What do you think?
Rate this book
Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible?
All Laws Legislate Morality Whose Morality Should We Legislate? America s moral decline is no secret. An alarming number of moral and cultural problems have exploded in our country since 1960 a period when the standards of morality expressed in our laws and customs have been relaxed, abandoned, or judicially overruled. Conventional wisdom says laws cannot stem moral decline. Anyone who raises the prospect of legislation on the hot topics of our day abortion, family issues, gay rights, euthanasia encounters a host of "As long as I don t hurt anyone the government should leave me alone." "No one should force their morals on anyone else." "You can t make people be good." "Legislating morality violates the separation of church and state." Legislating Morality advocates a moral base for America without sacrificing religious and cultural diversity, debunking the myth that "morality can t be legislated" and amply demonstrating how liberals, moderates, and conservatives alike exploit law to promote good and curtail evil. This book boldly challenges prevailing thinking about right and wrong and about our nation s moral future.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 1998
6 people are currently reading
423 people want to read
About the author
Norman L. Geisler
215Ìýbooks302ÌýfollowersNorman L. Geisler (PhD, Loyola University of Chicago) taught at top evangelical colleges and seminaries for over fifty years and was a distinguished professor of apologetics and theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. He was the author of nearly eighty books, including the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and Christian Ethics. He and his wife lived in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
April 23, 2013
Legislating Morality is a must-read for those who are serious about understanding the intersection of morality, culture, and policy. Those with short attention spans or who habitually shy away from critical thinking will find this work a challenge to read, let alone digest. For everyone else, this is a book worth reading at least twice (first for familiarization, second for contemplation).
Moving on, Legislating Morality (L.M.) is not a book of mere proposition but rather a collection of thoughtful, critical arguments (with ample citation at the end). I strongly recommend reading the preface, for it sets the tone of what follows.
The first eight chapters directly address the most common issues that arise when discussing this topic.
Part one reviews three matters of pragmatism in legislating morality.
Part two shows that morality has indeed been legislated and in various ways (a great historical recount is provided).
Part three is devoted to identifying the nature of the morality that should be legislated (keeping in mind parts one and two which establish that morality can and has been legislated).
The final part (part four) directly address the contentious issues of homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia. A warning on this part: if you are prone to emotional short-circuiting of thought, re-read the last two paragraphs of the preface, take a deep breath, and remember to keep as your goal the arrival at the truth of the matter, following sound logic wherever it leads.
Concerning the style of delivery: the content is delivered with the scholarly care characteristic of the authors as Christian apologists, but nothing so high that one of average reading level could not grasp. The tone is pedagogic yet conversational. The clear intent is to make a case and not to preach. In fact, religion is the clear minority of content in L.M. A clear and consistent distinction is made between morality and religion which should, one would hope, allow for common ground for discussion among those of differing worldviews.
All in all, L.M. is a thoughtful, intellectually challenging, well-cited textbook that should, among the intellectually honest, spark constructive conversations about what is presented. My recommendation for reading this work is to take it in small bites and chew on those bites for a while before moving forward.
Moving on, Legislating Morality (L.M.) is not a book of mere proposition but rather a collection of thoughtful, critical arguments (with ample citation at the end). I strongly recommend reading the preface, for it sets the tone of what follows.
The first eight chapters directly address the most common issues that arise when discussing this topic.
Part one reviews three matters of pragmatism in legislating morality.
Part two shows that morality has indeed been legislated and in various ways (a great historical recount is provided).
Part three is devoted to identifying the nature of the morality that should be legislated (keeping in mind parts one and two which establish that morality can and has been legislated).
The final part (part four) directly address the contentious issues of homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia. A warning on this part: if you are prone to emotional short-circuiting of thought, re-read the last two paragraphs of the preface, take a deep breath, and remember to keep as your goal the arrival at the truth of the matter, following sound logic wherever it leads.
Concerning the style of delivery: the content is delivered with the scholarly care characteristic of the authors as Christian apologists, but nothing so high that one of average reading level could not grasp. The tone is pedagogic yet conversational. The clear intent is to make a case and not to preach. In fact, religion is the clear minority of content in L.M. A clear and consistent distinction is made between morality and religion which should, one would hope, allow for common ground for discussion among those of differing worldviews.
All in all, L.M. is a thoughtful, intellectually challenging, well-cited textbook that should, among the intellectually honest, spark constructive conversations about what is presented. My recommendation for reading this work is to take it in small bites and chew on those bites for a while before moving forward.
May 25, 2013
The authors' primary point is simple - "morality is the only thing one can legislate." While plausible on the surface, a cursory analysis reveals just how groundless and vacuous this conclusion is.
