Laws and Morality question 229
I hope you continue to comment on #228 as I would love to have alternative ways of looking at that passage. In the meantime, two questions have come in that are similar enough to deal with at the same time. I might have time to update this one more time this week so check back from time to time and continue to send your questions to tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com.
We have laws against murder, yet people get murdered every day. Do we really think that regulating the markets will cause an end to unethical behavior? Stealing has been punished since at least the time of Hammurabi, yet it still occurs.
Didn’t God ‘legislate’ morality throughout the Old Testament? Is it right to pray for ‘moral legislation’ from our country’s leaders today? Can we legislate morality today?
One of the more confusing phrases that I’ve heard throughout my life is “you can’t legislate morality.” One one level, it is true; you can’t make a person moral by throwing laws at them. Gun laws are only obeyed by the people who weren’t going to misuse their firearms anyway. Laws against rape may stop some people from committing rape, but it doesn’t stop them from fantasizing about it. You get the idea.
On another level, you CAN legislate morality if, by that, you mean that you are attempting to create a society in which moral behavior (as opposed to thought) is more likely to occur. If you say that anyone who strikes another will spend time in jail or pay a hefty fine, you don’t stop assault and battery but you DO make it less likely. Those who are given to action without thought will continue to commit the crime but those on the edge (and many good people find themselves on the edge a time or two in their lives) will consider the cost and abandon the action.
I am not a big fan of piling laws upon laws. Paul makes it very plain that all the laws in the Old Testament — and there were over 600 of them — failed to create a moral, faithful people. A casual reading of the first 39 books of the Bible confirms that observation. Only the Holy Spirit acting on the human heart can turn us away from immorality. America often fancies itself a Christian nation because some of its founders were believers of sorts and because a lot of its laws were based on the scriptures, but can we truly say that we have created a moral society? Did anyone catch the modern day Sodom aka the American Music Awards? Male on male kissing and a man shoving his face into another man’s crotch on TV? A few dozen women barely clothed surrounded by nearly naked men in S&M outfits? Are we a Christian nation? Laws won’t make us that way. Laws don’t make us Christian and they don’t make us moral… but they can make life safer for the innocent.
I am not a fan of the drug war, for example. While it makes a few people safer, it has cost billions without affecting the rate of drug abuse in the slightest. It has ruined personal property laws, abandoning the protections given to us in the Constitution. I’m not for immediate legalization, but I am for a new look at this. No perfect solution will be found, however, as some will continue to abuse drugs and hurt not only themselves but others.
I am FOR laws that restrict abortion for the simple reason that the fetus is an innocent life. I believe it was made in the image of God and it has the right to have the chance of life. Will laws against abortion stop abortions? No. As NARAL and NOW tell us, some women (they claim all) will obtain illegal, dangerous, back alley abortions. I think they are wrong, though. I think some will, certainly, but most won’t. Once again, the laws don’t make us moral, they just make moral behavior a bit more likely.
When it comes to finances, we see the same pattern. If there were no tax collection apparatus, would we voluntarily pour over our finances and send the right amount to the government? Without fear of audits and the IRS, that would be unlikely. If we abolish the IRS — which I’m okay with — we would need to have point of sale tax collection, as we do now for local and state taxes, but also including federal taxes (as we already do on gasoline). Making laws doesn’t make people want to obey them — it opens up the “loophole industry” aka the legal profession.
So laws aren’t useless but they aren’t a panacea, either. When Bloomberg says that he needs new gun laws to make New York and New Jersey safer, he is being blind to a mountain of facts in front of him: they already have hundreds of gun laws, the strictest in the nation, and the criminals aren’t obeying those laws. Instead of penalizing gun owners, disarming the innocent, and demonizing guns, the criminals need to be targeted. Of course, that would cause other issues and might threaten some politicians’ re-election so… let’s just make another law!
Our law is to love one another. That law mandates moral behavior but it doesn’t clean our hearts. Clean hearts can only come through our faith in Christ and the power of the Spirit of Christ.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
I always laugh when someone says you can’t legislate morality. What people really mean by that is, “I don’t want you to make my habits illegal.” You know what? I don’t either. But I recognize that there are some things we need to legislate, and I am aware that in a fallen world, sometimes only the threat of punishment (or the application of punishment) deters people from preying on one another.
As far as the drug war goes, I am torn. I wonder how much worse off we’d be if there were no laws about illegal substances. And then I wonder how much worse it could be. It’s pretty bad now.
Laws are kind of like locks on doors. They won’t keep a determined person out, but they will keep the casual thief away – and will keep an honest person from an unwanted temptation.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I have a slight issue with the cliche “you can’t legislate morality.”
Studies have shown that the more culturally accepted an attitude/behavior is, the more likely those within the culture will adopt said attitude/behavior.
Those who grow up in an environment that is more accepting of a homosexuality or druge use are more likely to engage in homosexuality or drug use themselves.
