Customer Reviews

Legislating Morality

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This is the best book I have seen on this topic. Through a very concise and logical presentation, it answers objections from those who are opposed to legislating morality and those that question whether political activism is a proper focus of Christians. A brief history lesson helps put things in perspective. Legislating religion vs. legislating morality is also covered, as are short sections on specific moral issues like abortion and homosexuality. Appendixes include the Declaration of Independence and Amendments to the Constitution.

The book is clear, well-written and well-researched, as you would expect from Norman Geisler or Frank Turek. It is not dry. Every citizen, whether conservative or liberal, should read this book. Conservative Christians will be especially interested.

Many Christians have foolishly bought into public school arguments about separation of church and state. This book goes back to all the court decisions which were made over the last 100 years which led to this common idea we hear today. The book clearly shows that Jefferson never intended separation of church and state the way it is being taken out of context today. I was shocked to find that it isn't even mentioned in the Constitution and am surprised so many Christians have bought into this. I now see that it is "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." This part to me is the most helpful part of the book. This book will help you not feel like you are somehow "inflicting your religion on someone else" and that all laws are in essence, a legislation of someone's morality.

The book also does an excellent job of tackling issues such as homosexuality, euthenasia, and abortion. The thing I like best about the book, though, is that it shows that the government still has a right to make moral laws. It is not a matter of whether moral laws will be made, it is just a matter of whose morals. I won't say I agree with 100% of what is in this book, but the book is very helpful with debate, especially for those who claim you are forcing your religion on them.

This ia a great book that addresses important issues. It's a great book to read and learn from.

This book is an excellent tool for those of us Christians and conservatives debating these issues with relativists and liberals..Norman Giesler who has been my hero in the faith does a great job along with Frank Turek in addressing the tough issues in our day and age that have brought our society to a modern day Sodom and Gomorah. I challenge liberals to read this book and really examine what it is you believe. The arguments are compelling and convincing. Dr Geisler has debated top athiests and humanists all over the world I think he has done his homework on the subject. EXCELLENT BOOK!!

This book is an excellent book, not perfect, but it makes a lot of good arguments. Before I go on, I must address the person who criticized Paul Cameron's study which is used. That is backed up in the footnotes in the back of the book with another study, one that has not been disputed. The authors are aware of the claims against Cameron. Now, back to the book. This book has some excellent thoughts about the history of the 1st amendment, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and what the founding fathers actually intended. The book also does a good job showing how liberal activist judges have reinterpreted the constitution. They also make a decent case that all laws are moral laws and that the government has to legislate morality. Sometimes they ask a question and get on a side topic before answering it, or half-answer it, but this book has convinced me that separation of church and state is a farce the way we use it today. The book is definitely worth getting, and helps answer church members who think they can't inflict their morals on others. They can to an extent.

Legislating morality is a thought-provoking book. It provides hard facts to support the need to do what is right in our society. The book shows that those protesting against legislating morality are actually advocating the legislation of their own morality. No rational person will continue to oppose the move to instill sanity in our society by providing boundaries for human behavior. To avoid legislating morality will bring us to a situation "when Israel had no kings and everyone did what was right in his own eyes"!. The greatest deaf is the one who does not want to listen!

Rev. Ben N. Nwaochei, Ph.D

Those who have insisted that morality can not and should not be written into the laws of nations, that, "you can't legislate morality", have had their argument thoroughly debunked by Geisler and Turek. This seminal work will no doubt become the standard for all those who argue that absolute moral laws are the logical and necessary outworking of any social order which hopes to maintain justice and equity as its most cherished value.

With airtight reasoning, the authors have shredded the popular myth that says, in effect, that all laws are neutral with respect to moral content. Any arguments to the contrary invariably wind up to be circular and cannot avoid resulting in a purley subjective, relativistic position.

I strongly commend this book to anyone who is serious about trying to make sense out of contempory culture's bent toward emasculating the essence of legislative action and substituting in its place utopian schemes based on the fatal conceit of homo mensura.

Clearly a book that demanded to be written. That now demands to be read.. "Legislating Morality" is obviously timely, dealing with the importance of our country's current moral crises It is Straight forward, presenting all the reasons for and the excuses against insisting on the legislation of the common moral code. It is imperative...a tool of understanding and debate necessary for the protection of our society.

This book is written for the person in public life, whether an elected official or one active in policy matters. It is logically sound without being a heavy philosophical piece. The section headings flow logically from "Can We Legislate Morality," to How Has Morality Been Legislated," to Whose Morality Should We Legislate?" It ends with a practical section on "How Should We Legislate Morality on the Tough Issues?" The treatment is direct and up-to-date with examples and names. Recommended for all who are interested in practical solutions to public problems. Duane G. Hansen

The reviewer from Denver Colorado gave this book two stars since he claims it is based on a faulty premise, which is "there are differences in how to enforce crimes and what a punishment should be, but murder and 'victimless' crimes are the same in kind. After all, no one lives in a bubble. Drug use and prostitution can have a very negative affect on people's lives."
Our reviewer argues, "Wait! Skiing and eating fatty foods can negatively impact people's lives if they increase your chances of dying sooner! Should they be illegal?" Well, there is risk in almost everything, and if you thought about the effects of drug use and prostitution listed in the book, these are both pretty benign (until the point of gluttony for the latter).
He makes his greatest logical error in saying that he draws the line between crimes such as murder and "victimless" crime by saying that the negative effects of victimless crime are really the lack of anticipated benefits of a voluntary relationship. Now, would it be a lack of anticipated benefits if you got an STD or made your spouse angry enough to divorce you by sleeping with a prostitute who is nothing more than a piece of meat to you? Furthermore, what does it being voluntary have to do with anything? How does consenting to something affect the univeral right or wrongness of an act? (Don't argue relativism against that sentence; relativism's self-defeating, as shown in this book and others.)If Joe likes committing murder and I like being murdered, does that make murder any less absolutely wrong? Would the attempted genocide of the Holocaust have been acceptable if the Jews had consented to being wiped out? Human life is so precious, it is even more important than your liberty to take away your own life. (Dead people don't seem to have much liberty at all these days.) Sometimes it is necessary to protect a person from themselves; an immoral act's no less wrong no matter how much they will it to take place. Lastly, he blunders by saying that morality in legislature is limited to a person's self-defense, or something like that. It doesn't matter, since all laws dictate right and wrong and he should know that after reading the book. I know I haven't talked much about Legislating Morality in this review, but it is excellent and thought-provoking and if you read it, I think you'll find the logical fallacies belong to our Denver, Colorado reviewer and not to this book.