LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY rechan)

I'd like to talk about morality a second. But first, a disclaimer. Now, assuming there are Christians in the audience, I am not singling you out; if you feel that when I say "the Religious Right" or "Christians", that I am speaking about you, I am not, unless you hold these views. For the sake of this argument, allow me to assume there would be consistency between the RR and their religion.

The Religious Right are big about legislating their morality. They don't want Schools to teach sex ed, or provide access to condoms, because they believe that once teens learn about sex, they'll want it. Once they touch a condom, they'll run out and have sex because they'd never realized they could before then. The Religious Right want teachers to say that Evolution isn't real, or teach an alternative, so their children do not disbelieve. The RR do not gays to marry because homosexuality is inherently evil and it would be an offense to God to allow them to marry. They don't even want homosexuals to be able to have sex. They do not want gambling, drugs, prostitution, pronography, or dirty words to be available for consumption, because it is corrupting for people.

All of these things, in the eyes of the RR, are sinful. Sin takes you away from god. The only way to get close to god, is to not sin, and to accept Christ. To have faith.

But here's my question: what good is faith if you do not test it?

Does it say that the RR do not believe they are morally right, and that people will not choose god over sin, if both are available? If they were such moral leaders, would not their mere presence be enough to beat back the temptation, and triumph? If the RR taught their children well, the crude avenues of sin and secular science around them wouldn't ultimately sway them, because their parents instilled a strong sense of faith and moral strength.

Further, why would they want to legislate these things, to say "You do not have the option"? I find it a cynical approach to believe that you will stop immorality because people do not have access to immoral outlets. That doesn't make them good people by default; they are sinners by default, after all. The reason you do not do something should be the belief that it is wrong to do that, and your moral compass leads you away from it, not because you wish to avoid punishment. God gave man the choice to accept Christ or not, to choose sin or not, so why should man force man to be unable to choose sin without repremand; isn't that God's business?

Further, why do they care about punishing mortal men? What can the Law do in comparison to eternal damnation? Why must they legislate if God has all ready legislated the afterlife?

But then, why is it that so many on the RR work only on the idea of reward/punishment? Heaven and hell is the ultimate reward/punishment, and it appears that that is the only motivation for their actions. If the only reason you do something is for reward or punishment, that undermines the act if it should be generous; like helping a friend move because you expect to be paid, rather than help them because they are your friend in need. The path to Heaven, I thought, was made by the quality of your heart and character, not bought by good deeds made with practicality.

What good is talk of faith when they rely on legal strength and threat of mortal punishment?