Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible?

Rating:
Summary: Timely, Straight forward, Imperative
Review: Clearly a book that demanded to be written. That now demands to be read.. "Legislating Morality" is obviously timely, dealing with the importance of our country's current moral crises It is Straight forward, presenting all the reasons for and the excuses against insisting on the legislation of the common moral code. It is imperative...a tool of understanding and debate necessary for the protection of our society.

Rating:
Summary: Fundamentally Flawed
Review: Geisler and Turek attempt to justify Christian elitism, arguing for a paternalistic government (pgs. 35-6 and 208 mirror the government�s societal role with that of a parent) that enforces a supposedly objective �Moral Law.� The authors begin by defending the �right� of governments to promote religion with taxpayer funds and resources, arguing that it�s constitutional for government to promote religion, just not any particular denomination (of Christianity). One must wonder if this applies to Hindu or Buddhism, or whether the authors would be comfortable with school-led Muslim prayers (myself a Christian, I would not) so long as �the schools did not compel students who objected to join in the prayer (p.88).� The authors fail to draw a key distinction: there is nothing wrong with religious activity, but there is something terribly wrong with forcing others to support that activity.

When, in ch.8, the authors finally explain how the �Moral Law� determines right or wrong, it turns out the �objective� Moral Law works on an �I know it when I see it (p.121)� basis. The authors concede that there is no test to determine whether something is right or wrong, but that each of us has a �factory-installed Baloney Meter� that conclusively tells us what is right. Not only is this standard not objective, it could not be more subjective since reality presents us with a world in which reasonable people disagree and individuals, even in Christian circles, often have widely differing interpretations of conventional morality. Armed with this �Moral Law,� a purely subjective point of reference, government should have free reign to do whatever it feels is �good� for society. Once this has begun, there is no stopping point: should government force people to eat healthy and exercise? Outlaw contact sports such as football and boxing because it is merely consensual assault? Censor ideas and opinions because they set off somebody�s �baloney meter?� Out the window goes our freedom, in comes the totalitarian regime of the Christian elite (or whoever else gains power) (the authors do warn against �over legislating� morality, but just as the �Moral Law,� such extremes are not defined by any objective standard).

Free countries govern themselves by enforcing and protecting private property rights and recognizing the fundamental principle of self-ownership: this is the objective standard by which we should determine whether the use of force is justified. If somebody is offended by the church I attend, the fast food I eat, or the excessive hours I work, tough. Nobody has a right not to be offended. Murder, rape, child abuse, and the other violent crimes mentioned in this book (including abortion), however, involve someone violating the individual rights of another, and the distinction is painfully clear. Why? Because there is a truly objective standard, a standard apart from ourselves and our opinions, by which to judge: private property rights.

The often frustrating reality of freedom is that some people may choose to do things with their freedom to which I am opposed, things that I firmly believe are immoral and even harmful to the individual. But nobody has the right to initiate force against someone else, including me. In Geisler and Turek�s world, there is no room for saying �I disagree with what you�re doing, but I respect your right to do it.� Many Christians, as evidenced by this book, are unable to accept this necessary condition of freedom.

Rating:
Summary: Book Debunks Separation of Church and State
Review: Many Christians have foolishly bought into public school arguments about separation of church and state. This book goes back to all the court decisions which were made over the last 100 years which led to this common idea we hear today. The book clearly shows that Jefferson never intended separation of church and state the way it is being taken out of context today. I was shocked to find that it isn't even mentioned in the Constitution and am surprised so many Christians have bought into this. I now see that it is "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." This part to me is the most helpful part of the book. This book will help you not feel like you are somehow "inflicting your religion on someone else" and that all laws are in essence, a legislation of someone's morality.

The book also does an excellent job of tackling issues such as homosexuality, euthenasia, and abortion. The thing I like best about the book, though, is that it shows that the government still has a right to make moral laws. It is not a matter of whether moral laws will be made, it is just a matter of whose morals. I won't say I agree with 100% of what is in this book, but the book is very helpful with debate, especially for those who claim you are forcing your religion on them.

