"'Why are you trying to impose your values on the rest of us?' Among too many raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition, that taunt has engendered a moral disarmament and political paralysis. But the underlying premise is that a democratic society may be constructed upon values and beliefs found in the books of Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader, Betty Friedan, and Alfred Kinsey, but not upon the values and beliefs found in the Pentateuch and the New Testament. To accept that argument is to permit ourselves to be driven permanently from the public square. Someone's values are going to prevail. Why not ours?"
--Patrick Buchanan, Right From the Beginning, 1988

I think its worth repeating that the founders of our democracy were not Christian and explicitly refrained from mentioning Christianity in the Consitution.

They used words like "Our Creator" purposly instead of "God the Father" becuase they knew the very idea of democracy was threatened by religious dogma.

Pat Buchanan is principled man who has more respect among liberals than may be imagined.

But no matter how much you hate Alfred Kinsey, the wisdom of our founders still holds. Religion and politics don't mix.

I don't remember sleeping through all of my civics classes, but I always thought we were a Republic. Just sayin'.

"I think its worth repeating that the founders of our democracy were not Christian and explicitly refrained from mentioning Christianity in the Consitution." -HeHe

Point?

"They used words like "Our Creator" purposly instead of "God the Father" becuase they knew the very idea of democracy was threatened by religious dogma." -HeHe.

No, they knew that the very idea of democracy was threatened by having the state and the church unified. They believe no such hogwash.

"But no matter how much you hate Alfred Kinsey, the wisdom of our founders still holds. Religion and politics don't mix." -HeHe

Multiple states had established Church at the time of the founding.

1. The point is that if the founders meant us to be a Christian nation, they would have said so.

2. That's pretty much what I said, or meant to say.

3. What's your point? They also had property ownership requirements and slavery. We've gotten better over the years.

I'd like to hear from Rep. Primary voters though on their thoughts on a Gingirch/Buchanan candidacy in 2008.

And what about Tom Tancredo?

Today, the standard-bearer of “conservatism” in the United States is George W. Bush, a man who has taken the positions of an unshakable ideologue: on supply-side economics, on privatization, on Social Security, on the Terri Schiavo case, and, most disastrously, on Iraq. Never before has a United States president consistently adhered to beliefs so disconnected from actuality.

....As Bush’s ideology leads from one disaster to another, one might ask: How far can it go? It has already brought us to Baghdad, an adventure so hopeless that [William F.] Buckley recently mused, “If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced, it would be expected that he would retire or resign.” The more we learn about what happened behind the scenes in the months leading up to the war in Iraq, the more apparent it becomes that evidence was twisted to fit preconceived notions. Those who produced evidence undermining the case for war were ignored or even punished. It was zealotry at its most calamitous.

George Bush is destroying the Conservative movement.

Who in 2008 can save the movement from a cetain defeat?

George Bush is not destroying the conservative movement, and neither is he taking us down a road that we haven't gone before. I hear hard core Republicans and conservatives talk about how much fiscal spending has risen, and they point the finger of blame to Bush. Bull Sh*t! All our elected officials are to blame, especially the Republicans, who control the house and senate. I don't believe there is such a thing as fiscal responsibility anymore...it's all pork all the time as far as i'm concerned...anything to get reelected. Garbage rhetoric every two years, followed by irresponsibility and politics.

I support the war in Iraq, because I think it's an important nation building effort. I also believe that Saddam did have WMD's, which justifies us being there in first place. I believe this because I met and listend to Georges Saada talk about his involvement in Iraq and his personal witness of the WMDs. I think Saddam was a grave threat, and I would have done the same thing as Bush.

Do I agree with every single issues with Bush, probably not. But I'd vote for him two more times if I had the chance. He's helping to protect this country from Islamo facists, and he's moved the SC to a stance of life and this country is better for it!

"The point is that if the founders meant us to be a Christian nation, they would have said so." -HeHe

Whats the relevance of that? Buchanan is talking about a war between social values, not establishing a national church. Are you implying the Founding Fathers meant to make it impossible for socially conservative laws to be passed?

