I’m not a moron. I am, however, a Christian. For a more biblically based argument against legislating morality, read the original “Stop Legislating Morality” article published by Reason and Capitalism.
Part 1: Legislating Morality Refutation
As you might now, Jason over at Logical Consistency and I are currently waged in a life or death debate on legislating morality. Or something like that. Anyway, we’ve both posted a case for our position, and now we get to the good part — the refutation. This should be both fun and educational, so I’m looking forward to it. This refutation will be written in a very casual style.
In order to understand what exactly I’m refuting, it might be best to open up Part 1: The Enforcement of Morality Debate by Jason, and read my responses to his points right after reading his essay. This will make the discussion much more coherent. Also, before reading the refutation, it would be incredibly helpful to read my original case against legislating morality. My refutations will be based upon that case. This is a bit long, and, considering it’s based upon a “quote then refute” style, will read more like a casual conversation than a professional critique.
Ban it All
At this point, I’m surprised to say that Jason has not argued that only some sin should be banned. He’s arguing that sin should be banned. Period. Any clarification he makes on this simply hasn’t been made yet. I’ve heard of people wanting to ban things if they hurt society. But Jason has argued that sin should simply be banned.
In order to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding what Jason was arguing, I had another person read over his article and make sure that I wasn’t missing anything. Given his arguments, he provides no exceptions, and strongly implies and even states that sin should be outlawed. Not some sin — sin. If Jason wants to clarify his position, that’s fine. But it will be in direct contradiction to his arguments. Basically, he’ll be refuting himself.
This is, up to this point, the most radical belief of legislating morality that I have come across. I do not say this in a mocking way — if Jason is right, then radicalism is no vice. I, however, believe Jason is completely wrong.
Church and State
Before I begin, I’d like to note that if we do as Jason is implying we do, we’ll need a new court — a court to interpret the Bible. Yes, this is about as frightening as it sounds. A full-scale attempt to legislate morality leads to a slave society where we have merged the Church and State. Freedom will die.
(Note that I’m not against God and State — just Church and State.)
Logical Conclusions
I will be using the argumentation style of reductio ad absurdum. In other words, I’ll show how Jason’s theory takes us to logical conclusions that are obviously false. Namely, in this discussion, slavery and a government that makes 1984 look like America. I am not saying that Jason consciously supports these policies — that would be a straw man. I am, however, saying that his philosophy supports these policies and restrictions. Pure scary.
Considering I’m sure that Jason doesn’t support using state action to monitor individual computer usage, dating activities, child-parent relationships or our ego-problems, he has a contradiction in philosophy, as I’ll be explaining later.
———
Jason starts off by saying that he isn’t like George W. Bush. This is a very good thing. 
He then defines conservativism. I think his definition is incredibly weak, but before getting into that, let me first say that the point isn’t relevant — we aren’t debating conservativism verses libertarianism — we’re just one aspect, just one concept. If this were a formal debate round, Jason would be the affirmative and I would be the negative. My purpose is simply to show why a system based on the legislation of morality is weak indeed.
This may or may not have implications regarding conservativism or libertarianism, but that simply isn’t the point. It’s a great point, but completely off topic. But since it has already been brought up, I’ll respond.
Stop Legislating Morality
Make no mistake — I proudly claim the title of a follower of the Christ. My single purpose in life could be summarized as to “live as Christ did.” My belief in freedom is founded upon an attempt to live in the image of Christ, the Great Emancipator — the One who came to set the captives free.
Christ is my rock and my foundation, and his teachings are the code of my life. My friends and family often hear me discuss “honor” — I believe that we must do the right thing no matter what the cost, no matter how hard of a decision it might be. Always do the right thing.
However, this has led to strange discussions with fellow believers. I am an ardent supporter of peaceful persuasion instead of state action to “enforce” morality. I believe that forced morality is no morality. I believe it would be a violation of the basic principles of Christianity to use state action, and that Christians should not support the casting of the “first stone”.
