Letter to the Editor
Dear Sir,
Upon reading your editorial “Be careful what you wish for” in the Compass on 1 March, I found the following words, “… attempts to legislate morality invariably fail miserably”. Then in the conclusion are the words: “We believe that the government should repeal the section of the law that bans radio advertising of alcohol beverages.”
In light of these statements, it seems that this editor fails to see that all our laws concerning rape, murder, spouse abuse, child abuse, theft, ganja and talking on the cell phone while driving are laws, the goal of which is to regulate morality (good conduct). Therefore, to be consistent in your conduct, the next editorial must call on the government to repeal all laws that are designed to promote good conduct, for they all “invariably fail miserably”, to use your words. Or, would you rather be inconsistent?
Maybe you forgot that the statement “you cannot legislate morality” was a cliché of those who desired no laws regarding their own morality. But as they grew in maturity, they demanded more laws to regulate the morality of those who would prey upon their own children. Maybe you just forgot that this cliché has “failed miserably”. Please realise that all laws are designed legislate morality. The laws are not bad. The problem is with us.
Jim Barron
Editor’s note: We are going to respond to this reader’s letter because almost everything he has said in it is wrong – including the address to our editor as ‘sir’. The editor of the Compass is Tammie C. Chisholm, who is, in fact, a woman.
The writer entirely confuses “legislating morality” with legislation designed to protect the physical wellbeing of individuals. This is generally summed up as “your right to throw a punch ends at the other person’s face”. Rape, murder, child abuse, domestic violence and the like are all serious offences committed against another person. Drinking alcohol is not illegal if one is of proper age. Advertising alcohol in the pages of a newspaper is not illegal and cannot possibly constitute a violent offence against another individual. Comparing advertising that sells alcoholic products which is legal to crimes that include rape, murder and spousal abuse is, frankly, utter nonsense.
Related Videos
Comparing advertising that sells alcoholic products which is legal to crimes that include rape, murder and spousal abuse is, frankly, utter nonsense.
Not only is it utter nonsense…it is also a dangerous concept of mind control based on guilt complexes that are enforced by the concept of the law being perfect, which we all know, is not the case.
This writer has presented such a failed and flawed argument here that any good 6th or 7th grade student could debate away in their sleep.
He completely fails to address the power of choice, with which every individual was born…he also fails to mention that many of the laws that are legislated are made for the purpose of commercial opportunity and regulation…and has nothing to do with the concept of morality.
Authoritarian regimes and beliefs, such as Soviet and Chinese communism, both which are political as well as economic systems tried to foist his ideas upon an enlightened world, and both failed miserably.
Fanatical religious concepts and beliefs and the organizations that follow them also try, continually, to force these beliefs on their followers too…as well as convert others to their corrupt way of thinking, sometimes with more success.
At the end of the day, human beings were created with a brain, a mind…and a conscience and…
While laws are, for the better part, created for the regulation and discipline of human behaviour, any unecessary law that has been created solely for the power of control over human beings and robs a person of their power of choice is…
Is WRONG.
The writer uses some bad examples of laws that legislate morality per se, but he still has a valid point. Many of our laws are based upon moral objections, e.g. laws against incest, gambling and pornography. The point isn’t to encroach on personal freedoms but to protect society as a whole.
Hmm… It seems both writer and Editor could benefit from brushing up on Locke’s Two Treatises of Government.