- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
New statist morality
Posted By Gina Loudon On 06/30/2013 @ 7:31 pm In Commentary,Opinion | No Comments
Today I want to ask you a question. It’s like a game, and one that a conservative can win every time. Ready? Name one law in the history of the United States that does not impose someone’s morality on someone else.
You have more time. This isn’t Jeopardy. Keep thinking …
It’s OK. You aren’t alone. This isn’t the lottery, though you have a much better chance of hitting the jackpot there, because you can’t win this game, and neither can the left.
A favorite axiom of the left is that you cannot legislate morality. They push this canard, whether you are talking about general criminal laws, abortion laws, drug laws – it doesn’t matter.
They have built their proverbial temple out of cards, like the separation of church and state. They have virtually no idea the clause doesn’t exist in the Constitution.
Take, for example, this Constitution teacher who came into contact with Bradlee Dean’s ministry team:
We all know, in fact, the letter that Jefferson wrote on the topic of separation of church and state does not suggest that the state should be free from religion – that would have been a ridiculous assertion. The U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian principles that are central to our Constitution. Jefferson's letter concerned the freedom of people to worship in freedom from state interference. That is what the colonists came to America to escape.
The statists prefer to ignore that. Their amoral political agenda would ban God and, therefore, morality. Instead of actually banning morality, because that is impossible, they resort to the Saul Alinsky tactic of accusing the right of what they are doing (imposing morality) and label their own morality with fluffy names, like "human rights," "going green" or, most famous of all, the right to "choose." What is that supposed to mean?
The left condemns the right for "imposing their morality" to force the right to unilaterally disarm. If anyone seen as "right of center" introduces a proposal, they stand accused of "pushing their morality." The left, which is religiously secular, maintains that when they push anything, it is only for the benefit of society and morally neutral.
This is impossible.
Consider those who hold their views so dearly that they will live in a tree for months to keep it from being cut down. Are they not imposing a religious, or at least moral, view? Are they not trying to push it on the rest of society? If I own the tree, who are you to tell me I cannot cut it down?
Those who love America should not hesitate to "push their morality" on others every chance they get. The other side most certainly will. We have the finest collective morality in the world.
Dennis Prager observed that the left loves humanity and hates humans. The expression of leftist morality goes from the trivial, even laughable, to the truly macabre. Why is it that the left feels entitled to push their morality at every turn and call it anything but morality?
They don't like guns – they move to ban them. They don't like big cars – they slap a luxury tax on them. They don't like conservatives – they bully them with the government agencies they control. This approach is fundamentally anathema to the average conservative who prefers the "Do unto others/Golden Rule" approach. Conservatives don't want to ban the statist's Prius, or their birth control, their solar panels or their talk-show hosts. The right simply wants to live free and let others do the same.
The most obvious conflict to the statist's "ban approach" is with issues like illegal drugs, abortion, gambling, which are known as the "social issues."
Conservatives' position on abortion is simple. To them, it is not an imposition of morality; it is the state protecting life. Drugs and gambling are criminalized because their use irrefutably spreads beyond the user, on to the liberties of others. The drug or gambling addict is less productive, and more likely to hurt others physically and financially. Laws regarding drugs or gambling, however controversial, are not about imposing morality in the mind of the conservative. They are about saving human lives and protecting liberties of those affected by the problems with each.
We have never had a single death by a plastic grocery bag abuser, yet just this week I wrote about plastic bag bans passing city by city in California. The plastic bag has been around so long that many of us forget what it is like to go to your car, open the trunk and pull out two paper bags, one for each arm (while you are fumbling for your keys to unlock your door). So you either need help or multiple trips to carry your groceries. The plastic bag became popular because you could carry so much more, all in one hand or on one arm, and it was far more environmentally friendly than the bulky paper bags. The latest foolery sweeping California, most recently Los Angeles, is to ban the plastic bag, and tax you for using paper!
The only way to escape this tax and ban is to bring your reusable bag. The inconvenient truth about those is that they carry salmonella and other bacteria, and that deaths from these illnesses doubled with the imposition of the plastic bag ban.
No problem, in the minds of the left. The lawmaker on the left laughed and proudly proclaimed his support of the ban despite the deaths caused by this feel-good, statist legislation.
California motorcycle laws are perhaps the most emblematic of the hypocrisy. Most traffic laws exist to protect drivers. Traffic safety experts tell us what speed limits should be, that we should wear helmets, that our brake lights should be functioning, etc. How many times have we heard, "It is worth it, if it will save even one life"?
Environmental regulations do not figure into traffic safety regulations, except in California. In California, you will find yourself in five lanes of traffic on the interstate, and before long, you will be startled by a motorcycle racing between your car and the one next to you.
Environmentalists want people riding motorcycles or mopeds because they use less fossil fuel. So if people die it is justifiable to the statist left, whose religious morality of environmentalism matters more than the people who will die. It is worth it to the left, if it will save just one carbon credit.
I guess a dead grocery shopper or a motorcyclist is OK with the "morality" of the left, because they gave their lives for the great green god of environmentalism?
There is no such thing as a law apart from morality. Every single law ever written is based on someone's perception of morality, based on someone's religion (whether they choose to identify it as such, or not).
Thus, since it is impossible to write a law not based on morality, the question becomes, "Whose morality shall we base our laws upon?" We can only choose which morality worth our fight.
America's morality respects private property, the right to contract, accomplishment over class or birth or privilege, respects hard work and fair play. It doesn't tell someone they don't have a right to use a plastic bag. America has the greatest collective morality of any country in the history of any nation, founded on Judeo-Christian morality that honors individual rights and has served us well. We should never let those go away on our watch and deprive the next generation of the birthright we were given.
The next time a statist accuses you of imposing your morality, just invite them to play a little game. Or if they are really smart, invite them to show you where the separation of church and state is written in the U.S. Constitution.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/new-statist-morality/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.