". That's pretty much what I said, or meant to say." -HeHe

Well its not the same thing.

"What's your point? They also had property ownership requirements and slavery. We've gotten better over the years." -HeHe

Poor argument. But that token I could point out that the founding fathers did not want a national church, and also owned slaves, therefore we ought have a national church.

Iraq did have WMDs?

Tell me this Dolye, where do you think the moon landing was staged Arizona or Nevada?

I don't think the founding fathers would support laws that hold one religion to be higher than the other, and that is certainly what would happen if we let the Christian Right legislate their views just because they are the majority.

By you logic the Founding Fathers would like to see Sharia law in America if Muslim immigration makes them the majority.

I’m not sure I understand how the founders of our democracy were not Christian. The Pilgrims, Puritans, in fact all major settlements by Europeans in the U.S. which were the rudimentary base of our democracy were Christian. The Founding Fathers: Sam and John Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, GW, Alexander Hamilton were all Christians of one denomination or another and those Christian values were evident in their building of our democratic system. Disregarding the nitpicking about using “Our Creator” (and, who do you think the words ‘our creator’ might be referring to?) instead of “God the Father”, what am I missing?

Good question asdf.

What you're missing is the fact that amost every founding father was a Diest Freemason. They believed in a God, but were not sure if Christanity was the one true god. Jefferson even has a famous quote about how he cut up his personal bible and eliminated all references to the divinity of Jesus. (Which every Christian believes)

They were all Freemasons.
Look it up.

BTW that's why our currency has freemason symbols and our presidents are buried in Masonic Cemetaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Freemasons#American_Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

So, being a Freemason means that you can't be a Christian? All mentioned (except for Alexander Hamilton who was a Huguenot) were either Congregationalists or Episcopalians. Last I knew, those are all Christian based religions.

Well, first if you can be a Freemason Deist Christian, you would certainly be an entirely different type of Christian than today's evangelicals who claim this country was founded on their creed.

Second, its debatable as to whether or not a Freemason can be a Christian. Many say that thier rejection of key parts of Christian theology makes it impossible, others believe you can be both.

But there is no historical evidence that men like George Washington and Ben Frankilin held Christian beliefs that in any way resemble the fire and brimstone, end-of-days, televised mega-church, let's legislate virtue Christianity that today's Evangelicals hold.

The claim that the founding fathers were Christian is shaky at best, and to say that they would agree with today's Christian Right on the place of religion in the public sphere is just make-believe.

BTW there is a huge difference between showing up at your local Congregationalist meeting (which in those days was pretty much the social event of the week) and really believing in the Christian faith.

They all left writtings, and none of them make them seem particually Christian.

Deist. They were all Deists.

Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensible suppots. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens.

“Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

George Washington being religious is a far cry from he being devoutly Christian.

OBL is religious.

Ben Franklin has some awesome quotes. That dude was cool.

“In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations."

Yep, Ben was a barley and hops guy. Bet he didn't take that "early to bed, early to rise..." stuff seriously.

*yawn* The 18th century equvilent of boilerplate...

Anyway's John Hancock is not a big figure in the constiutional convention.

"George Washington being religious is a far cry from he being devoutly Christian." -HeHe

You've gone from, "the founding fathers never intended religion to play a role in politics" to "George Washington was not necessarilly a Christian."

What? I was just responding to his dumb arguments.

You're right. It really doesn't matter if he was a Christian or not, the founding fathers did NOT write christianity into the Consitution when then could have.

They did not intend the US to be a Christian nation.

Sorry, you can twist it anyway you like to suit your original argument, but the truth remains that these were men whose existence was steeped in religion and specifically Christian tenets. And the lessons and constructs learned from that impacted decisions they made about how to build a fledgling democracy. That's why your exclamation makes little sense.

I will agree that they were smart enough to know that separation of Church and State was a pretty good idea. Personally, they may not have all been Bible Thumpers but were Christians.

HeHe: "I think its worth repeating that the founders of our democracy were not Christian and explicitly refrained from mentioning Christianity in the Consitution."

