Legislating Morality

One of the questions I wrestled with when I had too many half-thoughts to blog about was whether or not a Christian should use their power to vote to try to enact laws according to their own moral code. This is a riddle I haven't solved yet, and I'm not sure which side of the argument I should try to present first. Let's start with the "pro" argument.

There are several reasons why Christians should enact laws according to their moral codes, the most important of which is probably that the soul of our nation depends on it. As Christians, we believe that certain blessings follow from keeping the commandments of God, and certain curses follow from disregarding them. Many people, not just Christians, are worried about the direction this nation is headed in. I think that that may be because we've drifted so far from our country's original ideals, and we are no longer as blessed as we were when the majority of Americans could say "God bless America" with a fervent belief that He would.

This reason is especially important for Latter-Day Saints, who believe that this land is a Promised Land which can only be inhabited by those who worship God. As a Latter-Day Saint, I fear that if we, as a nation, become too depraved, we will be removed from our place here, and a more righteous people will ultimately take our place.

As for the morality of voting to enact laws that match one's moral beliefs, it's only fair. I believe that each person must do what they think is right, and if that means voting for or against a measure that you believe is morally right or wrong, that, I believe, is what a person must do. The atheists are certainly doing it. Those who disagree with certain moral standpoints have been fighting fiercely against those who stand by their principles. I think that Christians should consider themselves free to fight back, legally, as long as they don't betray their conscience in doing so. I think that believers should be free to act according to their conscience, even if that means "discriminating" against certain groups of people. It may be rude for them to do so, and it'll certainly cost them some business, but it should be their right to do what they think is right.

Then again, a similar thing could be said in rebuttal. Though it may be considered a "sin" by certain other individuals, I think that, within certain limits, it should be a person's right to do what they think is alright. Who are we, as believers, to tell other people what they can or can't do? Who made us the "Moral Police"? What right do we have to force our principles on others?

This country was founded on the principle of freedom. If we claim the privilege of worshipping according to our own consciences, then we should extend that privilege to others as well. They, too, should be free to act according to their consciences.

In this, Latter-Day Saints can look to God as their exemplar. When He created the earth and placed us on it, He gave us each free reign over ourselves. We are all free to basically do whatever we want to do, and He won't do a thing to stop us. Yes, there will be consequences for misbehavior, and He frequently warns us of those consequences, but that's all He does - warn us. We are completely free to disregard those warnings.

How this analogy plays out in the political arena, I'm not entirely sure. Should we allow all people ultimate freedom to do whatever they want (including rape and murder each other), trusting that the eternal consequences, in which many people do not believe, will be enough of a deterrent to prevent such wrongdoing, or should we "play God" by enacting such laws as He has and meting out justice and punishment for disobedience, as He ultimately will? Both suggestions seem ridiculous and morally wrong to me. I would guess that the answer, as usual, lies somewhere between the two extremes.

But where, exactly, should we draw the line? Which moral laws should we enforce and which sins should we permit? I think that many of us agree that stealing, killing, and raping are wrong, so we'll find little opposition if we seek to establish and maintain moral laws against those sins, but what of hairier issues, like abortion? Balancing the sanctity of life against the freedom of choice is not a simple task, especially when even those who believe in the inherent value of human life don't always agree on exactly when that life begins.

On the question of we should legislate morality, the easy answer is that everyone should do what they think is right, but that's just the problem: I don't know what the right thing to do is. Should I enforce righteousness or allow freedom? Should I encourage virtue or condone sin? My problem is that it seems to me that what I do personally and politically should be different. Personally, I should warn everyone I know about the consequences of sin, as God would, but politically, I should allow all people to act according to their conscience, as God does.

However, I'm worried that, if I do that, there will be serious consequences for individuals, the country, and perhaps even for me. We are becoming an increasingly amoral and immoral society, and there are and will be consequences for that. And I don't want to have to stand before God and admit that I did nothing to fight against that trend. Then again, I don't want to "play God" or appoint myself as some kind of "moral police," either. I believe in freedom. But I also believe that I should do my duty to my country and the children I hope to have. I don't want to see America turn into a God-cursed cesspool of sin. But I don't want to dictate the tenets of religion, either. I am in a predicament. I hope I can sort this riddle out by the time I have to vote again.