Christians Shouldn’t Legislate Morality (and other myths)

I recently read a blog that named this as a top reason for not caring about abortion issues in the coming election. The argument in greater details goes something like this…

“Christians, since the Garden of Eden, have had the right to choose poorly. We aren’t saying that there is no such thing as choosing poorly. We are simply saying that we do not favor legislating morality via the American political system. We may not all choose wisely, but we should defend the rights and freedoms of people to choose poorly.”

Rather than actually write some apologetics about abortion specifically (though I will use it as an example), let me start some conversation about why this logic has some huge holes in it and as Christians we need to consider examining the validity of dialog that makes us seem a bit naïve with regard to the issue of legislating morals.

Laws do not legislate the right to choose poorly. People always have the freedom to choose things that hurt themselves and others. Laws do not control people. At best, laws influence people. Another good question is, “What exactly do laws intend to do for society?”

There seem to be at least two modes for laws: directly rendering value-based judgments on certain activities and behaviors, and mitigating risk proactively with regard to perceived harm around certain activities and behavior.

Directly rendering value-based judgments on certain activities and behaviors.

Laws that render judgments on stealing, for example, fit into this category. Society is not on the fence about valuing the respect of personal property here in America. If you steal something, then you have broken a social agreement with regard to this moral / value-based legislation.

Mitigating risk proactively with regard to perceived harm around certain activities and behavior.

Laws about speed-limits fit into this category. Speed-limit laws do not pretend that going fast is a bad moral judgment. The law simply mitigates the risk of people creating harm that hurts human life by making a poor choice with regard to the speed of their vehicles within the context of other people, property or traffic. Again, this law isn’t pretending that speeding is morally wrong. It does pass a judgment that the risk is too high at a certain point to allow people the possibility of creating harm (a value judgment.)

So, laws are very much about a social contract on value judgments. Other laws fall into these two modes. Think about it: underage sex, consumption of alcohol as a minor, appropriate licensed driving ages, etc. Some fit into the category of a direct value judgment on the act, and other draw the line sooner to mitigate the risk associated with the possibly harmful outcomes of certain behavior.

Laws are a social contract based on value judgments that are a reflection of our morals. So, fundamentally laws do in fact come down to morals. Nearly by definition, laws legislate those morals based on our values. So legislating morals and values isn't really a Christian thing, so more specifically it isn't an issue of bad behavior from Christians.

If this is true (I am open to discussing this… please write comments) then it isn’t fair to imagine that one side of a debate (anti-abortion) is legislating morality in an unreasonable manner while the other side (pro-abortion) is morally agnostic. Both sides reflect morals based on our values. I don't see a way around it.

I have known plenty of people that defend their position on pro-abortion and they acknowledge that they want laws that defend their values. I have known people who also feel that they would prefer the laws defend their anti-abortion values. It is relatively new to imagine that one side of the argument is morally agnostic and without certain representative values. I am a little worried that Christians who are shopping this logic around in their conversations are, at best, making Christians seem a little naiive, or at worst, struggling to justify their position in support of abortion in the absense of other convincing arguments surrounding the issue, maybe?

In the up-coming election we can see two candidates that have voiced their desire to enact legislation that defends one side or the other of this particular issue on abortion. Both want to create laws. Neither is morally agnostic. Neither of them is without underlying supported value judgments. Either side requires considerable respectful examination to which your vote draws us into movement toward their social and political end.

End note: I think that the issue is very polar at the moment (the abortion issue) and people typically fall into a number of categories (including not supporting abortion as a means of reversing a pregnancy as an elective surgery, but supporting it as an act of saving a would-be-mothers life) well beyond the pro and anti categories. As a result I think we need to be tollerant of people who don't agree with our perspectives. I am defining tollerance as a willingness to co-exist in a kind and friendly manner with people whos morals or values you don't come into agreement with on this or other issues. I don't define tollerance as thinking that all opinions are equal OR that all opinions are valuable OR that all opinions are right or lack right-ness or wrong-ness. I think that regardless of why we morally feel and value, we shouldn't let our position turn us into people who treat people in detestible ways.

Upsetting the applecart specifically on the political abortion issue: I have heard people saying that the abortion issue is nearly a moot point since the president’s only real power in this area is appointing Supreme Court Judges. This is not true. Like I said, both sides are looking to implement legislation that won’t require any Supreme Court Justice appointments. Anyone who says it comes down to Supreme Court Justices is either ill-informed or deceiving you. My hope is that they are just not thinking this stuff through, rather than trying to deceive you.