There are three errors of fact packed into your first sentence on this thread, HeHe. I'll leave the rest of your sentences to the other readers.

1. The Founders "explicitly refrained from mentioning Christianity in the Constitution." In article seven, the document references "in the Year of our Lord." No doubt you will attempt to convince that the lord they referred to was some Masonic deity, but that the "Lord" they referred to lived 1787 years earlier pretty much narrows it down to Jesus Christ.

2. "The founders of our democracy were not Christian." Of the 55 men delegated to gather at Philadelphia in 1787, 50 were members of established, orthodox Christian churches. At the time of the Founding, nine of thirteen states had established churches. Other than the fact that the Founders were all white and male, it's difficult to make a general statement that applies to all of them--as you have foolishly done in this thread. One general statement that applies to nearly every one of the 55 delegates, however, is that they were professed, practicing Christians. A few were not, but they were the exception.

3. "...the founders of our democracy." Thankfully, as readers have pointed out, we live in a republic. Rufus King, for instance, referred to "the madness of democracy"--an opinion that quite a few of his colleagues at Philadelphia shared.

Beware of anyone who says "the Founders believed..." Someone who says that, like HeHe, is generally trying to get others to believe that the Founders, unanimously, believed, in the 18th century, all the things that he believes in the 21st. The Signers of the Declaration, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and other leading American statesmen and revolutionaries who bequeathed our government numbered somewhere near 100. It's nearly impossible to get two people to agree, let alone 100.

"George Washington being religious is a far cry from he being devoutly Christian."

That's ridiculous. Read more books (or Dan's reply). It is an indisputable historical fact that Washington was a devout Christian.

As to the general question, the very essence of law is coerced morality. The notion, then, that there could be laws that do not impose "values" is incoherent.

1. Thanks for the feedback Dan but I really don't think you can claim they were Christian based on the fact they used the Gregorian calendar.

2. You make a good point, not everyone involved were freemasons and most were Christians. I did make the point, however, that there was a differnece between showing up at Church on sundays and truly practicing Christianty.I stand by that. I also stand by my other point that Chritian or not they didn't write Christianity into the constitution.

3. I know full well that our democracy takes a republican form. I don't know why that's relevent to this discussion.

I see your last point but its my understanding that men like Pat Buchanan claim that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. All I'm saying is that as far as the Consitution goes, that's just not true. My goal isn't to put words into the founders mouths, but to debunk the words the Christian Right is putting in them.

And I think the document speaks for itself. If they wanted the 10 commandments as law, the would have included them. If they wanted this nation to be Christian, they would have said so.

They didn't.

Ralph, I still think Washington and the majority of them were more deists than anything else. But the debate about who was Christian and who wasn't (I'd say Jefferson def wasn't BTW) is irrelevent.

Its a side debate.

The main issue is weather we were really founded on Judeo-Christian values. And I don't think we were. Both the Declaration and the Consitution are pure Enlightenment documents in both their vocabulary and their ideas.

The part of either document that deals most with the subject of religion is the part that explicitly bars congress from establishing one.

If we were truly founded on Judeo-Christian values wouldn't they have established them??

Enlightenment values, not religious values. That's how this nation was founded.

ASDF, I don't think the founders were all that informed by their "christianity". Most of the ideas in the Declaration and the Consitution come from ancient Rome and Greece, before the Christian era.

Almost everything else was pure Enlightenment.

As I said ther religiousity is a side debate. The issue isn't what they did with their Sundays its what THEY WROTE DOWN on this nation's founding documents.

I just don't see much Christianity in there. There's dieism. ("Our Creator") There's ancient Rome (The Senate). Ancient Greece (direct elections). Seperation of powers (Montesquieu), Social Contract, Right of revolution, and property rights (John Locke).

But I just don't see much Christianity.

Where are the ten commandments? Where are the perperations for the second coming? Where's turn the other cheek? Where's the trinity? Where's predestination? Where's original sin?

Its just not there! There's very little Christian influence.