Have they never heard of religiously-based Blue Laws? Preventing stores from selling liquor on Sundays has nothing to do with morality. It certainly does not showcase the law's power as a "teacher." When laws are unjust and randomly enforced (as was the case with Prohibition), the masses will generally ignore it, throwing their hats in with the Mafia instead. The police will generally do so too, as kickbacks that hurl them up several rungs in the social hierarchy are always preferable to dying in a shootout defending Puritanical and paternalistic laws that enjoy superficial public support at best. For those unaware, paternalism is based on the premise of father (the state) knows best. Put less politely, paternalism says "I'll torture you for your own good." The only difference between paternalism and fascism is the motive of the rulers. Fascism is premised on "I'll torture you because you're a threat to my rule."
A similar phenomenon can be seen in Australia, where inane and baseless censorship of "offensive" porn has led to an underground market in fetishes, bondage, and every kink under the sun. The police don't do anything because of the sex industry's glut of resources (legal and financial). It hurts the economy and drives adults to download the material of their choice online. Either no money changes hands, or it goes directly to foreign corporations.
Geisler and Turek also assert that the separation of church and state is a myth. I would invite them to move to Iraq or Saudi Arabia and experience first-hand what a theocracy would be like. They are enjoying the privilege of being in the majority, and seem to find it impossible to step into someone else's skin. I am certain they would not enjoy being on the receiving end of religious persecution, especially if they women and ended up mutilated or murdered by relatives for reasons of "honour."
Their notion of a "baloney detector" is utterly subjective and facile. In addition to advocating paternalistic "obscenity" laws (that run directly against freedom of expression), they believe that instinct alone is enough to determine what should be illegal and what should be illegal. If we followed that to its logical conclusion, every TV show, book and radio show not rated a squeaky-clean G by government censors (aka fascists) would be illegal.
This book isn't worth the paper it's printed on (except perhaps for a pet goat).
Have they never heard of religiously-based Blue Laws? Preventing stores from selling liquor on Sundays has nothing to do with morality. It certainly does not showcase the law's power as a "teacher." When laws are unjust and randomly enforced (as was the case with Prohibition), the masses will generally ignore it, throwing their hats in with the Mafia instead. The police will generally do so too, as kickbacks that hurl them up several rungs in the social hierarchy are always preferable to dying in a shootout defending Puritanical and paternalistic laws that enjoy superficial public support at best. For those unaware, paternalism is based on the premise of father (the state) knows best. Put less politely, paternalism says "I'll torture you for your own good." The only difference between paternalism and fascism is the motive of the rulers. Fascism is premised on "I'll torture you because you're a threat to my rule."
A similar phenomenon can be seen in Australia, where inane and baseless censorship of "offensive" porn has led to an underground market in fetishes, bondage, and every kink under the sun. The police don't do anything because of the sex industry's glut of resources (legal and financial). It hurts the economy and drives adults to download the material of their choice online. Either no money changes hands, or it goes directly to foreign corporations.
Geisler and Turek also assert that the separation of church and state is a myth. I would invite them to move to Iraq or Saudi Arabia and experience first-hand what a theocracy would be like. They are enjoying the privilege of being in the majority, and seem to find it impossible to step into someone else's skin. I am certain they would not enjoy being on the receiving end of religious persecution, especially if they women and ended up mutilated or murdered by relatives for reasons of "honour."
Their notion of a "baloney detector" is utterly subjective and facile. In addition to advocating paternalistic "obscenity" laws (that run directly against freedom of expression), they believe that instinct alone is enough to determine what should be illegal and what should be illegal. If we followed that to its logical conclusion, every TV show, book and radio show not rated a squeaky-clean G by government censors (aka fascists) would be illegal.
This book isn't worth the paper it's printed on (except perhaps for a pet goat).
July 17, 2022
I've long struggled with the question of legislating morality, and this book helped me think through it. It makes its case from morality and logic, and includes plenty of examples. The authors say that all laws legislate morality by declaring behaviors right or wrong, and that the question is whose morality will be legislated. They say we should legislate based on the Moral Law, not on religion or a religious book. They say the Divine (Mosaic) Law is for the church, and the Moral Law is for state. However, they say that the inspiration to obey laws is best provided by religion.
The thesis, according to the authors:
US Founders based government and its morality on God, not religion. They believed all people, regardless of culture, have the same Moral Law imposed on their minds by God.
US Founders set up a government that would recognize and protect God-given Rights without establishing a government religion or creating an environment of intolerance.
1st Amendment forbids national religion, but doesn't prohibit government from establishing national morality. Bill of Rights itself legislates morality.
13th Amendment, outlawing slavery, legislated morality. Civil Rights legislation of 1950s and 1960s legislated morality.
People on all side of issues such as abortion, women's rights, minority rights, religious rights are trying to legislate their particular morality.
