Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Laws and morality: The battle of worldviews

Published

on

Are laws about morality or a moral judgment? When it comes to same-sex marriage, we heard the expression that it’s not right for the government to tell two people in love that they can’t get married and its none of the government’s business to dictate morality. You might be reading this and might agree with that statement. Now, this article isn’t about a debate on whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not. I am using same-sex marriage as a way to show you that all laws are about moral judgments.

What’s love got to do with it

Therefore, let us first begin with the “two people in love” part of our argument. Do two people have to be in love? There are couples in this country that have had arranged marriages. Indian, Islamic cultures and other Asian cultures still practice arranged marriages. Even in the western world, you have the famously known mail ordered, Russian bride. Now I am assuming you won’t make it illegal for people to have to prove that they are in love to get married. The argument for love in same-sex marriage was only used as an emotional plea to win people over; it wasn’t about love. Why wasn’t it about love; I’ll show you.

First, why does marriage have to be between two individuals? You might have a situation where three of four people love each other and want to get married. Should they be allowed to marry? You might say, “of course they should. It’s none of the government’s business if consenting adults want to marry.” Again, you might be right but is it truly about love?

What happens if you have two people that are in love with each other and one person is sixty, and the other person is seventeen? In America that would be illegal for the most part because you are not considered a legal consenting adult until you are eighteen. Why eighteen years old? It is entirely arbitrary on our part to say you are a legal adult at the age of eighteen. Seventeen might be okay for some but how about places like the United Kingdom where the age of sexual consent is sixteen years old? Still fine with that. How about Quebec where the legal age of consent is fourteen years old? At this point, most people begin to say wait that is just way too young. I might be okay with even sixteen but fourteen is just pushing it. Some think even younger than fourteen is fine. Who are we to judge and discriminate against love?

You see the point isn’t about love it is about making a moral judgment about what is right or wrong. What we believe in society as the moral standard of society is what guides our laws.

Don’t push your morality on me

Let’s get away from polygamy, polyandry, and legal age of consent and go with two adults that happen to be both legal consenting adults. The argument has been that government shouldn’t make laws against this and it’s none of their business, and they shouldn’t dictate morality.

So how do you feel about incest? If a mother and son or a brother and sister that love each other and want to get married why shouldn’t they be allowed? You might say that is wrong and disgusting. If it’s wrong and disgusting aren’t you just imposing your morality on a loving incestual relationship and therefore aren’t you just a close-minded bigot?

Just like the age of consent, you need to explain why. With age of consent, it might be a medical argument on when the body is physically mature enough to engage in sex. With incest, some might argue that it shouldn’t be allowed because there is high-risk of congenital disabilities? If this is the case, should we make it illegal for people with physical and mental disabilities or genetic defects from getting married and having children? If so then to what degree?

If it’s all about genetics and birth-defects why not allow a father and son or a mother and daughter to get married? They have no possible way of producing offspring, and they are both consenting adults that are in love. Shouldn’t this be legally allowed?

When is it a life?

You see the entire point of this exercise was to illustrate that all laws are about making a moral judgment. Everyone one has a worldview, and that guides a person’s moral compass. Let’s take abortion for instance. Let’s say a woman that is pregnant is driving to a Planned Parenthood facility to have an abortion. Right before she pulls into the facility, she is struck by a drunk driver and killed along with the baby. In California, my home state, a state completely dominated by militant pro-choice Democrats passed a law which would prosecute the drunk driver with two counts of murder. Now, it’s not murder for the pregnant woman to kill the child, but it is murder when the drunk driver kills the child.

It seems logical and inconsistent. Same with most people that state they are pro-life. They believe that abortion is murder except when it comes to rape and incest. Now in the rape case, you might argue that it wasn’t consensual sex. Therefore, that is okay, because somehow the baby in the womb ceases to be a life. What if the incest relationship was consensual would that be murder? Would it be more logical to say that since most people don’t believe a woman should have to carry a baby to term in the case of rape or incest, that most people are pro-choice with differing exceptions, and it isn’t about when life begins?

The question of when it’s a life and when isn’t it isn’t important for most people. Most people are against late-term abortions but seem not to think it’s life in the first trimester, except of course if a drunk driver kills the child.

Laws reflect our society’s moral code

You see, all laws are about making a moral judgment. As a society, we all have differing worldviews with many similarities. Those similarities which typically become the majority view in society end up becoming the laws of the land. Like in California, marijuana is okay, but crack cocaine isn’t. Porn actors engaging in sex for money is acceptable, but prostitution isn’t. Parental consent to teach sex education in school but none needed for an abortion.

Like it or not, all laws are about making moral judgments on what is and isn’t acceptable in society. You cannot divorce morality from laws. It’s impossible. Our laws are a reflection of society’s moral compass, and our moral compass comes from our worldview. Simply put, our worldview is the lens on how we see the world and engage it. It determines what we believe and what we find acceptable and what we reject.

Therefore, if you want to reshape society and culture, you must win the worldview argument. Those who control the worldview of society are those who control society. The battle of ideas is fought and won on the field of worldviews. When you cease to fight and take the premise of your opponent’s worldview you have already lost. All you are doing is negotiating the terms of surrender.

