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.