Legislating Morality: anti Christianity

CNSNews: "Christian Defense Group Publishes ‘Top 10 Anti-Christian Acts of 2009’", by Matt Cover and Pete Winn

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) published a list of what it views as the 10 worst “anti-Christian acts” of 2009, including the murder of a pro-life protester, expansion of federal hate-crimes laws, and controversial presidential appointments. The list, culled from a poll taken by subscribers to the CADC’s Web site and listeners on its radio programs, chronicles what the group’s members think were the most anti-Christian stories from the previous year.

CADC President Dr. Gary Cass told CNSNews.com that the list reflects the frustrations Christians feel with their society and their government. That the expansion of federal hate crimes laws was the top vote-getter on the list, for example, reflected the fear Christians have that they might be targeted for teaching their faith’s traditional opposition to homosexual behavior, which Christianity holds to be sinful. (...) >>>

Jan. 14, 2010
~

Ludwig von Mises Institute: "Decline of the Rule of Law"

Political wisdom, dearly bought by the bitter experience of generations, is often lost through the gradual change in the meaning of the words which express its maxims. Though the phrases themselves may continue to receive lip service, they are slowly denuded of their original significance until they are dropped as empty and commonplace. Finally, an ideal for which people have passionately fought in the past falls into oblivion because it lacks a generally understood name.

If the history of politic-al concepts is in general of interest only to the specialist, in such situations there is often no other way of discovering what is happening in our time than to go back to the source in order to recover the original meaning of the debased verbal coin which we still use. Today this is certainly true of the conception of the Rule of Law which stood for the Englishman's ideal of liberty, but which seems now to have lost both its meaning and its appeal.

There can be little doubt about the source from which the Englishmen of the late Tudor and early Stuart period derived their new political ideal for which their sons fought in the 17th century; it was the rediscovery of the political philosophy of ancient Greece and Rome which, as Thomas Hobbes complained, inspired the new enthusiasm for liberty. (...)Isonomia, which appears in 1598 in John Florio's World of Wordes as an Italian word meaning "equalitie of lawes to all manner of persons," two years later, in its Englished form "isonomy," is already freely used by Philemon Holland in his translation of Livy to render the description of a state of equal laws for all and of responsibility of the magistrates. It continued to be used frequently throughout the 17th century, and "equality before the law," "government of law," and "rule of law," all seem to be later renderings of the concept earlier described by the Greek term.

The history of the word in ancient Greek is itself instructive. It was a very old term which had preceded demokratia as the name of a political ideal. To Herodotus it was "the most beautiful of all names" for a political order. The demand for equal laws for all which it expressed was originally aimed against tyranny, but later came to he accepted as a general principle from which the demand for democracy was derived. (...) >>>

Aug, 10, 2009
~

WSJ: "Spain Is Moving to Rein In Its Crusading Judges"

Spain is moving to rein in its investigative judges from trying alleged crimes against humanity from around the world, a role that has led to high-profile cases against the governments of the U.S., China, Israel and others. Under pressure from irate foreign governments, Spain's Congress on Tuesday passed a resolution to limit the jurisdiction of the crusading judges to cases in which there is a clear Spanish connection -- and no home-country investigation already under way.

The six investigating judges of Spain's National Court, employing the so-called principle of universal jurisdiction, are now handling 13 cases involving events that took place in other countries, from Rwanda to Iraq. (...) the investigations by the judges, who are independent from the executive and legislative branches, have become a growing headache for the Spanish government. The Chinese government warned Spain that bilateral relations could be damaged over the case regarding Tibet crackdowns. The Israeli government strongly criticized the investigation into its 2002 attack on a Hamas leader, which killed 14 other people. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the case "makes a mockery out of international law." (...) >>>

May 20, 2009
~

Politeia: "Wilders Fights Back ..."

(...) Mr Moszkowicz just explained, the move to skip the minor Courts is rarely used, and is justified given the general interest and portent of the matter, as was indeed true in the Bouterse case. He expects a verdict in 10 to 14 days (...) what precisely constitutes hate speech and what in effect is hatred itself? The definition is increasingly, not an involuntary, emotional reaction to an injustice or an injury, but ideological whim. From the concept 'Islamophobia' we already know that 'fear' has undergone a similar slide: not a involuntary, emotional reaction to threat or injury, but again ideological whim. This truly is the stuff of Orwellian doublespeak ... we are in deep trouble. (...) >>>

Feb 3, 2009
~

Soeren Kern lists the free speech victims in postmodern Europe so far and breaks the news of fresh EU legislation under way, he incidentally stumbles upon the workings of the dialectics, and issues a dire warning for Obama America ...

PJM: "Europe’s War on Free Speech"

(...) At the European level, meanwhile, government ministers from the 27 member states of the European Union are debating a draft EU Directive that aims to outlaw discrimination and “harassment” in the provision of goods and services. The new legislation would, for example, shut down Christian adoption agencies if they refuse to provide same-sex couples with children. Indeed, the definition of “harassment” is so broad that even moderate explanations of Christian beliefs on sexual conduct or other religions could be considered a crime. (...)
Not only are European elites using hate crime legislation to silence people with opinions that do not conform to official state policies. They are also dividing Europeans into two groups (the majority and the minority), each with different rights and responsibilities. The minority (Muslims, homosexuals, Socialists) is imposing its will upon the majority (non-Muslim, heterosexuals, non-Socialists) by aggressively prosecuting those who refuse to fall into line.
Europeans lack an American-like First Amendment, which means they can be punished for expressing the “wrong” opinions. But Europe’s war on free speech should serve as a warning to Americans about the perils of complacency. Indeed, the Obama administration says it intends to “strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection (...) >>>

Jan 31, 2009
~

To Archive>>>

Background and clarification on subject matter:

The Lighthouse: "EU Phobia: More Crimes Against the Ideology"

In a post "Victim obsession leading to more oppression, not less in modern Britain" former University teacher John Ray from Brisbane, Australian gives a review on a book called, "Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law", in which practising barrister Neil Addison provides the first comprehensive survey of legislation concerning religion in diverse areas such as criminal law, discrimination, employment and harassment, and charts the growing role of courts in regulating this messy dimension of society.

Addison is concerned about the legal expansion into a complicated moral aspect of human life, and fears that a new generation of laws will remove people's powers to criticise, challenge or defend their religious (or non-religious) views.

He "sees the expansion of law into the terrain of religion as part of 'a new type of philosophy': 'We used to have laws because we considered them necessary, but now it seems we have laws because they are desirable. If something is regarded as good or bad, we use the law to direct it. In effect, we're trying to legislate morality.'

For Addison, the law has now become a tool for some groups to impose their moral positions on others, whether it is the ban on smoking or the ban on foxhunting or restrictions on what we can say about minority groups ... but it is not the function of civil law to prescribe everything that is morally right and to forbid everything that is morally wrong >>>