Certain laws are a good thing. I think Christians can make politics a god over Jesus if they’re not careful (and some have), but I don’t think it’s wrong to believe that certain things are bad for our society based on the will of God and to vote according to convictions.
If weed is legalized, guess what – more people will smoke it because it will be even more culturally acceptable than it is now. If homosexual marriage is legalized, guess what – more people will live out that lifestyle because, over time, it will become even more culturally acceptable than it is now.
I don’t believe that would be a good thing, and appreciate laws that keep these examples (and others like them) from becoming the mainstream.
I think it’s healthy.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Romans tells us that law can’t save us from ourselves, but Galatians points out that it can serve as a schoolmaster. And this selfish, immature, largely faithless world could still use a ruler-rap across the knuckles – or fanny – from time to time.
Law shouldn’t force Christian faith on anyone. But it should express the morality that God amply describes and recommends for our benefit as a people.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Amen! Amen! and Amen! Couldn’t agree with you more. More laws are not the answer. Enforcing the already existing laws are. If you notice, after a big incident, whether it be Virginia Tech shooting or the collapse of the markets, the Politians rail about enacting new laws when, the people who committed the crimes, already usually broke countless laws already on the books.
If there is a law against stealing books does another law against stealing Childrens books make any difference?
I also agree big time that the war on drugs is a complete and utter failure. What is so sad is that we spend millions of dollars to catch some teenage punk who is growing one plant of weed in his house yet, in many major cities, rape kits sit on shelves for years without being processed because of lack of funds and manpower. I would much rather see law enforcement going after the kidnappers, rapists and murderers then chasing the guy selling a 2 ounce bag of weed at the local 7-11.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:21 am
I have no problem with an attempt to “legislate morality” in situations in which one individual is being oppressed, or having his rights stolen away, etc. We need to be a just people. But the “legislation of morality” when people are doing no harm to others is where my questions lie. I don’t think we, as Christians, are to expect the fallen world in which we live to act like us.
I hear all the time that the legalization of homosexual marriage will weaken the institution. What? Then why is divorce legal? Why don’t we put people in prison for sleeping around? I can’t think of any reason that homosexuals shouldn’t get to marry or unite or whatever they want to call it. If someone is not a Christian, why should we expect them to act like us? I think of marijuana in a similar fashion.
Yes, probably more people would do those things if they were legal. But that’s what lost people do — what they want. And if they’re not hurting others, then why do we try and prevent them? The way we strengthen marriage in our society is by modeling it. The way we get others to stop getting high on weed is by introducing them to a better high. Passing laws against those things doesn’t seem like the answer to me.
What if the situation were reversed, and Christians were the minority, would we want the majority to pass laws against public worship, because it would weaken their atheist view of life? What if the group in power decided that, based on their convictions, we should outlaw meat and be a vegetarian nation? If we allow religious and personal freedom, then we should allow it. Make rules to protect us from one another, not to make us all adhere to one group’s views — true and right as they may be.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
“And if they’re not hurting others, then why do we try and prevent them?”
They will harm every single person their sin influences, and the more socially acceptable their sin becomes the more people will fall victim to it.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
But isn’t that part of living in a fallen world? Fallen people will act… fallen. I don’t see it as the Christian’s job to police the non-Christian crowd, determined to eliminate some of their possible sin options. They’ll just invent more — sinners are good at that. God doesn’t limit our sin options, so that others won’t fall victim; why do we limit theirs?
Our task is to live Christ into the community, so they’ll fall in love with God and allow HIM to take care of their sin problem.
And do we really think it’s right for the majority to just vote laws into existence, based on their own religion, convictions, fears, or even preferences? What would we think was right if we were in the minority? And because there were more homosexuals in the U.S., they passed laws against heterosexual marriage? Or because there were more atheists, they passed laws against any form of prayer in public?
November 27th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I don’t think laws exists to limit sin options so much as they exist to show people what sin is.
When the law ceases to call sin sin, people are more likely to be enslaved by it.
Reading through the Old Testament I find it’s when Jewish civil law (given to the people by God) was ignored that the entire nation fell into wickedness bringing God’s judgment on them all.
I’ll be honest – I care less for fairness than I do for God’s will to be known and carried out. Laws are in place to help people tell the difference between right and wrong. When you start calling wrong right, you’re headed down a dangerous path.
November 28th, 2009 at 5:07 am
I’m just wondering if the new covenant method for calling sin sin isn’t supposed to be different? Is there a way to call sin both sin and wrong without passing it as law?
And I don’t think of the U.S. as a second Israel, in which God will judge us as a whole based on our collectiveness wickedness — but to be honest I haven’t thought a lot about that, but will…
I think where we disagree is on the purpose of law in our country. I would say laws exist not to show people the difference between right and wrong, but to prevent one individual (or group) from taking advantage of, oppressing, or limiting the freedoms of another. I don’t see that we’re practicing a freedom of, or even tolerance of, religion when we attempt to force those who don’t hold to our own, to live by its rules.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim 1:8-11).
