I assume you mean that revoking anti-sodomy laws would not have passed previously, and you are probably right. But that doesn't mean it was wrong for those laws to be revoked by the courts. What is that saying about 2 wolves and a sheep? Democracy doesn't always ensure liberty.

Perhaps not, but government NEVER does. It ahs been suggested abot slavery that it was not required that we fight a civil war over it; that it would have ended in a few years, anyway, and that change would ahve been driven by the culture, as oppsoed to being imposed by the government... and as a result of THAT change, we'd not have had the following 100 plus years of racial upheaval.

Well, work the same formulae as regards your question and you'll come to the same conclusion.

Well no, it's not the government's job to enforce cultural norms. Our constitution puts more importance on liberty than morality, such that when a conflict arises between the two, the one path ensures liberty should be favored.

Again, study the passage:

If we understand (as I have argued for years) that the purpose of government is to codify and enforce the values of the culture that gave it life....

I'm not so sure it did, obviously the culture was already moving in that direction

No. Small sections of the culture... less than 1%, decided to use the activist court system against the culture itself. The majority were forced by law and government into compliance. Having been so conditioned in the matter by law enforcement, they're nor more prone to feigning approval of it.

I'm not sure the government even has the power to change our culture.

Oh, but there are so many examkes if it happening. Since I've already mentioned slavery one example hat races to mind is the Emancipation proclamaition.

Take the communists, anywhere you'd care to name... cuba, the USSR, NORK, China, wherever. Think there wasn't cultural change invoked by the power of governmet in those situations?

A look at the overnments of Mugabe, Chavez, etc, come to mind as well. The cultures have essentially been disabled or destroyed, in those cases.

Undertsand the line I'm drawing, here; Would a vote on the matter pass now? Quite possibly. Would it have done so prior to the courts deciding the matter for us years ago and since? I tend to doubt it.

I assume you mean that revoking anti-sodomy laws would not have passed previously, and you are probably right. But that doesn't mean it was wrong for those laws to be revoked by the courts. What is that saying about 2 wolves and a sheep? Democracy doesn't always ensure liberty.

What I'm suggesting is that the government over-rode the culture in that case, that it stepped outside its appointed role, in that case

Well no, it's not the government's job to enforce cultural norms. Our constitution puts more importance on liberty than morality, such that when a conflict arises between the two, the one path ensures liberty should be favored. I believe that, in the case of anti-sodomy laws, the government did what it was supposed to do.

and therein lies the difference between our estimates of the hypothetical voting then and now.... the culture was changed by it's government.

I'm not so sure it did, obviously the culture was already moving in that direction, or the validity of the anti-sodomy laws would not have been questioned. And the repeal of those law did not immediately make the act acceptable in the culture. Rather the government making it legal added credibility to the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture.

That's a bad thing for two reasons; Transformation is invariably a more positive thing than change.

Like I argued above, the government's acceptance of homosexuality was a necessary part of the transformation that was already taking place.

I will dare to suggest to you that the rights we've become used to in this country and in this culture are the greatest collection of human rights put together in one culture in one country in the history of man.

I would agree with you too.

The recognition of those rights is the result of the values of the culture. But, what happens to rights, even down to the very concept of them, when the culture responsible for recognition of those rights gets arbitrarily changed by the power of government? Government, and not the culture, beocmes the arbitor of rights. And we know where that leads.

I'm not sure the government even has the power to change our culture.

True enough, though I don't think a majority of Americans would vote for reinstating anti-sodomy laws, do you? Homosexuality has become an accepted part of our culture, only the aspect of marriage has been held back.

Well, that's not the point I'm making, here. I was not attempting to judge the value of the laws, or acceptance, or of homosexual behavior. I do have some opinions in the matter, but they're not even on the radar of the point I'm making.

Undertsand the line I'm drawing, here; Would a vote on the matter pass now? Quite possibly. Would it have done so prior to the courts deciding the matter for us years ago and since? I tend to doubt it.

What I'm suggesting is that the government over-rode the culture in that case, that it stepped outside its appointed role, in that case, and therein lies the difference between our estimates of the hypothetical voting then and now.... the culture was changed by it's government.
That's a bad thing for two reasons; Transformation is invariably a more positive thing than change.
When the external force... in this case, the force of government, is removed or altered, the cultural element that got forced into change invariably goes back to it's original, culturally driven form.

Put another way, one can force people to obey laws... but changing minds is a lot harder.

Finally, there's a lot in the way of pitfalls over issues of rights in what we're discussing. I will dare to suggest to you that the rights we've become used to in this country and in this culture are the greatest collection of human rights put together in one culture in one country in the history of man. The recognition of those rights is the result of the values of the culture. But, what happens to rights, even down to the very concept of them, when the culture responsible for recognition of those rights gets arbitrarily changed by the power of government? Government, and not the culture, beocmes the arbitor of rights. And we know where that leads.

That's just a scratch of the surface of this thing, but it's a start.

Actually, that, too, is a questionable statement. Laws barring such activity were in large part overturned by the courts, not by the people.

