X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 09:39:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

>From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU

>>In the case of adoption, though, we're not dealing with adults.  We are dealin
   g
>>with children, and I feel that the state (as the child's "parent") has the
>>responsibility to safeguard the child's moral development, which requires the
>>state to adopt the moral position of the community.  As far as I'm concerned,
>>Biblical "revealed" truth is good enough since it has some written, concrete
>>basis.

>Um, on what basis do you say that the state has a responsibility to
>safeguard a child's moral development?  Even the Republicans admit this is
>the responsibility of the parents :)  Seriously -- I've heard of the state
>safeguarding physical, mental, and emotional well-being, but never moral
>development.

First of all, I'm only talking about children up for adoption.  Until they are
put in a home, the state functions as the child's parent because the child has
no other family.  Since the state is the child's "parent" in this case, the
state must accept the duties of a "real" parent, which includes protecting the
kid's moral development (which seems like a reasonable responsibility for
parents to have).  I am NOT talking about regular kids who are already part of
a household; the state has no jurisdiction in these areas whatsoever, which
means that the state cannot take Carolyn's child away from her even though the
population may consider her lifestyle immoral.  Its her kid and she can raise
it as she chooses (except for abuse, etc, but that doesn't apply here).

>But let's say for a moment you're right, and the state will follow the
>moral code (or whatever you call it) of the local community.  Correct me if
>I'm wrong here, but you'd go along with separate laws for adoption,
>marriage, etc., in different communities -- at least potentially, right?

Sure.  As long as the state (meaning gov't entity, not Indiana necessarily) is
going to be involved, we should make these intensely community-based policies
the level as close to the community as possible, meaning the state or local
level.  This is the same argument for applying federalism in other cases
(abortion) as well.

>Am I reading you correctly when you say that
>the only revealed truth that can be used for political decision making is
>Christianity?  Because a majority of U.S. citizens claim to be Christians?
>So if, for example, a majority of U.S. citizens were Muslim, we could use
>the Koran for political decision making?

Revealed truth is fine when it is adopted by a majority of the community.  If
there were a muslim community in this country, I suppose they could use the
Koran as a moral code in cases where it is appropriate to appeal to such a
code.  As I said before, though, there are very few cases where such an appeal
is appropriate, regardless of which code you're using.

>This is where I run into problems.  Sigh.  See, you can have whatever
>legitimate moral code you want.  We probably even agree on some of its
>elements.  But the way I was taught, the first amendment prohibits you (and
>me, for that matter) from basing political decisions on religion.

The 1st amendment prevents the state from establishing a church and it prevents
the state from interfering with your religious practices.  It doesn't say that
we can't use religion as a moral code when we have to appeal to such a code.

For instance, I can think of no good non-religious reason why we should condemn
prostitution.  Obviously, the only reason why prostitutes can't adopt is that
policymakers appealed to religion as a moral code.  Would you support
overturning such a policy on 1st amendment grounds, since it drags religious
values into politics?

I'm not posing this as an argument; I just want to see how you interpret the
first amendment. :)

>Additionally, I was taught that our current political system is supposed to
>protect the rights of minorities in the face of the potential tyranny of
>the majority (I think I'm repeating myself here).  So the fact that 50+
>percent of U.S. citizens call themselves Christians has no *legal* bearing
>on the issue.

Again, I don't think that homosexuality should be illegal; the state ought not
to arrest someone for homosexual acts.  However, the state CAN prevent gays
from adopting kids since the state must protect the child's moral well-being.

>Kerry
>who is maybe going to go off someplace and hunger and thirst for
>righteousness' sake . . .

May you be filled. :)

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)