home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
- Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!cdm
- From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov17.190517.26378@pmafire.inel.gov>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:05:17 GMT
- Organization: WINCO
- Subject: Re: Religious Right
- Summary:
- References: <1992Nov17.023004.9470@news.vanderbilt.edu> <13848@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
- Followup-To:
- Organization: WINCO
- Keywords:
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <13848@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
- >>It is *not* an issue for the government. It is only those people who propose
- >>PUBLIC POLICY based on religion-based morality who are in the wrong.
- >>
- >Many things are declared immoral by the government, from murder to theft to
- >denial of civil rights. If religions also see these things as immoral are
- >the laws wrong? Alternatively, if religions see these things as acceptable,
- >are the laws then OK? What it comes down to is, what basis does a government
- >then have to declare this or that action immoral?
-
- Murder is permanent unjustifiable deprivation of a person's right to life,
- liberty, etc. Religion need not enter into the discussion at all. The
- basis is in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
-
- The government does not declare things immoral; it declares them illegal.
- There's a difference. The basis for declaring many things illegal is
- certainly rooted in morality, but that does not nor should it mean that
- because something is illegal it is necessarily immoral. Under no
- circumstances should the government legislate morals, unless they can
- be justified constitutionally.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ...Dale Cook "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
- room in hell for all of us." --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
- The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-