True enough, though I don't think a majority of Americans would vote for reinstating anti-sodomy laws, do you? Homosexuality has become an accepted part of our culture, only the aspect of marriage has been held back.

I think that is mostly because marriages are, by and large, a religious construct that the government has build laws on top of. Probably most people would be accepting of a "civil union" type of legal arrangement recognized by the government for legal purposes, with marriage being a separate, not government-regulated, institution.

And look Legion, I said at the off that there's a lot of trap doors in this thing. But that admission, of itself is suggestive that the two subjects can never be fully disconnected.

I wonder though, how much of this discussion is driven by an emotional need for self-justification? Consider that even in the most religious of the times of this culture's history, the atheist (agnostic, what have you) has never been excluded from society.

Is recognizing that the vast majority see a connection between morality and religion, of itself exclusionary? I don't think so.

Understand me clearly; I have always held that the culture is supposed to drive the government, not the reverse. On that basis, I see the government pushing a discnnect between reigion and morality to BE that reverse... to BE the government attempting to alter the culture by seperating it, in fairly subtle fashion, from it's religious values. I see that tampering as dangerous to the continuance of that culture.

I agree with the first part, but it's the rest that concerns me (in a general sense). While I have a deep respect for religion in general, I don't believe it's a _necessity_ for one to have a viable social & moral center - I believe atheists have just as much chance (and right) to be a good (or bad) citizen as anyone else.

Which is why I chose the wording I did as regards the extent to which the religion pervades the culture. I do not suggest religion the exclusive path, but state that in majority, that it is the way the culture in majority arrived there.

The rest follows.

But from that same viewpoint I gather that part of your discomfort is the influence of religion on our law, by way of it's influence on our morality. You're concerned about us slipping into mandating religion. It's a worthy concern, but not needed, in reality, I think.

And in this, Bithead, you are correct. I freely admit your statements were not so sweeping or generalized, but I have seen this kind of discussion go "there" so many times (both on the net and IRL) that it tends to set off red flags very early on.

IMV, politics, and the governments and laws resulting from politics are ideally supposed to be reflections of our deepest values, and both the cultural and a personal level. So, too, is religion linked. That’s because religion, is supposed to be DRIVING our deepest values.

I agree with the first part, but it's the rest that concerns me (in a general sense). While I have a deep respect for religion in general, I don't believe it's a _necessity_ for one to have a viable social & moral center - I believe atheists have just as much chance (and right) to be a good (or bad) citizen as anyone else. Unlike nutjobs like this.

In that sense, it can hardly be argued, even from a secular POV that the pope is not a cultural icon.. which is why while I understand James' confusion in Bush's welcome of the Pope, I don't share it.

And on this I also agree with you - the Pope has pretty much always been given something of a 'rockstar' treatment when he travels - at least as far back as I can remember, and I still recall the unfortunate swath of bodies that preceded JP2...

I didn't specify gay marriage for exactly that reason.

But is, in the end, what you're driving at, no?

But, we as a culture are mostly accepting of the _act_ of homosexuality being practiced among consenting adults.

Actually, that, too, is a questionable statement. Laws barring such activity were in large part overturned by the courts, not by the people.

Your tone on this posting caught me a little off guard as it seemed unduly and uncharacteristically harsh. What gives?

I'm both 1) criticizing Bush and 2) wondering what gives with the rock star treatment of the pope vis-a-vis other religious leaders. I don't fault the pope for being Catholic, as it were.

I don't mind the lighting of Christmas trees, wishes for God to bless America, and the like, which I consider simply part and parcel of the culture. I do, however, resent when political leaders, in their capacity as office holders rather than candidates, equate morality and religion. That comes mighty close to Establishment for my tastes.

That would seem to argue that the majority within the culture support that more tollerant POV.

However, the test has never been made. IE; at what point has the question been put to a national vote? Instead, the solution to the question has been imposed on us by the courts and by secondarily by legislatures, both of which who acted with less than the full support of the people.

I didn't specify gay marriage for exactly that reason.

However, most religious establishments in this country still view the _act_ of homosexuality as wrong, amoral, and sinful. But, we as a culture are mostly accepting of the _act_ of homosexuality being practiced among consenting adults. So, on the issue of anti-sodomy laws, the religious teachings and cultural opinions are likely to be quite different.

But what should happen when the culture and the religion take different paths? For example, on the issue of homosexuality where the culture is largely accepting, but religion is not. Which set of values, then, should our laws respect?

That would seem to argue that the majority within the culture support that more tollerant POV.

However, the test has never been made. IE; at what point has the question been put to a national vote? Instead, the solution to the question has been imposed on us by the courts and by secondarily by legislatures, both of which who acted with less than the full support of the people.

This is not mandating religion; it is simply reacting to, and holding respect for the culture, as government should; this is the proper relationship.

But what should happen when the culture and the religion take different paths? For example, on the issue of homosexuality where the culture is largely accepting, but religion is not. Which set of values, then, should our laws respect?