Instead of using the age-old cop out of “there oughta’ be a law”, Christians should use peaceful persuasion to convince those living in sin that they ought to turn from their ways.
The way of the Christ was of peace, not force.
This article will be from a Christian perspective, showing why legislating morality is unjustified even from a Christian perspective as well as a secular position. Also included are secular arguments, showing why “legislating morality” is patently absurd.
I will not, however, be arguing for when violence/coercion is justified. I’ll be discussing this later in another article. This article will be exclusively focusing on a critique of the idea that morality should be enforced under threat of fine and/or imprisonment.
Also note that I am in no way a pacifist. I will be arguing from the approach that violence should be frowned upon because I am a peaceful man, and wish to walk in the manner of Christ the great Peacemaker. Violence is, of course, often justified, but only to protect the rights of the people. I will be further explaining this in another article at a later time.
The Nature of Law The nature of enforcing morality through government requires us to understand the very foundation of political theory — what is the state? What is a government restriction? The answer is uncomfortable, though true. Understanding and acknowledging what state action really is should cause us to be extremely cautious about when we decide to use the government to “solve” our problems.
Government restriction is the use and/or threat of violent force. It is not peaceful persuasion. It is not based upon mutual consent or voluntary agreement. A law is not private action or individual discourse. It is not when a church gives a sermon, or when Christians evangelize on the streets. It is not when the religious pass out tracts, or tell the non-believers “I love you”.
Instead of these things, government restriction is force. It is when society decide to use the threat of fines or prison time to force people to behave in such a way that society deems justified. It threatens to lock non-cooperative individuals in cages we call “prisons”. It is when we decide that collective threats will work better than individual communication.
James Bovard, from the Future of Freedom Foundation, explains:
“Government regulations are not mere expressions of codified benevolence. To regulate means to use or threaten force to subordinate private behavior to governmental commands.”
Government is force. Of course this force is sometimes justified — but when is it not justified? What moral restrictions exist for the state? The same restrictions as the individual. If it would be wrong for me to use force against someone because they are sexually immoral, it would be wrong for the state to do so.
Governments are not given unrestricted license by God to punish sin. This argument is utter foolishness for several reasons, which I will be detailing in a moment. The only argument that is partially biblical comes from a fundamentally flawed understanding of Paul’s words regarding authority in Romans 13.
Governments are not above morality — they are not given the privilege of using the sword to punish all immorality — only some immorality. What is the standard for intervention? Only to protect Liberty.
Morality and the State The State is under the same moral laws as the individual, for the government is comprised of individuals. To suppose that governments differ in the realm of morality from individuals is to suppose the absurd.
For every law which the government created and enforced there is a law that individual men have created and enforced. As it is wrong for an individual to murder a man, it is wrong for a government to murder a man. As it is wrong for an individual to torture someone, it is wrong for a government to torture someone. As it is wrong for an individual to rape, it is wrong for government to rape. As it is wrong for an individual to steal, it is wrong for a government to steal.
Governments are comprised of men, so the moral restrictions of the men apply to the government. As Thomas Jefferson wrote,
“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.”
We are dealing with questions of state action and morality, we are also dealing with questions of individual action and morality. So if we wish to understand why killing the innocent is wrong for the government, we simply must understand why killing the innocent is wrong for the individual. The two are morally inseparable.
So, what, then, do the Scriptures say about “enforcing morality”? Plenty.
The Great Liberator The scriptures reveal Jesus Christ as the great Liberator, the one who came to set the captives free. The one who shows mercy to the sinners he came into contact with, rather than absolute justice. He ate with prostitutes and thieves. He didn’t use violence against those he thought were immoral. He didn’t command us to use violence against those that we considered immoral. He did the exact opposite — He evangelized, and commanded us to evangelize.
Christ told us that all had sin, and that all were deserving of death — and that He would be the fulfillment of that punishment. Sin alone cannot be the reason for restriction, or we would all be punished — the prisons would be full indeed.
