NotMAGA wrote:
Should any government have the right to legislate morality according to their religion?
Muslim girls are still being subjected to "honor deaths" in Muslim countries and even in countries like the UK where their families have relocated. Their fathers, uncles and brothers believe things such as marrying a non-Muslim or just showing their bare face in a TikTok video shames the family so badly they need to put these girls to death.
Does anyone condone the beatings and killings that have occurred here in the US to young gay men simply because they are gay? (I hope not!)
There is almost nothing new under the sun and you can be sure that includes abortions and homosexuality.
"Vengeance is mine" says the Lord. It's up to each man and woman to make their own peace with God, and God will not force them. He INVITES.
Should any government have the right to legislate ... (
show quote)
What a stupid post!!!
...and here's why.....
The first amendment specifically protects the free practice of religion, by saying, "Congress shall make no law, respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion"
Since this is the law of the land, it applies to both religion and non religion as the premise as read straight, and in reverse.
Due to this reason, the constitution, the first amendment, prohibits the practice of writing laws to decide the morality of the people. To do do would mimic the monarchy the federalist were so against.
It is here that Jefferson wrote his famous letter of "separation of church and state". Jeffersons push was to eliminate the the mystic superstition from matters of law. This is what came out of the enlightenment age.
However, for a law to be just, the superstition must be removed as well as the hypocrisy. The former is true but the latter is not. For the latter to be true, then the two tiered justice system would not exist, nor would accusations be considered automatic guilt.
However, the principle, as set forth, according to Jefferson about the superstitious nature of religion holds true, and do does the converse, hypocrisy. Thus since both should be omitted by law, therefore, both should not be practiced in law. Which brings forth the sodomy laws as enacted by congress backed by Abraham Lincoln.
Therefore if we are to refrain from hypocrisy, and recognize honest Abe for "Freeing the slaves" we must also recognize him for instituting the morality of the anti sodomy laws. These laws were invoked due to the.livestyle.of the Moromons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which practiced the act of polygamy. Honest Abe was against that.
But here, like in the case of the homosexual, the government tried to dictate the morals of the person or group. Now, in the end, Lincoln was right because the Mormons no longer practice polygamy. But it was still a legal moral issue.
Now, in any case, if no one complains and there is no harm, then why change the law. Clinton reversed all the sodomy laws which would then hurt the community it was protecting.
So the whole premise of your thread falls apart.
Governments of man, have no right to warrant the morality of man. Since man is equal to another, then what right does one man have to judge another man. Thus we've come full circle, "Ye with no sin, cast the first stone."