Rating:
Summary: Book Debunks Separation of Church and State
Review: Many Christians have foolishly bought into public school arguments about separation of church and state. This book goes back to all the court decisions which were made over the last 100 years which led to this common idea we hear today. The book clearly shows that Jefferson never intended separation of church and state the way it is being taken out of context today. I was shocked to find that it isn't even mentioned in the Constitution and am surprised so many Christians have bought into this. I now see that it is "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." This part to me is the most helpful part of the book. This book will help you not feel like you are somehow "inflicting your religion on someone else" and that all laws are in essence, a legislation of someone's morality.

The book also does an excellent job of tackling issues such as homosexuality, euthenasia, and abortion. The thing I like best about the book, though, is that it shows that the government still has a right to make moral laws. It is not a matter of whether moral laws will be made, it is just a matter of whose morals. I won't say I agree with 100% of what is in this book, but the book is very helpful with debate, especially for those who claim you are forcing your religion on them.

Rating:
Summary: Objective Morality Is a Must
Review: This book is an excellent book, not perfect, but it makes a lot of good arguments. Before I go on, I must address the person who criticized Paul Cameron's study which is used. That is backed up in the footnotes in the back of the book with another study, one that has not been disputed. The authors are aware of the claims against Cameron. Now, back to the book. This book has some excellent thoughts about the history of the 1st amendment, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and what the founding fathers actually intended. The book also does a good job showing how liberal activist judges have reinterpreted the constitution. They also make a decent case that all laws are moral laws and that the government has to legislate morality. Sometimes they ask a question and get on a side topic before answering it, or half-answer it, but this book has convinced me that separation of church and state is a farce the way we use it today. The book is definitely worth getting, and helps answer church members who think they can't inflict their morals on others. They can to an extent.

Rating:
Summary: A must read for Christian and conservatives
Review: This book is an excellent tool for those of us Christians and conservatives debating these issues with relativists and liberals..Norman Giesler who has been my hero in the faith does a great job along with Frank Turek in addressing the tough issues in our day and age that have brought our society to a modern day Sodom and Gomorah. I challenge liberals to read this book and really examine what it is you believe. The arguments are compelling and convincing. Dr Geisler has debated top athiests and humanists all over the world I think he has done his homework on the subject. EXCELLENT BOOK!!

Rating:
Summary: Every citizen should read this book
Review: This is the best book I have seen on this topic. Through a very concise and logical presentation, it answers objections from those who are opposed to legislating morality and those that question whether political activism is a proper focus of Christians. A brief history lesson helps put things in perspective. Legislating religion vs. legislating morality is also covered, as are short sections on specific moral issues like abortion and homosexuality. Appendixes include the Declaration of Independence and Amendments to the Constitution.

The book is clear, well-written and well-researched, as you would expect from Norman Geisler or Frank Turek. It is not dry. Every citizen, whether conservative or liberal, should read this book. Conservative Christians will be especially interested.

Rating:
Summary: Debunkers Beware! You've been debunked.
Review: Those who have insisted that morality can not and should not be written into the laws of nations, that, "you can't legislate morality", have had their argument thoroughly debunked by Geisler and Turek. This seminal work will no doubt become the standard for all those who argue that absolute moral laws are the logical and necessary outworking of any social order which hopes to maintain justice and equity as its most cherished value.

With airtight reasoning, the authors have shredded the popular myth that says, in effect, that all laws are neutral with respect to moral content. Any arguments to the contrary invariably wind up to be circular and cannot avoid resulting in a purley subjective, relativistic position.

I strongly commend this book to anyone who is serious about trying to make sense out of contempory culture's bent toward emasculating the essence of legislative action and substituting in its place utopian schemes based on the fatal conceit of homo mensura.