The principles upon which the Government of this Nation have been based for centuries have been Christian principles. It is not unlikely that Muslim principles, since they are based upon the thoughts of Abraham, who is common to Judaism, Islam and Christianity, are essentially much the same as Christian principles. I should imagine that Hindu principles are also much the same, essentially, since all these principles are based upon what is generally known as ‘Natural Law’. The Ten Commandments are very much a statement of Natural Law.
It is clear from recent pronouncement in Parliament that politicians want an end to the connection of the State to Christian principles. Even some Ministers of the Church of England have said that certain principles of Sharia Law could be incorporated into English Common Law.
At the end of the French Revolution, decisions were taken in France (even though the people were Catholics) to separate the State from the Church. The result was that Church ‘regulations’ were no longer French Law.
The oddity of the Monarch in the United Kingdom being the Head of the Christian Church in England (the Church of England) needs to be addressed. It no longer (if it ever has) makes sense. But it also follows that, if the divorce were completed, politicians would no longer have any claim to morality. Their decisions would have no moral content, being entirely pragmatic. As far as politicians are concerned, there is no such thing as morality – there is only legality. Thus, Natural Law would also cease to exist. Thus, no one would need to have a conscience, since breaking the pragmatic laws of Parliament would be merely a legality.
I keep saying ‘would’. The reality is that we have already arrived there.
I personally obey my conscience. The laws of the State have no moral imperative. I shall break the State’s laws as and when I wish. They have no moral content – none whatsoever. It is also clear that Tobacco Control has no moral content whatsoever. Their appeals to “For the Children” ring hollow when you realise that the only reason for caring about children is a moral reason.
What this boils down to NOW, is that Irish Health Minister who wants to ban smoking in cars when children are present, has no moral justification. It is not his decision to enforce a morality which does not exist. His plans are a recipe for disaster – encouraging children to ‘shop’ their parents – encouraging social disintegration. How does he rationally justify these plans? Why do Irish MPs not call him out on this?
If we are going to act pragmatically, then the question must be asked about where children are most going to be exposed to tobacco smoke. Is it not obviously in the home? So why is he trying, first, to make it illegal to smoke in cars when that is not the place where children are most exposed?
The only word that describes him adequately is GESTAPO.
14/01/2013 at 07:06
” So why is he trying, first, to make it illegal to smoke in cars when that is not the place where children are most exposed?”
And of course, as we know, it’s because he couldn’t get away with banning it in homes yet. They need the stepping stone, the camel’s nose inside the tent, before they can proceed.
Good and interesting thoughts on the Church/State “Natural Law” thing. Morality doesn’t have to be religiously based: e.g. we can pretty much all agree that it’s not “right” to randomly kill strangers just for fun, or that it’s not “right” to walk into someone’s home and steal things that they own. But there are gray areas out there too: killing people in wartime (particularly as “collateral damage”), killing “unborn babies” (which a lot of people see nothing wrong with since they don’t recognize zygotes and fetuses as being “babies”), or allowing governments to walk into your homes and steal from you to take money for themselves or supposedly redistribute it to the less fortunate (or, in some cases at least, the lazier.) Is stoning adulteresses wrong? How about making them wear a Scarlet Letter? Or dunking them as witches until they drown? Should people be allowed to make a profit selling alcohol, tobacco, pot, heroin, or even chocolate to 13, 16, 18, or 23 year old children? Or give them guns to help defend their God and Country? Are circumcisions OK because babies cry all the time anyway? How about clitorectomies? If one spouse stays home and cleans house and makes nice meals and raises the children (whether adopted or not) while the other goes out and builds a career … should they have any legal recourse/claims if the working spouse suddenly decides they want to end the relationship and get a divorce … even if the other spouse is of the same sex?
There’s a good reason for people to live in separate cultures to some degree. Yeah, it would be NICE if we all agreed that a single set of moral laws applied everywhere to everyone, but we don’t. So what’s the alternative? Killing each other until only one set survives? Putting up with our neighbors doing “terribly nasty immoral things” that we don’t approve of? Or maybe accepting that when our beliefs are different enough from those of other groups of people that it sometimes makes sense for us to live somewhat separately and just try to get along nonviolently in those intersecting areas where we have to interact?
- MJM
14/01/2013 at 13:41
And of course, as we know, it’s because he couldn’t get away with banning it in homes yet. They need the stepping stone, the camel’s nose inside the tent, before they can proceed.
Which shows clearly enough that the health of children is a secondary consideration or even just an excuse. The real intention is to stop people smoking ‘where they typically smoke’. In the Irish case (as with most others), the objective is to get legislation enacted. The consequences are not really relevant.
14/01/2013 at 13:03
Bang on the money, J, the ‘State’ has clearly lost the plot. Why should we allow ourselves to be dictated to by a bunch of compromised psychopaths or sociopaths, who themselves are living tax-free and ‘above the law’.
14/01/2013 at 13:44
Our political system stinks.
14/01/2013 at 18:21
Has “natural law” and common sense not been replaced by the law of eugenics?
It is clear from recent pronouncement in Parliament that politicians want an end to the connection of the State to Christian principles. Even some Ministers of the Church of England have said that certain principles of Sharia Law could be incorporated into English Common Law.
Perhaps Ministers of the Church need to remember that we are a society based on CHRISTIAN principles which has no time for Sharia Law.
I have no problem with my muslim fellow citizen, yet it is a christian country and I would expect that they abide the existing law – after all, I am expected to abide by the in muslim countries existing laws should I travel there.
What this boils down to NOW, is that Irish Health Minister who wants to ban smoking in cars when children are present, has no moral justification. It is not his decision to enforce a morality which does not exist. His plans are a recipe for disaster – encouraging children to ‘shop’ their parents – encouraging social disintegration. How does he rationally justify these plans? Why do Irish MPs not call him out on this?
This just proves the immorality of the anti-smokers. They are obsessed with eradicating smoking; if social disintegration is a means to this it will be good enough for them.
Sometimes I do ask myself: who needs a third world war when world wide you CAN manipulate children so easily to attack their parents?
15/01/2013 at 01:30
Nothing will change, Beo, until these people are recognised for what they are – psychopaths. If you look at what they have been saying over the last decade or longer, you seen a progressive deterioration in the mental state of Tobacco Control Activists (as a group). A few have managed to break out, like Michael Seigel and Martin Dockerell – former top man in ASH, but most are deteriorating further and further into delirium.
It is a collective thing.