Obiously given the fact that most people were Charistian at the time, you can point to little things like terminology and the calender. But all the big ideas this country was founded on were not Christian.

No matter what GW did with his Sundays.

"The main issue is weather we were really founded on Judeo-Christian values. And I don't think we were. Both the Declaration and the Consitution are pure Enlightenment documents in both their vocabulary and their ideas."

Why are we confining the discussion to the Constitution and the Declaration? What if references to Christian texts and principles abound in the statutes passed by the Congresses following the Founding? What if the speeches made from the floors of the House and Senate in favor of or against bills presented explicitly Christian arguments? What if the Founders believed that Christian morality should be imposed on the citizens, but believed such laws should issue from the State legislatures?

It can also be argued that some of the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution are, if not of Christian origin (i.e., they were not first articulated in Sacred Scripture, etc.), according to Christian tradition. Your dichotomy between classical antiquity and the Church is extremely crude. And your view of the history of ideas in extremely simplistic.

I don't see the relevence of anything outside those two documents. In fact, why not confine it to the Constitution? It is, after all, the foundation of our Republic and the law of the land to this day. It may be seen as the sumation of the founders efforts to create the United States and may thus be seen as the relevent document in this discussion.

If the founders believed that Christian morality should be legislated by the states, then why make no mention of Christianity in the tenth amendment?

It may be simplsitc, but its hard to argue against the propostion that traditions from the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece cannot possiblly be according to the Christian tradition because THEY EXISTED BEFORE CHRIST!

Of course the history of Western Civilization was permeated with Christan thought after Constintine's conversion. But the Enlightment was if anything a departure from the Christian thought and philoshophy that had dominated the West since that time. While still aknowledging the existance of a god, most Enlightenment philosophers were hostile to the idea of organized religion.

I give you the views of one Thomas Paine, famous partiot author:
_____________________
"Do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

He described himself as a "Deist" and commented:

"How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical."
________________________

Another great Enlightenment philosophe was histrian Edward Gibbon, whose great contribution to Christianity was blaming it for the fall of the Roman Empire.

With David Hume the debate is whether he was a deist or an athiest. Christian doesn't even enter the picture.

I'm happy you can use big words like dichotomy Ralph, but this isn't a philosophy class. The fact is that the most relevent document to this discussion does not reflect a strong Christian influence. This flows from the fact that most of the people who wrote that document were not the good Christians as the Religious Right would have us believe. This flows from the fact that there was actaully a rather anti-Christian element to political thought at that time.

And like it or not our country was born of that thought.

Praying for it to have happened otherwise won't make it so Ralph.

Hehe the troll strikes again: "It may be simplsitc, but its hard to argue against the propostion that traditions from the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece cannot possiblly be according to the Christian tradition because THEY EXISTED BEFORE CHRIST!"

Actually, since _we_ receive these pagan traditions through the Christian tradition, it is really easy to argue against that claim. We have all recieved quite a lot of Greek and Roman influences this way. Take our language. The Greek language, though preexisting modern English, is recieved by me according to modern English. I don't see why we can't (in fact, i think we must) say the same about the way the founders appropriated the Greek and the Romans.

Thought I'd chime in with a Wikipedia link that has a great deal to say on this subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_religious_history

No particular powers are mentioned in the Tenth Amendment for the same reason that many Founders opposed a Bill of Rights, viz., an enumeration implies that any power not enumerated is not granted.

It is evident that you know nothing about medieval Christian thought and its relation to classical ideas.

The views of modern thinkers concerning religion are not relevant. Locke's theory of natural right didn't fall out the sky. It has lengthy precedent in Christian thinkers such as Richard Hooker and Thomas Aquinas.

The vast majority of Founders were not Deists but Christians. For anyone who is familiar with the Founders' writings, this is not controversial. Deists, for instance, do not believe in divine providence. It's hard to read the Founders without coming across numerous references to providence.

This whole "disagreement," however, is ancillary to larger question underlying Buchanan's comments: is it appropriate for governments to coerce morality.

Finally, the suggestion that this nation was born of anti-religious thought is laughable.

