PolySciFi Blog

Marching Towards Gomorrah
A while back, Thason and I were discussing Dan Savage's Skipping Towards Gomorrah.

Skipping (or at least the online excerpt that Thason had read) divides US society into virtuecrats and sinners. The virtuecrats, typified by Bill Bennet, Dr Laura, and Robert Bork (whose Slouching Towards Gomorrah served as the parodic source for the title of Skipping) seek to impose their (presumably Christian) morality on the nation. The sinners, according to Savage, have their own (presumably non-Christian) morality and are pursuing their own happiness. Savage then goes on to list several examples of where the virtuecrats are imposing their morality on the sinners, including sex, drugs, rap, and abortion.

There are indeed those who seek to impart their morality to others. Sometimes this is a good thing; sometimes this is a bad thing. But making a purely personal activity illegal really rankles my inner libertarian. However, there are times when I think morals should be written into law. Mostly I restrict these to broadly supported interpersonal morals. For example, virtually no one would disagree with the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" being implemented as law.¹

Ultimately, as opposed to legal actions I believe moral persuasion buttressed by sociological studies should be used to impart morality on society, particularly when the moral failing only affects the individual (such as in the Lawerence v Texas case which prompted the earlier discussion)². I am vaguely confused, however, by Savage's condemnation of Dr Laura and Bork as they are merely moral advocates juxtaposed against his silence about those who actually sought to enact moral laws, like Tipper Gore and Elizabeth Dole.

Had Savage left his point there, I would've been in partial agreement and merely confused as to his motivation over his choice of virtuecrat villians. However, Savage went on to sing the virtues of the sinners, claiming that sinners do not coerce the virtuous into sin writing,

"Indeed, it has long been my belief that the "bad" are frequently more virtuous in their private pursuit of vice than the good are in the public pursuit of compulsory virtue. Sinners, unlike the virtuous, do not attempt to impose their definition of happiness on others. I've never met an adult dope smoker who wanted to force a non-dope-smoking adult to smoke dope against his will. Yet our nation crawls with non-dope-smoking adults who want to force dope-smoking adults to stop smoking dope. Likewise, I've never met a homosexual who wanted to make a straight person into a gay person, but straight church groups take out full-page ads in newspapers trying to convince gay people to become straight people. Prostitutes don't force anyone to patronize them; the virtuous, however, seek to throw prostitutes in jail for tending to the needs of their clients."

My point to Thason at the time was I have known dope smoking adults who have made serious efforts to try and make non-dope smoking adults smoke dope. Kids do spike the punch at parties to make nondrinkers drink. As far as the prostitutes and the gays, I had no experience and thus could not comment. Thason's response (in effect) was why then do we not see this writ large in society, and more importantly through legal actions?

My response (not fully formulated until the next day) was the following.
1. Traditionally, most of society viewed themselves as virtuous or at least as striving to be virtuous. While a significant percentage may have engaged in sinful activities, they personally viewed these transgressions as mere peccadillos. Since voters tend to elect people either like themselves or as they would like to be, it was only been natural for the virtuous to be in power while the sinners were out of power. Without legal power, the sinners were unable to act the role of "Sinnercrat."

2. Sin being in my estimation a meme would naturally seek to propagate itself. Without legislative power, the sin meme would be limited to the tools of social persuasion (which it seems especially good at). However, I posited, once sin gained legislative power, laws would indeed be enacted so that sin would become compulsory, even for the virtuous. I predicted at the time that this would occur first in those places where sin has taken the strongest hold, namely California and New York. At the time I cited the California Supreme Court's decision requiring Catholic Charities to offer birth control coverage to its employees (see here). The Catholic Church, a traditional virtuous institution, has long held the position that birth control is immoral. Now, however, legal measures are being taken to force them to engage in an activity they deem immoral.

Today another data point is added in support of my thesis. In the NYPost (link via Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus), a bill in NYC has passed council vote that would require the Salvation Army to extend benefits to gay and unwed spouses of its employees. Needless to say, this goes against the Salvation Army's stated morals.



"So contra Dan Savage, the sinners are no better than the virtuous about imposing their morality on others - they merely lacked the opportunity to become "sinnercrats." We may not be slouching or skipping towards Gomorrah for much longer. With the rising ascendancy of the sinners, I fear we are beginning an organized march.

May God have mercy on those trampled on the way.

Footnotes
1. As a side note, I find Savage's view on abortion consistent as I think he believes that abortion does not involve another human and thus would not be an interpersonal relationship. However, I think abortion does involve two human lives (mother and child) and thus is covered under the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment. I often found that when differences are premised on divergent first principles, debate is of little use. This would be such a case.

2. However, I am strongly opposed to the legalization of gay marriage as there is not broad social support and it amounts to coerced approval of actions that I and the majority of society deem immoral. Thus while I accept the premise of "Keep the government out my bedroom," I must respond with "Keep the government out of my morals."
Comments(7) |