re: #215 Occasional Reader

I do wonder if a lot of rank and file SoCons (not Ralph Reed et al) wouldn’t be amenable to a sort of “grand bargain”; “you stop trying to impose a religous agenda through legislation, we’ll make sure that you are left alone to the greatest extent possible to live in accordance with your beliefs.”

Are you suggesting that SoCons stop trying to get their values included in law while everyone else’s values are?

To me, the only thing clouding this “legislating morality” issue is choosing whose morality gets legislated.

I believe as an attorney (at least by training?) you would know that values such as fairness, degrees of crimes such as murder, lying as a crime in specific cases are all embodied in law and, for the most part, no one complains about these. But if someone who is religious suggests his value be legislated, the howling begins.

Doesn’t this seem a little lopsided? Shouldn’t the values embodied in law be debated and selected by a majority of legislatures not precluding input from certain groups?

I have a feeling this will be an unpopular post, but I’d like to hear the opposing arguments.