Our Founding Fathers were complex human beings with spiritualities that ebbed and flowed, just like most of us. They were immeasurable degrees between Deist and Christian, influenced by both the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment.

Franklin advocated Christianity in schools, yet also wrote the deistic opinion: "I believe in one God, Creator of the universe... As to Jesus... I have... doubts as to his divinity" (March 9, 1790).

Jefferson professed Christianity, yet claimed that Christianity played "no part" in the laws of the United States (Feb 10, 1814) and promoted the term: "wall of separation between Church and State" (Jan 1, 1802).

We cite Madison using the words 'Lord' and 'Christ', yet we should add that he felt government has no right to "intermeddle with religion" (June 12, 1788).

Washington advocated both Christianity and the deistic belief that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience" (May, 1789).

Lastly, even within a mostly Christian society, consider their legislation: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" -unanimously approved by the US Congress, and signed by President John Adams, in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797.

HeHe, your argument is irrelevant.

Your argument is that they didn't write Christianity into the Constitution. Granted, they did not.

Moving on; How does that in anyway lead to the conclusion that they were opposed to passing laws informed by Christian morality (since we are getting into it, ALL western morality is derived from Christian morality)? It is obvious that they were not opposed to this, as multiple states had established churches at the time. So, they clearly believed that it was alright for laws to be passed informed by Christian morality.

I think this conversation has gone off the tracks with its focus on the role of religion in society. Buchanan was not speaking directly about religion as such, but the type of social values we should strive to uphold. Do you want to sexually integrate the armed forces and put women in combat? Should the federal government pay for women's abortions? Should the federal government government have the authority to say that local schools cannot organize a prayer before before lunch?

On all these issues someone's opinion must prevail, so Buchanan is simply asking: why not mine?

If the Left can dominate these issues then it's perfectly acceptable for those on the Right to try and win the battle on the cultural front.

-- And it isn't George Bush who destroyed the conservative movement, but the conservative movement who destroyed itself by supporting George Bush.

Anthony: just because Congress declares something doesn't mean its true. This passage may be true in the way they meant it then in that context, and yet false in the context you are now trying to place it in-- of Pat Buchanan's advocacy of Christian values in our laws and culture.

Let's take a more full quotation, shall we? "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." It seems that what they are saying is that the federal government is not committed to Christianity (even though some of the states were and the people as a whole was) so that there should be no illusion that the U.S. would have hostilities toward Muslims on that account. I.e., crusading is not the point of the union. Pat Buchanan could agree, no?

Does that mean really that our government/governments aren't "founded on Christianity" in a deeper, less legalistic sense... namely, that because the culture and traditions were and are largely Christian the governmental structures as designed and how they are carried out are inevitably Christianity-embued?

One thing is for sure: The Constitution does NOT say there is a "separation of church and state" (that, by the way, was a phrase Thomas Jefferson used in a private memoir). On the contrary, the Constitution says there "will not be the establishment of a state-sponsored religion" (i.e. like the Church of England). The Framers did not want to go down the "rat hole" of a government telling folks how to worship, like the evil Church of England did back in the day.

That said, if our great Founders intended for the Constitution's Establishment Clause to totally separate God (in whatever form one perceives Him to be) from ALL aspects public life, why is it that DURING THE FOUNDER'S LIVES, they ALLOWED mention of God (and prayer!) in most all public forums?

Well all this proves is that zealots don't listen to reason. :(

"I think its worth repeating that our founding fathers were not Christian"- Hehe
Bad news Hehe you won't be able to get this sort of fiction off of Air America anymore. See September 14th post above.
HaHa Hehe

Ben-t. Wow! All Western morality is derived from Chriatian morality? Please Western history includes things like the Code of Hammurabi and Roman Law.

Christianity had a profound influence on Western thought, but thought existed before Christianity and during the Enlighentment non-Christian politcal thought became more important than Christian thought.

And BTW the point stands. If they wanted laws to be informed by Christianity the would have explicily said so.

I still don't see anyone explaining Tom Paine's quote.

