Law And Morality

The left and libertarians are mostly in agreement when it comes to the government's role in social issues. They both take the stance that “I don't care what you do and that it would be wrong for me to impose my values on people” or that “you should be able to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else” or that “the government should not get involved in social issues”. This view is illustrated in the same-sex marriage,SSM, debate. A common argument against people that don't want the government to reconginze SSM and who want to uphold the definition of marriage that has been in place for thousands of years --or any other issue that involves “morality”-- is that they want to legislate “morality” and impose their views on society. The left and libertarians believe that it is not the the proper role of government to impose morality on society. But this view fails to reconginze the nature of the law which prevents them from being able to see that they are guilty of “imposing morality” because any law—even the ones they support-- by its very nature is “imposing morality”. The issue is not whether morality should be imposed on society but what morality should be imposed on society and to what extent. The left and libertarians also fail to realize that civilization is itself a system that imposes morality or societal norms and practices on people. 

 Selwyn Duke points the problem with the libertarian view on the law and morality:

In a piece I recently wrote about the dangers inherent in libertarianism, I pointed out that libertarians, by applying their live-and-let-live philosophy to the moral sphere as well as the governmental, do nothing to maintain the societal moral framework that enables people to govern themselves from within and that ensures Big Brother won’t have to do so from without (I recommend you read the piece).[...] 

A law is by definition the imposition of a value (and a valid law is the imposition of a moral principle). This is because a law states that there is something you must or must not do, ostensibly because the action is a moral imperative, is morally wrong, or is a corollary thereof. If this is not the case, with what credibility do you legislate in the given area? After all, why prohibit something if it doesn't prevent some wrong? Why force citizens to do something if it doesn't effect some good? [...]

So here is how you fall into the philosophical trap that has ensnared virtually all libertarians (and many others):
Step 1 — Believe in a mythical separation of morality and state.
Step 2 — Accept the laws you agree with and believe necessary, not realizing they’re an imposition of morality.
Step 3 — Turn around and oppose laws you disagree with, not on the basis that the values they reflect are wrong or are not the government’s domain, but simply because they’re an “imposition of morality.”
In truth, something doesn’t have to be proclaimed by a thunderous voice from the heavens, a bishop or Charlton Heston in a Cecil B. DeMille film to be christened “morality,” nor does something cease being so (or at least a conception thereof) because it has become the stuff of academia or wins a popular vote.  A moral does not cease to be a moral because it becomes a meme.[...]

The story of man is one of spiritual, cultural, political and physical warfare, and each chapter has victory and vanquishment.  Zoroastrianism was extinguished by Islam, the Ainus have largely been subsumed by the Japanese, and the Maldives’ native Giraavaru culture is now only a memory.  Just like animals, countless languages, cultures, beliefs and peoples have become extinct, often the victims of invasive entities that, through superior morality or might, won that inevitable battle. 
And that is the battle for civilization.  It may sound very noble to say, “. . . believe what you want to believe — I'm ok with that.  After all, I am a Libertarian,” but when enough people believe the wrong things, you will not be OK with it.  You will be living under a regime that enshrines those things in law — you’ll be living in tyranny.
Like it or not, imposing values is what arranging civilization is all about.  And like it or not, you’re part of this process.  The only difference among any of us is in what and how much we impose — and in that some of us actually understand this is precisely what we’re doing.
So we can avoid talk about morality if we want, but it will do nothing to ensure that morality won’t be imposed on us.  It only guarantees a descent into error that, ultimately, ensures that immorality will be.

In the same-sex marriage debate, people that want to uphold marriage as defined for thousands of years are attacked on the grounds that they are imposing their morality on society as if those that are pushing for the government to recognize SSM are not imposing their morality on society. Any law by its very nature is imposing morality on society. So whether you are for or against SSM you are imposing values on society. The question is whether you are imposing values that lead to the destruction of that society or whether you are imposing values that have built and sustained that society. The argument that it is wrong to support “traditional” marriage because it would be imposing values is a cleaver way to get those that support “traditional” marriage to become defensive and to become blind to the fact that supporters of SSM are imposing their values on society: it is a way on the part of SSM supporters to disarm and distract their opponents. SSM proponents are not only imposing their morality on society they are attacking and forcing those that disagree with them to accept their morality: here , here, here, here , here, here, here, here , here and other places. “Evil preaches tolerance until it is in power. Then it tries to silence good.” This is no where more evident than in the issues of homosexuality and SSM: they preach tolerance and that society must accept their “lifestyle” and then they attack and silence those that oppose them as evident from the links given above. Saying that the government should not support traditional values is to surrender our civilization to the forces that will destroy it.