Much of this applies to moral law. Should political law legislate? Doesn’t Paul here suggest that there are some people who will not control themselves, so society must control them by law?
The question really is, “How far can a society go in controlling lawless behavior?” The prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s was not a successful experiment, any more than the prohibition of drug use has been successful in our own time. Yet, the “alcohol problem” is not gone because of the end of prohibition. Nor will the drug problem be gone if we legalize drugs.
No answers. Just trying to define the questions.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
“I don’t think of the U.S. as a second Israel, in which God will judge us as a whole based on our collectiveness wickedness — but to be honest I haven’t thought a lot about that, but will…”
I don’t think of the USA as a second Israel either, and hope no one believes I do. But God did punish nations other than Israel for collective wickedness throughout the Old Testament. He often used Israel to carry out the punishment.
Other times, Israel was the wicked nation, and He used another people to punish them.
It’s an interesting pattern to study that tells me God is concerned with collective wickedness in a nation.
November 28th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Wes, I agree that God is concerned with the collective wickedness in nations (in any collective group for that matter). You make a good point.
Jerry, I suppose a society can go however far they’d like in attempting to legislate morality? I know God put those governments in place, with sword in hand, in order to punish evildoers. I suppose how far they go depends on the objectives of those in control…
So my questions are:
- should we as Christians care anything about protecting religious (and other) freedoms in our country?
- where do we draw the line on how far we want to force non-Christians to abide by our rules and beliefs? or do we ever?
November 29th, 2009 at 11:54 am
You know, I am probably in the minority here but I don’t want to see a law against homosexual marriage. Yes, I think it’s wrong however I don’t think Govco needs to be in the business of deciding what marriage is right or wrong.
Along those same lines, I don’t think Govco needs to be involved in marriage at all. Why should I have to get permission from Govco before I can get married? I would like to see the only institution involved in approving any marriage be a church whether you are marrying a man or a woman.
November 29th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
IMHO, the term ‘homosexual marriage’ is an oxymoron. By the very definition of marriage, two men or two women can’t be married to each other anymore than either of them can be married to their favorite pet, tree, rock, or any other object of desire.
Marriage has always been, is now, and forever will be between a man and a woman – period. And if the definition is changed, then it is no longer the same thing, no longer what it originally was, and therefore, is not a ‘marriage’.
Homosexuals are granted the rights and privileges of civil unions by our government. Why do they insist on trying to change the definition of marriage? Because they want to make themselves more acceptable, more ‘normal’ in society. But in doing so, they have to make the term ‘marriage’ something it is not.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:30 am
I agree with your statements on marriage… as a starting point.
Sin takes something that is good and right, twists and abuses it, redefines it, and calls it something that it is not.
All sins do that. Homosexuality becomes alternate lifestyle. Dishonesty becomes not telling the whole truth. Adultery becomes an affair. Neglecting one’s family becomes committed to work. Rage becomes a small temper problem. Laziness becomes laid back. Etc.
But we haven’t made laws against these in our country. Why not? If homosexuals are permitted to call cohabitation marriage, it will not change OUR definition of marriage. Nor will it weaken our Christian marriages. WE weaken our Christian marriages.
If our definition of marriage is merely one man and one woman, then I’m afraid we’ve missed the point. [cg, I'm not suggesting this is your definition.] How often do we ourselves fail to demonstrate in our marriages Christ’s unconditional and undying love for his church? Why do we find it so important to bind this one truth on others, who don’t believe in God anyway?
I just don’t get why we expect sinners to live by our rules — and especially why we expect it so much that we’d try to pass laws to prevent them from doing otherwise.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I can see your point James (and others who’ve posted similar views), but I still prefer to work and live in a society governed by moral laws. As someone once said, “The cleaner the barn lot, the easier it is to walk across without getting dirty.”
In other words, we can’t live in a sewer without getting some on us eventually. I think moral laws help clean up the sewer we live in.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
The ability of law to restrain sin is pretty weak. However, “law” had another purpose. It revealed the values God was seeking to instill into the community. In addition to restraining evil by reacting to it, laws also restrain evil by supporting different cultural values. They are the most emphatic way the leadership of a society has of declaring what will be the behavior that is accepted and what will not be accepted by a community.
This is why I would not support a law legalizing drug usage. It implies an acceptance. The same with other legislation. Had the issue not been raised then perhaps other possiblities exist. However, once a law is advanced, a society must declare what its values are going to be on that subject. (Of course most laws have more than one moral issue at stake.)
I don’t have to have a law against adultery, for example, but once a law is proposed (or a current law proposed to be changed)then my “vote” is a moral statement about what value will be accepted in our society.
In our culture anyone’s morals/values can become the laws/norms of the land. Everyone, Christians included, have that right… if they can get society to agree.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:48 am
I thought this was interesting, and related to our discussions:
California Divorce Ban Movement Underway
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/30/california-divorce-ban-mo_n_374235.html