I agree that ultimately God delineates right and wrong, good and evil, etc.
The problem in bringing this into the public policy world is: who speaks for God? There are many, many clerics and other people who claim to speak for God. I tend to be very wary of them. I am very wary of any sort of ideologue. 'Well just go by the book', one might say. 20 different churches have 20 different (sometimes widely different) interpretations of the book, people within the same church have different interpretations of the book, plus other religions have their own books. It seems that most policy and national disputes aren't even in the realm of right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral--so much of this sort of discussion is academic.
Moreover, my real world observations and experiences have lead me to believe that in most disputes (personal, business, or national) you don't have one side wearing white hats and the other side wearing black hats; rather, all sides are usually wearing varying shades of grey.* That's what I've seen.
Agree on the freedom of speech, press, association, Bill of Rights stuff. Of course, with that you'll get lots of 'good speech' and lots of 'bad speech' in the public arena (which is good and which is bad depends in significant part on the perspective of the listener). But allowing all speech is an effective way of sorting out the better ideas from the dumb ideas.
*each side may think they're wearing white hats and the other side is wearing black hats, but they're usually both wearing some shade of grey.
-
Agree x 2
Last edited: Apr 30, 2019