The libertarian view on morality and social issues is one of surrender:

Ultimately, the tragic consequence of the libertarian mentality is that it guarantees the left’s victory in the battle for civilization.  This is because, in libertarians’ failure to fight for hearts and minds in the cultural realm, they cede it to leftists, who aren’t shy about advancing their “values.”  And proof of this is in the social pudding.  You see, if talk of establishing social codes and traditions sounds stifling, know that we haven’t dispensed with such things — that is impossible.  Rather, the left has succeeded in replacing our traditional variety with something called “political correctness,” which describes a set of codes powerful enough to control the jokes we make and words we use, get people hired or fired, and catapult a man to the presidency based partially on the color of his skin.
As for elections, political battles need to be fought, but they are the small picture.  For if the culture is lost, of what good is politics?  People will vote in accordance with their world view no matter what you do.  Thus, he who shapes hearts and minds today wins political power tomorrow.  
The libertarian chant, “I don’t care what you do, just lemme alone” sounds very reasonable, indeed.  But as hate-speech laws, forcing people to buy health insurance and a thousand other nanny-state intrusions prove, when people become morally corrupt enough, they don’t leave you alone.  They tyrannize you.  A prerequisite for anything resembling libertarian government is cast-iron morality in the people.  And we should remember that, to echo Thomas Paine, “Virtue is not hereditary.”
For this reason, neither is liberty.  Scream “Live and let live!” loudly enough in the moral sphere, and in the hearts of men the Devil will live — and the republic will die.

James Madison stated:"Religion is the basis and Foundation of government." Whether this religion is Christianity or the new secular religion of the state, government and laws can not refrain from imposing religion or morality on people. This does not mean that the government should become a theocracy but it does mean that the state has an important role to play in defending the norms and practices of an ordered and free society as F. A. Hayek states in “Law, Legislation and Liberty” as opposed to defending norms and practices that will destroy that society. At the very heart of the decline of our nation are “moral” issues. If you want to make a stand for freedom and to perserve our way of life you have to support and defend the norms, practice, and institutions that has enabled our society to become the most prosperous society in history : you don't have the option of retreating to the realm of moral relativism where everything and anything is okay and staying netural in this battle over the future of our civilization. If you do stay netural, the other side will make their stand by imposing their secular values on society and they will force and corece you to support their morality and persecute you if you don't all while making you belive that to impose your morality is wrong and to accept theirs is just.

and Something for the Modern Military

00139x's Punishment for Dissing Monty Python

Right.  00139x's punishment for dissing Monty Python is a mandatory clip view per week, until he sees the light.

Fascinating 1968 BBC Interview with JRR Tolkien

 

A Far Out but fascinating BBC interview with JRR Tolkien from 1968, when the Lord of the Rings craze was peaking.  What Tolkien has to say is most interesting,  Lots of interviews with ditzy 60's British college kids too, straight out of the Monty Python series.

 



Another Poster that Sums it up in a Nutshell

Enemies Of The Human Race

Society and the law are rapidly accepting homosexuality and same-sex marriage. As can be shown by recent events, there appears to be an inverse relationship (as one goes up the other goes down and vice versa) developing between society and the law's acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage and between religious freedoms and the rights of groups or individuals to express disapproval of these two ideas. This relationship is being driven in part by the fact that the latter group is essentially being labeled as “enemies of the human race”--dissenting justice Scalia's assessment of the majority's opinion-- by the activist Supreme Court who has taken it upon itself to attempt to impose same-sex marriage on a society that a significant portion has rejected when this issue has come up for a vote.

The motivating force behind the Defense of Marriage Act and supporters of it was the desire to “demean” and “degrade” homosexuals and to "humiliate" their children. This is according to the majority's opinion of the Supreme Court as stated by justice Kennedy (around pg. 23 of the opinion of of the SC section) in its recent ruling that struck down a provision of the DOMA. In his dissenting opinion justice Scalia sums up ( pg 21of the dissenting opinion section) Kennedy's argument:

[...]the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose”(ante,at 25) “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” ibid.; to “impose inequality,” ante, at 22; to “impose . . . a stigma,” ante, at 21; to deny people “equal dignity,” ibid. ; to brand gay people as “unworthy,” ante, at 23; and to“humiliat[e]” their children,ibid. (emphasis added). I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual.

All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.[...] in the majority’s telling, this story is black and white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us.