Christ was given the opportunity to use coercive action against an adulteress, one who had sinned sexually. His response was one which should be always remembered and repeated whenever the discussion of using violence to punish sin comes up — he said, “neither do I condemn thee”.
Christ came with many important messages — the most poignant was not against the unbelievers, but instead against the pharisees — the most “holy” of the people. He argued that they were hypocrites, punishing the “sinners” for being sinful, yet not being without the worst of all sins — pride.
Let’s flip to the most poignant political commentary in the history of man — the situation recounted in John where God Himself is given the social power and responsibility to deliver violent justice the: case of Jesus and the adulteress.
He That is Without Sin John 8:1-15: “Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.”
All Have Sinned I must be honest and say that most of the “Christian Conservative” movement disgusts me. I have seen nearly every angle of the social-conservative agenda, from banning homosexuality (read: lock gays in cages), banning pornography (read: locking those who lust in cages) to other absurd yet popular notions. Note that the sins being punished are always sins that the conservative in question usually* does not suffer from. This is not just convenient — it’s absolutely hypocritical and, ironically, contrary to all of the notions of the New Testament.
The fundamental sin that the moral legislation targets is generally sexual immorality. The argument goes along these lines:
“Sexual immorality is very important. Sexual immorality is more than just about the bedroom — it affects the whole nation. This is why pornography and homosexuality should be banned by the government.”
The standard for violent intervention by the government is nearly laughable for two reasons. First, if the standard of “it is socially important” is used, then disobedient children, pride, snobbery, irrationality and pretty much every other sin should also be outlawed
However, those who wish to enforce morality never argue against those things. The double-standard is as blatant as it is logically bankrupt. The reason for the restriction can’t be “it’s socially important/essential” because this standard is instantly dumped when discussing issues such as pride, irrationality and other “sins”.
That said, the sin being restricted is even dumped regarding the restriction of sexual immorality. It’s easy for us to place ourselves on a pedastool and pretend that we are not the ones of sexual immorality. Pornography is to be violently restricted, why? Because it is sexually immoral, and sexual immorality will lead to the collapse of civilization, or so the argument goes.
Forget that Christ Himself said that lusting is adultery. In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus explains, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Show me a man who claims not to lust, and I will show you a liar. People are sexually immoral. All people are sexually immoral. The idea of using guns and cages to restrict and/or punish the sexually immoral is ridiculous — with everyone in prison, there’d be no one left on the outside.
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.“
The Wages of Sin I am constantly amazed by Christians who claim that the state should punish sin simply because it is sin and just because it is sin. Tell me, if we are to punish something, shouldn’t we ask for just punishment? What then, is the just punishment for any sin?
The answer to this simple question reflects how hollow such an argument truly is — if we were to be attempting a just punishment for sin, we’d follow the Biblical teaching — the wages of sin are death. Unless we support killing all who have sinned, then sin alone isn’t what it takes to sanction state action.
This is not, of course, to construe that the argument by most conservatives is that we should use state action “just because it is sin”. The reasoning is usually based upon social stability, as explained and refuted earlier in this article. However, the idea that all sin should be punished by state action is not unheard of, though it most certainly should be unheard of.
Conclusion To ask that state action be taken is to ask that violence be used. The state is under the same moral restrictions as the individual. Christ Himself called us to be peacemakers, and passed up the opportunity to violently enforce morality, instead resorting to evangelism. Legislating morality is foreign to the basic concepts found in scripture.
If we were to truly support the legislation of morality, we would support punishing and/or restriction sin such as pride, irrationality and sexual immorality. Unfortunately, we’d all be guilty and would all be imprisoned.
Such a standard for violent intervention is foolishly impractical, and simply can’t work. Practicality aside, it violates the teachings and actions of Christ.
If we truly wish to see a government based upon Christian principles, then we must call for the immediate end of legislating morality.
_______________________________
*Though this is not always the case. I would actually contest that most of those who support banning pornography partake in it religiously, no pun intended. This is statistically inevitable, as unfortunate as it may be.