Government Ethics is a Paradoxby admin on 02/20/2019 8:17 PM
Following the Judeo-Christian code of ethics could be a prosecutable crime.
Governments could make the entire Mosaic Code Legal. This would put all believers in Jeopardy for saying or teaching the Mosaic Code. This would in effect eliminate all parochial schools and religious education. Not only primary schools, but also secondary schools as well as colleges and universities. Many of the Eastern Ivy League schools were founded by religious or church bodies, primarily by Calvinists (Congregational, Presbyterians) and Baptists (Brown). These schools gradually became secular. The transition may begin very innocently which eliminated\s all effective debate. To speak Biblical truths can be interpreted as hate speech. To do so could cause one to be prosecuted.
Abortion was debated in the majority of states and each state approached their own moral turpitude quite amicably in the 1960s and 1970s. This dialogue was resolving the abortion issue and was respected by the people in each state. However, the dialogue stopped in 1973 with the Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, decision by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, each state had to accept prenatal killing which euphemistically is called abortion even though many religious groups felt it really was “prenatal killing.”
What could have been an amicable resolution of an ethical dilemma in 1973, has continued to be a disruptive force in the United States for these 46-years. It was the basis of a very acrimonious Supreme Court debate this past year. The pro-abortion senators found a psychologist who described a sexual confrontation in a high school. (This is the period in life when, according to the Freudian theory of personality development, one is searching for and finding their comfort zone of their sexual identity development.) Senators that voted favorably for the nominated justice’s previous judgeship now voted with great anger against his appointment because of his known disapproval of abortion. The psychologist, who obviously should understand personality development, stooped to severe character assassination because of this issue. Mature senators recognized this as vindictiveness and thus did not change their vote. A similar situation occurred when the pro-abortionist found an attorney to testify against the Clarence Thomas’ nomination in October 1991. This too was a character assassination attempt which also did not change one vote in the senate confirmation process. But each was a low point in our American Historical development. Now it seems to have developed into a rather serious Diversity crises throughout academia.
Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.
– Ronald Reagan