Indeed, you could bake your noodle for close to an eternity — mine's been roasting in a metaphorical oven for quite some time now, but thanks to Dory, it will not be as overcooked as it could have been — contemplating the semantic implementation of the concept of "harm," when it has no universal definition. I will stop doing that now, just like I ceased to use the expression "victimless crime" some time ago (note to self to re-word The Question).
The problem with the "harm" approach was in my attempt to define the philosophical concept of sin for the purpose of separating it from the civil definition of crime when the weakness of my mortal flesh makes me unfit to judge what is and is not sin (sometimes my pride makes it difficult for me to live by the Scriptures in Matthew 7:1-5). The limitation of humanity requires that the extra layer of complexity — attempting to define sin — be stripped away so that crime can be defined as those acts and behaviors that encroach upon the civil and human rights of others.
What Authority?
Of course there will be numerous objections to that frighteningly simple and unambiguous definition of crime and the severe limits it places upon the government's authority over the actions and behaviors of the people. However, the American government was not intended to be an authority over the actions and behaviors of the people, but rather the keeper, protector and defender of the rights of the people. Because we hold the truth "that all men are created equal," to be self-evident, no man has authority over another. We are obliged to protect and defend the rights of our fellow man and that is not possible when we presume to have authority over his free will.
The standard we have for the purpose of securing, guaranteeing, protecting and defending our civil and human rights is a fittingly brief — and brilliant — document that strikes the balance between a government that is big enough to protect the rights of the people while limiting its authority so as to not infringe upon them itself. It is our Constitution, the source of our government's ethics, which outlines government's obligations to the people, not its authority over them.
Since the duty of government is to secure, guarantee, protect and defend our civil and human rights, the government cannot (should not) have authority over our morals. Morality is conscience and conscience originates from within each of us as an essential part of our God-given free will. Therefore, the government has no authority to prosecute people for certain actions and behaviors that might be sinful but do not encroach upon the civil and human rights of others.
Article comments
1 - sydney
Wow, that was a pretty good read Margaret. Some of the discussion helped me to understand a little more about my own relationship with Christianity. I’ll be commenting on the whole series of articles exchanged between you and Dory, as I read them all together.
What is impressive about your reasoning is that it allows that the both of us have vastly different interpretations of the same religion without one of us being un-Christian. Of course, I always new this to be true, intuitively, but I've never heard a Christian say that our own sense of morality should be informed by our own understanding of Christianity, rather than enforced by someone else’s interpretation of Christianity.
Along these same lines, I appreciate your explanation of how government should not have the authority to set up civil laws preventing sin. Indeed this strips us of our free will and does nothing to foster ethical reasoning. Rather they should only have the right to set civil laws that protect others from harm. Again, this seems like obvious stuff when you read it, but I haven't heard it put to me that way before.
However I do agree, to some extent, with Dory’s suggestion that there will always be ambiguities when trying to determine real “harm”. This is inevitable (and you may have conceded this point). However, Dory uses this as an excuse for imposing a Christian dogma as a means of resolving these ambiguities (as if it wouldn’t just give rise to more…we’ve already established that Christians differ in their interpretations of Christian dogma).
Moreover, Dory continually refers to God’s word as a “transcendent authority”. She is seemingly incapable of seeing that what she calls a “transcendent authority” is “oppressive man-made bullshit” to the next guy. What gives Christians the right to decide what is a transcendent authority and what isn’t? Clearly, Dory is proposing here a full merger between church and state. Of course, she says it isn’t because she says everyone would be happy and people of varying religions would still be able to practice. Really…this is weak stuff.
So how do we solve these ambiguities surrounding the definition of “harm”? Well I think we have been trying to do it by showing our reasoning; clear ethical reasoning that is free of religious dogma. There will still be debate, and some people will inevitably disagree but at least we have the ability to counter with further reasoning, and in the end we hope that we convince others. Years down the road, our opinions might change on the matter and we can redefine what harm entails in that specific context. But at least we aren’t tide to an unalterable, permanent law that provides no justification other than it came from a “transcendent authority”.
Lastly, I think Dory’s writing revealed her to be really afraid of the prospect of a world with out Christianity. She seems preoccupied with this notion that evil is spreading in the world, and that it could be a better place if we just let Christianity to take hold. It’s a really simplistic view in my opinion and its one that smacks of narrow perspective. She really doesn’t think much of people who aren’t Christian, does she? Does she think man is inherently evil? She needs to start looking at the world in a more realistic and sometimes, positive light. One of the tactics I disliked in my Christian upbringing was this use of fear to underscore the importance of Christianity. It’s really self-righteous in nature.
2 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I did concede that the definition of "harm" is too broad and subjective to be of any use in determining what is and is not crime.
In a free society, crime should be defined narrowly and objectively as those actions and behaviors that encroach upon the civil and human rights of others.
Of course that definition of crime is so narrow and plainly objective as to be too minimalist for most peoples' comfort. And therein lies the basis of so-called "culture wars," in which the state really should not be involved but is due to the ambitions and tactics of politicians who benefit when church and state are confused with one another. But what can you do about that without violating the First Amendment rights of said politicians and their supporters?
I don't think that this is a case of people being afraid of the prospect of a world without Christianity, but rather an America in which Christianity has no greater political clout than any other religion/church.
There are quite a few Christians out there who feel oppressed by Christianity's court-ordered demotion from its former lofty status to that of being considered merely equal to every other church/religious faith in the eyes of the state (especially the idea of being on equal footing with atheists).
This is a quite natural manifestation of human nature. We need to feel in control of our world and our destiny. If we are optimistic, we believe that man is inherently good and we have faith in his conscience and our own. The optimistic among us realize that our civilization is in its ascendency and rely on our faith to see us through times of doubt.
Pessimists tend to believe that man is inherently evil and that he needs a stick held over his head to make him behave. Such people practically embrace the notion that our civilization is in decline and that authoritarianism is the only way to save it, which is indicative of a crisis of faith that is causing them to look to the state, rather than to God, for salvation.
3 - sydney
Agreed, but I think there is something to the fact that this country was founded on Christian principles, as was all of the western world, and now that it's changing people are becoming nervous. Or at least the Christian fundamentalists seem to be.
4 - Margaret Romao Toigo
The prospect of eventually realizing the promise of true freedom in which we all must take full responsibility for our free will is frightening to most people, not just those few fundamentalists who are doing all the loud complaining about society's so-called "decline."
Our Christian principles have not really changed (how could they have?), we've just recognized that we have more liberty today than we did in the past -- and that's what's making the fundamentalists nervous.
Sure, they put it in terms of our society and culture losing its moral center (or similar words to that effect), but its really about their own crisis of faith more than anything.
Government is made up of mortal humans who are elected by other mortal humans, therefore government changes and evolves and so do society's rules, especially in a progressive culture such as ours.
But God is great and everlasting, so why look to government for moral leadership at all if your faith in God is strong enough to inspire you to resist the temptation that comes along with living in a free society?
What did they expect would be the eventual result of violating the first (and maybe even the second) of God's 10 Holy Commandments by looking to the Earthly institution of human government for deliverance?