Therefore, if we are to resurrect the conservative movement in America, we must re-engage on winning the worldview argument. If and only then will we have a chance of winning and conserving the principles we hold dear.

Culture and Religion

Marco Rubio whips out Bible verse that goes after the Florida recount debacle

Published

on

Marco Rubio whips out Bible verse that goes after the Florida recount debacle

There are two prevailing opinions pertaining to the Florida election and subsequent recounts. Democrats generally feel like it’s good to “count every ballot” until they win, even if that means “finding” more ballots to add to their candidates’ tallies. Republicans have been fighting against the recounts despite that play coming across ingenuously to voters on both sides.

We should want every valid vote counted. The operative word there is “valid.”

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a Catholic, Tweeted a Bible verse that seemed apropos to the current debacle in Florida.

One might even say this draws in one of the favorite punching bags for Republicans, former presidential candidate “Crooked” Hillary Clinton. That wasn’t the intent, I’m sure, but it’s always fun to laugh at Hillary.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

3 reasons President Trump should offer Asia Bibi asylum

Published

on

3 reasons President Trump should offer Asia Bibi asylum

There are certain political moves that can be considered “no-brainers” for anyone in Washington DC. Offering persecuted Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi asylum is one of them.

The drawbacks of doing so are few but potent. It would enrage hardline Muslims in the United States who may go after Bibi and her family, but that’s a risk she’ll face anywhere she goes. It would put US citizens and military personnel at greater risk than they already are when traveling abroad, especially in Muslim majority nations like Pakistan. Lastly, it would spark negative press against the President who would ask whether or not he would do the same for a Muslim in a similar circumstance.

All of those negatives are mitigated by three important positives.

  1. It goes against the bigotry narrative. Don’t get me wrong. Mainstream media and leftists will still try to paint the act of offering asylum to a persecuted Pakistani family as racist because she’s Christian. Thankfully, most Americans are smart enough to see through that false narrative.
  2. Pakistan won’t mind. If anything, their preference would be for America, which is already evil in the eyes of most hardline Islamic Pakistanis, to accept a burden that will only perpetuate a narrative that already exists.
  3. It’s the right thing to do. Any time the President of the United States can do the right thing, he should. Lately, there just haven’t been many opportunities to do so.

Every day that passes brings Asia Bibi and her family closer to the dangers that are closing in on them in Pakistan. They need to be taken in as soon as possible. Italy, Germany, and even Canada have offered to step up. The United States needs to do the same.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Why does the Left have the same agenda after they turned socialist?

Published

on

By

Why does the Left have the same agenda after they turned socialist

What does it say about the Left when they admitted to the truth, but kept the same ideas?

There was a time when the nation’s Left vehemently denied being socialist. No one was supposed to state the obvious truth that their agenda bore a striking resemblance to communist ideas from ancient Greece. Nor were they to be compared to that expressed 500 years ago in Sir Thomas More’s work ‘Utopia’ [Published in 1516]

Even when it was obvious with admitted socialist Senator Bernie Sanders agreeing with the Democrats in most respects, the Leftists still denied reality. Such is the case that, lies, deception and denial are part and parcel of their usual tactics. They still persist in denying that they incessantly demanding gun confiscation, while demanding gun confiscation.

The Left’s miraculous transformation to the obvious.

Then a few years ago something truly miraculous took place, some polling data showed that those who were unfamiliar with the oppression and mass murder that is endemic to socialism began to warm up to it’s promise. By ‘warm up’ we mean that some fell for the prospect of free health care, free college, free housing, free money, etc. Never mind that those promises were as worthless as Obama’s oft repeated lie that one could keep your health plan.

Suddenly Bernie Sanders became a ‘rock star’, followed by a cascade of newly minted socialists. What once was verboten to admit became the in thing to be an up and coming communist. Almost overnight, Democrats of all stripes became admitting what has been obvious for decades, that they were Reds through and through. Yes, red is the true colour of the socialist-Left, but that story of yet again another deception will have to wait for another discussion.

Nothing changed in the Left’s national agenda, why?

Strangely enough, aside from a few cosmetic items, the nation’s Left has the same policy ideas they had before they admitted the obvious. Back when she was First Lady, Hillary Clinton spearheaded a drive for nationally socialized health care. This is now one of the Left’s biggest vote-buying schemes, and socialism’s biggest goodies. They can admit to its collectivist in nature now, but they denied it previously.

Back when they were trying to sell the disaster soon to be known as Obamacare, they had to avoid bringing up the topic of the term ‘redistributing wealth’ a staple of socialism if there ever was one. Such would also have to be the case with their promises of ‘free healthcare for all’ since money doesn’t grow on trees.

Liberty Control is the last of our examples being a vestige of every socialist regime. The collectivist ideologies have to rely on force to redistribute wealth as well as suppress any opposition when the glorious promises cannot be fulfilled. They can’t very well do this with an armed citizenry, thus one of their highest priorities is to grab those guns. The Left has been on this same little quest for years, incrementally edging closer and closer to their ‘firearms–free’ nirvana.

The Takeaway.

It should be patently obvious why the Left’s national agenda never changed from when they denied being socialists to admitting the truth of the matter. They were dyed in the wool socialists all along, they just couldn’t be honest about it, as is the case with everything else they do.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report