Eric I see what you're saying more than anyone else.

Tim I don't think anyone is saying that you can't mention God in public places. I don't see how that fits here.

Skeptic, you are just flat wrong to say that we recieved Roman and Greek traditions through and only through the Christian tradidtions.

Through the middle ages that was largley the case, but during the Enlightenment scholars drew directely from the original Greek and Roman texts.

The US has a Senate, not an Curia.

WTF cares about AirAmerica??

Talk radio is a media dinosaur.

I'm litterally right here synching my iPod with the latest podcasts from the BBC, RFI, The Economist magizine, The Washington Post, several indy pol podcasts, plus meet the press and washington week.

And you're talking about the noise that used to come out of the car on the way home from work??

Please.

Don't feed the trolls!!!!

HeHe: ever hear of hermeneutics? You have direct access to the Roman and Greek thought? You may be able to look directly at their words on a page, but that doesn't mean you can understand them. And it happens that our understanding of these things is necessarily influenced by how our culture has received them, and that is according to Christianity, since whatever is received is received according to the mode of being of the receiver. Oops, there's Thomas (or maybe Aristotle through Thomas, it is so hard to tell sometimes...)!

Well put, Skeptic.

"Ben-t. Wow! All Western morality is derived from Chriatian morality? Please Western history includes things like the Code of Hammurabi and Roman Law." -HeHe

Betrays a pretty big ignorance of what Greco-Roman morality was like. It is nothing like modern western morality, based on a belief in objective and universal standards of behavior. I recommend you read the Plateans argument in Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War, when they are arguing that the Spartans should not massacre them. Its a good illustration of the Greco-Roman morality.

"And BTW the point stands. If they wanted laws to be informed by Christianity the would have explicily said so." -HeHe

Uhm, no, it doesn't. Laws informed by Christianity were the law of the land in founding-era America.

"Skeptic, you are just flat wrong to say that we recieved Roman and Greek traditions through and only through the Christian tradidtions.

Through the middle ages that was largley the case, but during the Enlightenment scholars drew directely from the original Greek and Roman texts. " -HeHe

Skeptic's assertion is 100% accurate. The Church is the only reason those original texts were available.

This thread is amazing... This whole discussion shouldn't have happened. I don't know if Pat Buchanan provided more context when he wrote that, but through quotation, Dan Flynn gave a straw man argument. HeHe, you took the bait by defending a weaker stance, highly reliant on the interpretation of an audience that already holds strong beliefs about the subject. The real issue, which wasn't addressed, is whether certain conservative values have been imposed upon people who do not hold those values.

To all involved:

When people ask "why are you trying to impose your values on the rest of us?", they are usually trying to point out the cultural narrowness of a demand. Some people have their own social values, such as abstinence before marriage (or they are against cohabitation or interracial marriage, etc). They are completely free to practice these values for themselves, without force of law interfering, if there is no law regarding that behavior.

The lack of a legal restriction on personal behavior does not impose on the religious people who choose to follow that restriction on their own, nor on those of them who don't believe in that rule. And the non-religious, even those that do choose to abstain, are not imposed upon either. On the other hand, to create such a restriction does impose on people. This is not a matter of whether we should have religious or secular law, it's whether we should have a law that suits the needs of a few, or a law that suits everyone's needs, including the original few.

Still, some people continue to make the demand, "I don't want to follow other people's rules, but you must follow mine." To that, liberals respond "why are you trying to impose your values on us?" It's a good question.

Lack of restriction may impose or it may not. If prostitution were not restricted in any way don't you think society would be different in certain ways which necessarily impose on those that live in such a society?

Brian R.: "it's whether we should have a law that suits the needs of a few, or a law that suits everyone's needs."

What do people "need" and who determines such needs? Is need subjective or objective? Can people be wrong about what they need? If so, is it the business of others to address their true needs?

Obi:

Imposition is when a person has to limit his or her actions under the threat of force. When somebody does something or says something you don't like or don't agree with, it does not impose on you. Legalizing prostitution would not create any new laws to impose on people. Are you suggesting it would cause increased crime (a threat of force operating outside of law), or do you see some other imposition?

