Second American Revolution: George Grant (3 of 7)

Question: Can we really legislate the biblical standards of morality on non-Christians? The non-Christian doesn't even believe in the Bible, so how can we even talk about building a society based on the Law of God?

George Grant: When people say, "You Can't Legislate Morality," they are ignoring the very nature of legislation itself. Legislation is merely the codification and law of someone's standard of morality. This is right and this is wrong. If you violate these standards, you will get in trouble. If you adhere to these standards you'll be safe. The whole thing is a logical fallacy. If you can't legislate morality, then you can't legislate.

The Bible says: Thou shalt not steal. Whether we believe the Ten Commandments or not, in our culture we adhere to this absolute that taking someone else's property is wrong. We didn't come up with that idea ourselves. It is drawn out of the biblical standard that was the bulwark of our culture. The same thing is true with -- Thou shalt not kill - it's one of the Ten Commandments. It's not something that the Supreme Court or the framers of the Constitution came up with.

Now there are those who say there are no moral absolutes. There are those humanists who say that man is the center of the universe. That man can decide all things. But that is not a workable philosophy. There always must be some absolute to which we adhere. We do it, whether we do it consciously or not in modern America even with all the assaults of the humanists. And when we stray from those standards it is inevitable that we get into trouble. It's one of the reasons why there is so much confusion and disarray in our culture today. Nobody really knows what is right. Companies don't know what standards to uphold in their hiring and firing practices. In the end if you don't adhere to the Ten Commandments, you're going to have a philosophy that is all over the map.

G.K Chesterton said: "If a man will not obey the Ten Commandments, he will be forced to obey the ten thousand commandments." We live in a society with thousands of rules and regulations pouring in upon us, because we refuse to repair to that one simple straightforward standard, the standard God has given us in His law.

When the Founding Fathers drew on the biblical standard for absolutism in law, they made statements like, everyone of us has the God given right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In humanist societies like Nazi Germany, there is nowhere to draw the line between what is and what is not human, what is and what is not an appropriate action for a government to take, what is and what is not proper retribution. You wind up with concentration camps, medical experiments, the destruction and genocide of whole people groups. Ultimately, without absolute standards, we are left at the mercy of the strong, the powerful and the perverse.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• George
• Grant
• God's
• Law
• Society
• Culture
• Apologetics

[11889music]

The two moral absolutes that you have used in your examples, Sir, were established long before the Bible. It is to utterly ignore human history to say that these moral absolutes originate with the Bible. The Vedic scriptures establish these moral truths long before Judaism and were most likely verbally passed down for centuries prior to their writing.

[jcr4runner]

Moral truth existed from the beginning. The Bible teaches it originated from God's character, not from the scriptures. The scriptures merely express it in an inspired manner.

[11889music]

So, you believe in a book that states moral truths and their origins AFTER many other people state them? It can be equally argued that anyone writing a spiritual text does so in an 'inspired manner'.

Anyways, my direct reply to your comment would be: Then why refer exclusively to the Bible when speaking of morals, moral absolutes, and law ?

[jcr4runner]

The moral laws f the Bible are specific and applicable.

For instance, all cultures agree that murder is sin.

However, the Bible defines it.

Does it apply to all people or just citizens (as in Roman law)?

What about the difference between premeditated killing and manslaughter? The Bible defines this as well.

Pagan and humanistic systems are invariably arbitrary and disrespect human life. Biblical standards are the most fair and the most respectful of all people.

[jcr4runner]

Anyone may be inspired, the Bible shows that reprobate people prophesied and did miracles.

But only biblical scripture is inspired and INERRANT.

[anagnostopoulos88]

This is very silly, the ten commandments are not the first examples of laws that typify the universal "thou shall not steal; kill" that are represented in earlier or geographically distinct legal codes in the globe. I would prefer laws derived from humanism or rationalism over the dubious morality of the ancient civilization that for a few hundred years occupied Palestine. Rape (of Canaan), Homicide (near miss with son of Abraham), and Prostitution (again advocated by "God's man" Lot in Sodom)

[jcr4runner]

First, God's Law never condones rape, homicide or prostitituion.

Isaac was not killed; rape was never commanded in the conquest of Canaan; Lot did not advocate prostitution, he resisted it.

Second, laws based on humanism have condoned these crimes.

[FleetoJesus]

@whoo689

Are you serious? Have you reflected on this for more that a nanosecond? Zip up your zipper and go preach your wisdom to all those enslaved by the sex trade, all the minors and runaways preyed upon by the wicked.

[fightforyourrights9]

This new form of self interest is very dangerous to society. Laws cannot stop this behavoir. Even if you're personal philosophy falls in line with the law, it doesn't mean you need the Bible or some divine doctrine to be that way. The universe is chaos, and humans desperately try to control that chaos to feel secure. This is the basis of all religious and secular law. Buddhism is probably the best philosophy which combines the two.

[fightforyourrights9]

The problem with laws and humans is this. Whether the law be decreed by some supposed divine being or by man, the law will be broken by someone for their personal gain. People have been murdering for millennia and will continue to murder if they think it is in their interest. For animals (including humans), self interest is all about survival. However, due to our increased technology, basic surivival is less of a concern, so self interest has morphed into a desire for more material things.

[whoo689]

Or how about gambling? Even in the modern age, there are still some backward ultraconservative folks who think GAMBLING is wrong. Who the hell knows why. And yet, should we make that law if a majority of the people think it's wrong?? Even if gambling doesn't really hurt society, and people should be FREE to make their own choices? This is not a democracy; it's a republic.

[whoo689]

Besides, even if morality is the basis for all law, I think that's kind of a backward primitive way of legislating. We need more advanced reasons for making something illegal than simply "It's wrong.". Should people be forbidden from paying for hookers? I say no.  And yet, it's illegal. Why?? B/c some backward Bible-thumping right-wingers think it's "wrong" to pay for sex or whore yourself. Yet it doesn't hurt the people who consent to it. It's fine!

[whoo689]

Only the dumbest, most invasive laws are about codifying morality, like victimless crime laws. Murder, rape, etc. are illegal not because we think it's wrong but because they HARM SOCIETY. We need to protect society from murderers, rapists, etc. and lock them up. At least that's how I see it. You don't need to legislate morality just to make something law. There are plenty of other good reasons to make laws. Legislating morality is too simplistic.

[theTrenchantObdurate]

What a cop out. Every time some one tells a fundie "oh by the way we have evidence that these things existed in cultures long before the abrahamic religions." You respond with "Oh thats because god existed before them."

Circles make poor arguments , Sir.

[thomaserossi]

Postmodernism is anti-realist and anti-reason. Don't pretend to understand the open mindedness of Postmodernism, because it's not. Postmodernism is a collectivist faith in all respects which results from Kant's denial of reason and reality.  But even this is clear in your proclaimations:

"You have refused to open your eyes. To clear yourself of cultural conditioning."

You pretend to be open minded then resort to culture wars. Postmoderism is product of Leftist failures in the real world.

[kuken3000]

Legislation is the law...But the law don't say, everything you do is wrong.

If you want to kill some, the legislation do not say it's wrong.

The legislation says if you take someone right to live...you will get punished.

But not that's wrong...Maybe in your mind is the right thing to do.

But you will get punished for taking someones right to live

[Jomammacita]

Why don't you try a public debate with this guy and see how you and your position fairs? You will not find the simple minded at the other end of table. By calling what you heard here simple-minded paranoia you try to vilify what you can not contend against with an ad hominem abusive statement. Try listening to more of what he has to say. It may be enlightening and even encouraging. Ultimately he speaks of hope and who doesn't need or want hope.