Child porn exploits and harms children who are below the age of consent. You really need that explained to you?
3 Likes
This is what making law and policy is all about. It takes decades of laws, trials, legislation done by thousands of people to get to the laws and policies of today. Laws and Policy are evolving as society changes.
We have gone down this road before i know. But it is worth exploring once again-
Please answer this question carefully and honestly as it would be fitting of your worldview: If society changes to find child porn acceptable and indeed pleasurable, is it moral for that govt to develop legislation to change the current laws to be accepting of such?
No, our laws are made by the people and for the people. No one person can decide what is lawful or unlawful. We have checks and balances, courts, appeals, recalls, repeals. That is what living in a secular pluralistic society is all about.
We don’t make our laws based on what a supernatural God wants. We make our laws based on how humans want to live in a free society NOW.
If society changes to find child porn acceptable and laws are changed to reflect that new reality, I am still free to NOT find child porn acceptable and NOT to produce it nor view it nor engage in it. I am also free to protest loudly that I find that child porn is harmful to children and the practice should be banned.
You are free to give your opinion, but can you declare to such a govt who makes such laws that they are “immoral”
Sure, I do that all the time. Legal protesting against the Government works and results in a lot of social change. Probably most of it. I belong to a organization that protests every year against the illegal National Day of Prayer.
My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.
Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not.
1 Like
If the majority accepts an idea that they think is moral but you declare to be immoral, then you have just proven to me that morality should not be based subjectively based upon majority consent.
This has been your argument against me from day one! Philosophers have debated this for centuries and the conclusion many of them make is that since we exist, there most likely be a universal moral code from which we should confide. They cannot answer to which one, just like science has not been given the tools to decide which God is real. But both philosophy and science both point to an absolute. Im sorry, but the pure atheistic basis of morality is wholly contradictory and you have demonstrated this to me in this discussion.
I agree w you but it is much more than that. This is why i bring up such a tough conversation. One of the most brilliant philosophers of all time, Plato, even agrees that there is objectivity to morality which ultimately points to objectives defined by a set of values such as Christianity and away from “morality is always subjectively based upon majority consent.”
Here is an interpretation of Plato’s philosophy on morality i found haphazzardly online:
To know ‘how best to live’ we must know what is ‘best’. In contrast to the subjectivist or the relativist, Plato supposed that evaluative qualities really belong to the object that is valued. Thus we call something ‘beautiful’ not because we are pleased by it, but because it genuinely has, independent of being appreciated, the quality of beauty (5). Values are natural and objective. From his early days, Plato supposes therefore that what is valuable can be calculated and assessed in a decisive way.
Interestingly, the word Plato would use for our word for “beauty” would be similar in concept to the english word translated out of Hebrew and Greek as “glory” Gods glory or beauty is of one kind and mans glory or beauty is of another, but indeed glorious or beautiful. So, in light if this, an unborn human child contains such beauty to where the decision of another should never impede his or her value. The principles out from Plato would support such objectives in the Christian worldview
I never said that morality should be based upon majority consent. I said that each person’s morality is their own. I said that societies laws should be based on the rights of the individual to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness. Society’s law should protect each person from harm FROM the majority.
This is no universal code. Individuals and Society change often. What is immoral yesterday is considered okay today. Laws tend to lag the changes in Society. The musing of Philosophers of Greece thousands of years ago have no basis in law or how we should live our lives today in a secular pluralistic free society today.
1 Like
But it really is. “We” are the people to whom you refer above who make the laws. I’m not picking a side, but rather pointing out that the personal morality vs. public morality that you propose is problematic in how you present it as a solution. Even your basic rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are fluid. Many would argue that they cannot be “basic” (as in fundamental) because they are socially relative.
Who today gives a rat’s ass about what Plato thought?
1 Like
The majority of the people elect their representative to make the laws that presumably reflect the desires of the majority. As long as these laws don’t needlessly impinge on the fundamental rights of the minorities or individuals, all is fine. But if the laws do impinge on the individual rights, courts will nullify the laws. And the laws will be tweaked or changed or repealed. It is the process we all agree to live by in a pluralistic democratic secular ever-changing society.
1 Like
I agree, but this is because we have a constitution in place that states so. The constitution, not the current social consensus (the sum of the individual consensuses) forms the foundation of the laws.
In a pluralistic, democratic secular environment, absent a foundation, one could potentially see the ever-changing standard swing far beyond what are currently considered to be “basic rights.” I think that it is important to realize that the foundation exists (the Constitution) and without it, who knows where the winds of change will blow. This is the difference between what you and Greg are saying. He’s saying that God’s word would be a good foundation upon which a society’s laws could be built.
If you think about a new society, with all new laws, that was established without that fundamental aspect (like the Constitution), would you not agree that there is always a risk that the consensus could move well beyond what is currently understood to support what we understand to be “basic rights?”
To have a foundation is a good thing. It keeps the public consensus anchored, and, as you say, constrained by checks and balances.
Correct. This why we call it a Constitutional Democracy.
2 Likes
My point was just to note that you and Greg, for instance, were not really that far off from one another. I would guess (based upon your comments) that you would not advocate for a society that runs exclusively on public opinion. Greg’s was similar, in that he understands the value of having a foundation that works to keep the pendulum swings in check. If a society agrees that the Bible, or Plato, or whomever, makes a case for a good foundation, then so be it. That’s why one may give a rat’s ass what he thought. 
I am saying it is not a good foundation upon which a society’s laws could be built and wasn’t the foundations of our Constitution. Our Constitution is Godlesss. The first amendment is 100% contradictory to the first commandment. There is nothing about Biblical law that even remotely parallels with our Constitution and our laws. Judaeo-Christian values are just a meme for Evangelical Christians to force their morals, values and ethics on an ever changing secular society based on the ideals of Secular Humanism of the Enlightenment.
2 Likes
I understand you points of disagreement. I was just pointing out a point of agreement as well. But even to your point above, about the first amendment and first commandment, intelligent people were able to frame a foundation that allowed for freedom. Freedom was, arguably, the highest value, and so the Constitution and its amendments were framed in support of that. The first commandment is in no way contradictory to the Constitution or Bill of Rights, because the first commandment is merely a requirement for one who chooses to follow God. To properly do so, one must follow no other Gods. To be a follower of God is not a requirement of the laws of the US. So, as with many issues here, they are separate magisteria.
These values are sometimes misused by Christians in the way that you describe, but we have laws in place to ensure that there is no establishment of a national religion. It’s ironic to me that this criticism is applied to “Evangelical Christians” so broadly. As you can tell from here, many of us are evangelicals, and most of us are in agreement with you regarding the separation of church and state.
So, maybe criticism of Evangelical Christians is just a meme for angry secularists, too??
We’re not all the way that we are portrayed. Most, in fact, are not. Most of us just love Jesus Christ and would like those who wish to benefit from such a relationship to be able to also. That’s it.
Nope, that is it, in it’s entirety. If child porn does not harm children, then it should not be illegal. But it demonstrably does harm children, so it is illegal.
Pretty simple.
1 Like
Oh, boy, you should really come to ‘Fans of David Bentley Hart’ page on fb. Then, you’ll learn what it is to bash American Evangelical Christianity.
Note: we’re bashing your theology (among other things) a lot. Mostly your ideology based salvation.
Another note: they’re ruthless there, so if you can’t take it, stay away!