Ralph:

That statement wasn't meant to stand alone. The need I was referring to there is the need for personal freedom. It is the desire of most people and the right of everyone, and therefore in a society respecting freedom, it should be considered absolutely necessary (a need), so that protecting it is a priority. What these needs are is largely objective. But since absolute protection of them for everyone is impossible, the best we can do is set policies with the goal of maximizing the protection of these rights. However, the question of what policies are best is often very subjective, because it can involve weighing the severity of different restrictions on rights and imposing minor restrictions in an attempt to prevent more severe restrictions.

For example: Freedom of movement and freedom of action are rights. Allowing the police to detain people for questioning can impose on the detained people temporarily, but that power can help the police catch a murderer that threatens to permanently end the rights of others. So we give the police that power, and try to set a policy that minimizes the sum of impositions caused by both law enforcement and criminals. This task is the subjective part.

Brian R: It is a bit tough figuring out what you mean, but the best response to them is probably Buchanan's quote in the first place. That is, you are complaining about the law being used to impose "values" on people who don't hold them. (1) Well, yeah, the law works by changing people's behavior because other people really value that change of behavior. The theif, the smoker, the pedophile, the nonrecycler all have values that are imposed upon by legal restictions inforcing others' values. You seem to be objecting to law simpliciter. (2) Why are liberals allowed to make laws motivated by their values, but conservatives and Christian values are condemned? Why is Pat Robertson seen as a moralistic busybody but not Carson and Nader? (3) You start going off on legal restrictions, but Buchanan doesn't even mention that. We often here this "impose values" chant whenever we publicly express judgments at all. If I publicly treated homosexuals the way people have treated me for not recycling or for smoking, well, you'd call me a homo-phobe. Don't you think that is BS?

I am getting sick and tired of a group of leftists trying to convince Americans that this country was founded on the value system of secular socialists.
One of the traits of all European socialist governments is their outright hostility to ANY display of Christianity.
Government isn't in the business of endorsing any particular religion,however, its sure as hell doesn't have to bend to the wishes of the ACLU and other secular socialists, by reversing hundreds of years of history and culture by removing all displays of Christianity.
The biggest problem I have with the American left is their constant carping and crying about someone being offended or someone's rights is being violated by seeing a cross on public property.

What ever happened to citizens obligations and responsibilities? The left wants no mention of those traits. The only thing they seem to have any interest in is, screaming about a group of "victims" having some perceived right violated.
It has gotten very old and stale.

Skeptic:

I am saying that the goal of law in a free society is to reduce restrictions on freedom, not to increase them. When a (proposed) law makes a trade-off of one freedom for another, there is often a lot of room for debate. The goal of the trade-off is to leave us with more freedom overall than we had before. Therefore, the argument in favor of the law would try to show that we come out ahead in terms of freedom when that law is in effect.

When a change to law removes restrictions on freedom without creating other restrictions, that change is quite objectively the right thing to do. Similarly, when a law does nothing but add restrictions to the free action of people, that law is quite objectively wrong.

1 and 2. Sure, you can see this as people enforcing their values and you won't be able to find any contradictions to that belief, but you're missing something that's going on at a different level. People are being protected from property loss (thieves), the health and comfort effects of breathing bad air (smokers), direct physical abuse (molesters), and damage to public property that people enjoy or to someone's private property (litterers). That protection is what justifies the laws. The justification has nothing to do with the laws being someone's "values."

3. If you were to publicly declare that you believe only in voluntary restraint from homosexual activities, that you support equal treatment of gays by the law, and you oppose and vote against any laws that would restrict homosexual activity, I would not accuse you of imposing even if you held up a protest sign with Bible verses in large print and were shouting that homosexuality is sinful. Free speech does not impose. However, if I thought that you would act to place actual restrictions on people's behavior, I would consider you to be trying to impose your values on others and I would probably ask "why are you trying to impose your values on the rest of us?" Others would ask that question as well.

Regardless, I would call you a homophobe if and only if I thought you had irrational fears relating to homosexuality.

