I'VE GOT IT!

[johnpalmer]

Finally... I finally found the word I'm looking for.

Yes, laws should be based in moral principles, but laws should be based in morality, not holiness. Morality is that set of things that are right and wrong; holiness is that kind of stuff that you feel your religion commands that isn't based upon accepted ideas of right and wrong.

So, you can certainly legislate against non-consensual sex of all forms. You can't legislate against consensual sexual acts that are unholy.

You can legislate against theft and murder and so forth; you can't legislate against breaking the sabbath or eating pork.

Comments

[valkyrwench.livejournal.com]

I maintain that the world needs less morals and more ethics.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Your distinctions seem a bit arbitrary, John. I've met vegetarians who would happily legislate against eating pork, for example, on the basis of no "holiness" whatsoever. Perhaps you mean that laws shouldn't be based solely on a religious prohibition? Still arbitrary, though; I see no reason why atheist prudes should be allowed to outlaw marijuana or prostitution, but religious prudes shouldn't.

The motives don't matter; the restrictive laws do.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

Well, you *can* but you shounoughta.

This is a good clarification!