According to Charles Krauthammer and the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia, (see pg. 23 of the dissenting opinion), the recent ruling will eventually lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage being forced upon American society. Krauthammer: “In this opinion, is the absolutely inevitable seed of essentially nationalizing gay marriage in the way Roe nationalized and abolished all the abortion laws". The legalization of same-sex marriages could lead to persecution of those that hold religious beliefs that condemns homosexuality according to Krauthammer:

It gets really sticky,” Krauthammer said on “Inside Washington.” “If the court were to decide that to deny same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, then you got Georgetown University – a Jesuit university [that has] married student housing. It’s a Catholic university. So it says it’s only going to allow heterosexuals, it will get sued. It will become an assault on religion. And the religions, which I think are sincere in their beliefs, are going to be under assault and under attack. 

This persecution is already taking place inside and outside the military. In the military those that express disapproval with homosexuals or gay marriage are being punished and outside of the military a private business in Oregon is being threatened with legal action for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. In the air force:

A 27-year veteran of the Utah Air National Guard said he was reprimanded after he wrote a letter objecting to a gay wedding in the West Point chapel and was later told to prepare for retirement because his personal beliefs about homosexuality were not compatible with the military’s policies.[...]

“My issue is so much about homosexuals serving in the military, but rather that it is being forced upon as an acceptable lifestyle abandoning our traditional values,” he wrote.[...]

He said the military has created an atmosphere where those who do not approve of homosexual conduct “must remain disapprovingly silent or face reprisal to our careers.”

“It is evident those who refuse to affirm homosexuality and openly oppose it are being severely punished,” he wrote.[...] 

“They’re trying to make examples of people early on who have religious beliefs that homosexual conduct in the military is wrong,” he said. “When these people assert their First Amendment rights, they are getting slapped down and slapped down hard.”

An army band member was punished for expressing disapproval of the repeal of the DADT:

A member of the U.S. Army Band who said he was reprimanded […] [for] serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at a party was found guilty of three Article 15 charges.[...]

“My family likes Chick-fil-A and we like what they stand for,” he said. “I can make a statement and at least express a religious point of view at my promotion party – theoretically without any fear of reprisal.”

The soldier also tweeted about the party: “In honor of DADT repeal, and Obama/Holder’s refusal to enforce DOMA act, I’m serving Chick-fil-A at my MSG promo reception for Army today.”

The tweet came under fire from his superior officers, according to an official military document.

“As a Soldier you must be cognizant of the fact that your statements can be perceived by the general public and other service members to be of a nature bordering on disrespect to the President of the United States,” the document stated.

Attorney Wells believes Sommers is being discriminated against not only because of his Christian faith, but also because of his objections to homosexuality.

“There’s no question about it,” Wells told Fox News. “Because he is religious, because he feels that homosexual conduct is wrong for religious reasons, he is basically being persecuted.”

Here is what happens to business owners that decide to exercise and adhere to their religious freedoms and beliefs : “An Oregon man may have broken the law and is facing a state investigation after refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding, KATU reports."  What is clear from these few examples is that expressing support for or acting on one's religious beliefs regarding homosexuality is not being tolerated.

The Supreme Court has labeled supporters of traditional marriage and values-- and by extension Christianity--as enemies of the human race and has attributed ill will against homosexuals to the formers support for the values and traditions that have enabled America to become the greatest country human history has ever known. The logical extension of this analysis is for corrective action—punishment and marginalization-- by the law to be taken against those that hold traditional values. As was shown, this is already happening. According to justice Scalia, the court's ruling arms supporters of same-sex marriage and the courts with the ability to force same-sex marriage upon society. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion( starting around pg. 18 of the dissenting opinion section) is well worth reading regarding the court's ruling and the same-sex-marriage issue.

Independence Day

July the fourth is Independence Day. Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr's gave an address that describes the sacrifices made by the  fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Their sacrifice enable the greatest nation in human history to come into existence. Here are some excerpts:

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."
"Most Glorious Service"
Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered -- and his estates in what is now Harlem -- completely destroyed by British Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse.

John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.
He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

Sadly the nation that those men sacrificed for is dead. Today most Americans repeatedly vote for dependency and have twice elected a president that stands for the exact opposite of what the signers of the Declaration of Independence stood for and who is in the process of systematically destroying/"fundamentally transforming" America. This should not be a surprise to anyone that knows history. The stages of a free nation are: bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage. Today America is in the dependence back into bondage stage. Freedom has always been carried down through the ages by a small minority. Those fifty-six men that signed the Declaration of Independence will stand as an example to all that will carry the torch of freedom.