![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsHot on the heels of my article from last night, The Tsunami and "Public Relief", I heard this morning an interview with several people about the obvious dichotomy between the 37% of Americans who view themselves as Evangelical Christians and the 39% of American households which watch Desperate Housewives. The programming director at CBS says there's an obvious overlap between these two groups of people, and also that the show is more popular in those states that had high "moral values" turnouts at the last election. And one of the quotes that a spokesman for the Evangelicals said is, "Well, people understand there's a difference between what they say and what they do. And they frequently want the government's help to be more moral."
Government cannot help you "be more moral."
Being moral and Choosing a moral act are two different things, and they depend mostly on one's tolerance for hipocrisy. Choosing a moral act is what one does in a free society; given an opportunity to do wrong, people nonetheless choose to do right. In the United States, more than any country in the world, we are given these opportunities again and again and, more often than not, we make moral choices. We choose not to steal from our employer, or cheat on our spouses, or lie to our friends. Almost every choice is value-laden, and we often make those choices unconsiously. We are being moral, and if we fail, I don't take that as a horrible mistake; the ocassional failure to live up to one's values is sign that values are hard to live up to. If we never violate our principles, can we really claim to have any?
Every penalty for making "an immoral choice" reduces the freedom one has to make that choice; the more grevious the penalty, the less freedom one has to choose. When you back up the penalty with the force of arms, you have no freedom. To ask for the government's "help to be moral" is to ask for your (and your neighbor's) freedoms to be limited by force of arms. When talking about censorship, as we are in the matter of the FCC, the loss is absolute; since we are forbidden from seeing the material being censored, we cannot make rational or moral choices about it.
Countries that are under theocratic rule often claim that their citizenry is "more moral" than that of the United States, but they have it backwards. We do not live under threat of violence if we make poor choices, yet we do not make poor choices very often. In fact, the freedom to err contributes to our dynamic and vibrant culture.
If the FCC is coerced into reining in the airwaves even further, we will cease to have freedom, and will be subjects of the government's power. That is not for what the Constitution of the United States was written.
Government cannot help you "be more moral."
Being moral and Choosing a moral act are two different things, and they depend mostly on one's tolerance for hipocrisy. Choosing a moral act is what one does in a free society; given an opportunity to do wrong, people nonetheless choose to do right. In the United States, more than any country in the world, we are given these opportunities again and again and, more often than not, we make moral choices. We choose not to steal from our employer, or cheat on our spouses, or lie to our friends. Almost every choice is value-laden, and we often make those choices unconsiously. We are being moral, and if we fail, I don't take that as a horrible mistake; the ocassional failure to live up to one's values is sign that values are hard to live up to. If we never violate our principles, can we really claim to have any?
Every penalty for making "an immoral choice" reduces the freedom one has to make that choice; the more grevious the penalty, the less freedom one has to choose. When you back up the penalty with the force of arms, you have no freedom. To ask for the government's "help to be moral" is to ask for your (and your neighbor's) freedoms to be limited by force of arms. When talking about censorship, as we are in the matter of the FCC, the loss is absolute; since we are forbidden from seeing the material being censored, we cannot make rational or moral choices about it.
Countries that are under theocratic rule often claim that their citizenry is "more moral" than that of the United States, but they have it backwards. We do not live under threat of violence if we make poor choices, yet we do not make poor choices very often. In fact, the freedom to err contributes to our dynamic and vibrant culture.
If the FCC is coerced into reining in the airwaves even further, we will cease to have freedom, and will be subjects of the government's power. That is not for what the Constitution of the United States was written.