Brian,

Without restriction prostitution becomes normative. It is now a legitimate way of making money. There is a case in Germany of a woman requesting unemployment benefits from the state but being denied because she did not exhaust all job opportunities available to her, the opportunity being work in a brothel.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml

If one were without a job and struggling financially but then turned down a job cleaning toilets because of personal disgust, how much sympathy would or should be shown? If someone in like financial situation turned down prostitution because of personal disgust, how much sympathy would or should be shown? Isn't legality relevant to answering that question since it informs what is proper and improper in society?

Brian,

The goal of law can't be to increase freedom, that doesn't make sense to me.

Laws are practical principles to order the actions of the members of a political community. What is the "goal" of law? Well, if they are principles ordering action of members of the political community then the goal of law must be the same as the goal of politically ordered action. That means the goal of law is the common good of the political community.

You seem to be suggesting some sort of anarchist interpretation of the law.

I think that what seems to be your first premise is questionable. Do we really live in a "free society" and what does that exactly mean?

Brian R: (1) Freedom is a means, not an end. You have invented a standard by which we can objectively measure whether change in law is good or bad (increase in freedom), but that standard itself is irrational, because people don't want just more freedom, they want what they do with that freedom. Besides, what counts as more freedom is very much up for grabs: I think I would have more freedom, not less, to live the way I want if obscene material was more heavily regulated.

(2) Pornography, pornographical violence (real or fictional), prostitution, cursing, all create a moral atmosphere that affects people and how they live and to what degree they can live well and raise their children to live well. Occasional second hand is a mere annoyance. Softcore porn on cable is more dangerous than second hand smoke in a bar, in my opinion. So how come liberal are allowed to ban one, but conservatives are called prudes and busybodies when they try to regulate the others? Both are imposing values. Both think they are protecting people. Your standard of "protection" simply doesn't do the work here that you want it to once we realize that there is such a thing as a moral atmosphere and not merely a physical one.

Obi:

Good example.

My "objective measurement" that Skeptic referred to applies to the arguments for or against a law, and not directly to the law itself. In absence of a valid argument supporting a restriction, the restriction should be rejected. And when there is a valid argument supporting a restriction, that restriction should be considered.

In this case, having unemployment benefits that take into account whether jobs are available, combined with not restricting prostitution, is causing a problem. Women can lose benefits for not becoming a prostitute.

There are several possible solutions to this problem (some of which can cause other problems). Here are a few:

1. Make unemployment benefits not depend on the availability of jobs
2. Set a policy to ignore the availability of prostitution jobs when determining unemployment benefits
3. Illegalize prostitution completely

As far as I can tell, the impositions caused by solution 2 are a subset of the impositions caused by solution 3, which makes solution 2 preferable under the "minimize imposition" rule.

Bruce:

Anarchist? I probably sounded like a libertarian to you by seeming to promote the non-aggression principle that plays a key role in libertarian philosophy. In truth, I am actually closer to being a socialist. I reject libertarian philosophy because I see it as being more concerned with disowning problems rather than solving them. A libertarian can claim to not impose on others directly and not support a government that imposes, and therefore deny responsibility for any crime, poverty, disease, and starvation in society because "somebody else did it."

Effectively, libertarians are more concerned with freedom-on-paper than the actual freedom achieved by society. They remove government programs and regulations, sacrificing the freedom those things bring, to increase theoretical freedom.

To me, a free society is a society based on the idea of letting people choose their own roles in life rather than having their roles assigned to them. It's a pretty broad term.

Skeptic:

1. You are right that people typically just want what they can do with their freedom. But freedom to do something is a prerequisite to actually doing that thing. Or, to put it another way, before you can do X, there must be nothing stopping you from doing X. Minimizing imposition is a goal that works for everyone, and helps people achieve whatever they want to do with their lives.

2. Anyone could create an abstract concept and claim it is being harmed by certain actions. If there is true harm done, it can be related back to physical harm or imposition on free action. If not, there is no cause for "protecting" the concept with a law.