Good morning class! Before I get to today’s lecture, I am going to pass out the next set of questions designed to help you critically evaluate the assertion that “you can’t legislate morality.” Please answer all of the following questions by next week:
James Madison once said that “We have staked the future of all of our political institutions … upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.” Was this the same James Madison who wrote the First Amendment?
Take a few minutes to re-read the First Amendment. Did Madison include the word “separation” in that Amendment? How about the word “church”? How about the word “state”?
In the Torcaso case, the Supreme Court declared that Secular Humanism was a religion. In Edwards, the Court established one religion (Secular Humanism) above all others. If Jefferson were alive today - and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – how do you think he would have voted in those two cases?
If the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” are we free to ignore original intent altogether?
Is a stop sign of any use if I am free to interpret it as a “go” sign?
Would it be fair to say that the religion of Secular Humanism has the public school lectern as its pulpit?
Would it be fair to say that public schoolteachers are the missionaries of the religion of Secular Humanism?
Would it be fair to say that our children are the potential converts of the religion of Secular Humanism?
Would it be fair to say that the missionary budget of the religion of Secular Humanism is the U.S. tax code?
Why do we pay only ten percent of our income to our churches, but over a fourth of our income to a government that advances Secular Humanism over all other religions?
Many people believe that Christianity is a bad religion responsible for many atrocities over the last few centuries. Why was the 20th Century the bloodiest in world history?
What part did atheism play in the increased bloodshed during the last century?
What part did communism play in the increased bloodshed during the last century?
In the Casey decision (1992), the Supreme Court stated that “…At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, and of the mystery of human life.” Is the Court implying that morality is individually chosen, rather than objective, while simultaneously defending its right to deprive an entire nation of voting on the issue of abortion?Is the right to vote an individual choice?
Later in Casey, the Court said, “(The Mother’s) suffering is too intimate and personal for the state to insist … upon its own version of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.” How would Madison have responded to such a statement?
Imagine a case involving a deadbeat father, in which the Court writes the following: “(The Father’s) suffering is too intimate and personal for the state to insist … upon its own version of the man’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and culture. The destiny of the man must be shaped to a large extent on his own conception of his spiritual imperatives and his place in society.” Would Justice Ginsberg author such an opinion?
Given that homosexuals live about half as long as heterosexuals, is it fair to say that nature rewards with good health those who practice traditional morality?
Is the notion that consent makes something moral an appeal to an absolute moral standard?
The 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi-Equal Rights and Liberation sought to lower the age of consent for both homosexual and heterosexual sex. Is there any connection between that effort and their effort to gain access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America?
Why do homosexuals place so much emphasis on recruitment? Is it because they cannot reproduce?
The truth of the matter is that all laws impose morals on others. Given that obvious truth, should we legislate the morality that kills people around the age of forty or the one that preserves them until seventy-five or eighty?
Would it be morally permissible to allow a woman to kill a workplace competitor in order to help her more rapidly advance in her career?
If abortion is appropriate because an unborn child is unwanted, handicapped, or poor, then why do we not round up and kill all unwanted, handicapped, and poor children? Would this be sufficiently immoral to justify a law legislating a more humane (read: moral) way of dealing with such children?
Have you ever met a person who supported abortion as a means of alleviating the “over-population problem”? Have you ever met a person who offered to sacrifice her own life in order to curb the “over-population problem”?
Recently, I saw a bumper sticker that said “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!” Have you ever seen a bumper sticker that says “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one!”?
For the answers to all these questions, log on to impactapologetics.com and order a copy of Legislating Morality, by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek. And, please, make sure you don’t skip my next lecture. That wouldn’t be the right thing to do.