Moral Law is best revealed in reactions (how you'd react if you were treated a certain way) rather than actions (which can be based on selfish desires).
All laws declare directly or by implication that one behavior is right and its opposite is wrong. To legislate justice is to legislate morality. Legislating morality is not only constitutional but unavoidable and necessary. The question is whose morality will be legislated.
How Has Morality Been Legislated?
Evidence that US Founders wanted government to encourage religion:
� "Free exercise" clause in 1st Amendment.
� Founders and early presidents gave federal money and land to Christian denominations to encourage religion among Native Americans.
� Early presidential proclamations of national Thanksgiving religious holidays.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter of "separation of church and state" he referred to protecting church from state. Within a year of that letter, Jefferson gave federal money to evangelize Native Americans. He used state funds to set up University of Virginia, which had a department of Divinity and expected students to attend religious services.
Founders never intended 1st Amendment to apply to state governments. Many constitutions of original 13 states required government officials to declare personal faith in orthodox Christianity. Upon ratifying 1st Amendment, 5 of 13 states had unofficial state churches, and didn't disestablish them.
Whose Morality Should We Legislate?
US has never had government based on biblical law; it's based on Moral Law, which is consistent with biblical principles. Declaration of Independence and Constitution aren't Christian documents.
Bible says Law of Moses was only for Israel, not Gentiles. Ps 147:19-20; Rom 2:14; Deut 4:88.
Gentile nations are never condemned for violating divine law for Israel (e.g., Sabbath, sacrificing at temple). They're condemned for violating Moral Law. Rom 2:12-15. God gave every nation Moral Law (Rom 1 & 2). Bible wasn't designed to be normative basis for civil government; Moral Law was.
Christ's reign now is nonpolitical and spiritual (John 18:36).
In sense that 10 Commandments are consistent with Moral Law principles (moral principles embodied in 2nd table of 10 Commandments are similar to those of Moral Law), it is right to legislate according to them. But we don't legislate 10 Commandments as part of Israel's divine law that included capital punishment for non-capital crimes.
We should legislate Moral Law, not Bible. Divine (Mosaic) Law is for church; Moral Law is for state.
Principles in legislating morality
� Increases in death or disease indicate moral principles are being violated.
� When 2 absolutes or rights conflict, choose the higher (e.g., life over liberty; people over things).
� Balance personal rights with personal responsibilities and community welfare. Laws shouldn't create rights without demanding responsibility.
� Don't write laws with only extreme exceptions in mind.
� Don't fail to draw a line because of ambiguity over where to draw it (e.g., legal drinking age).
How Should We Legislate Morality on the Tough Issues?
Good laws don't allow "anything goes"; they protect innocent people by limiting freedom of others to do harm. That requires imposing good morality.
Tolerating harmful behavior is unloving. We must love people by minimizing harmful behavior.
It's absurd to say, "I'm opposed to X, but we shouldn't legislate our values on others." Replace X with "murder" or "rape" to see absurdity.
Epilogue
When someone says, "Who are you to judge?" explain that they're judging you, and that laws couldn't be made without making moral judgments.
We should base laws on Moral Law, not religion or a religious book, but the inspiration to obey those laws is best provided by religion.
Laws should have zero tolerance for acts that are intrinsically evil, such as murder or rape. For acts that are harmful but not obviously intrinsically evil, such as smoking, zero tolerance isn't always attainable, so we should legislate the optimum under the conditions.
Questions to ask those who argue against absolute morality:
� Who said consent makes something right? Is that just your opinion or did you get that from a higher source?
� Why should we tolerate everything? And if we should, why are you intolerant of my position?
� If we are not to judge, why are you judging me? And if we can't judge, why are we even debating this issue?
The thesis, according to the authors:
(1) Legislating is literally unavoidable (morality is always legislated), and (2) Americans should legislate the morality common to us all - the one expressed in our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and, until recently the laws of our land and decisions of the Supreme Court.Can We Legislate Morality?
US Founders based government and its morality on God, not religion. They believed all people, regardless of culture, have the same Moral Law imposed on their minds by God.
US Founders set up a government that would recognize and protect God-given Rights without establishing a government religion or creating an environment of intolerance.
1st Amendment forbids national religion, but doesn't prohibit government from establishing national morality. Bill of Rights itself legislates morality.
13th Amendment, outlawing slavery, legislated morality. Civil Rights legislation of 1950s and 1960s legislated morality.
People on all side of issues such as abortion, women's rights, minority rights, religious rights are trying to legislate their particular morality.
Moral Law is best revealed in reactions (how you'd react if you were treated a certain way) rather than actions (which can be based on selfish desires).
All laws declare directly or by implication that one behavior is right and its opposite is wrong. To legislate justice is to legislate morality. Legislating morality is not only constitutional but unavoidable and necessary. The question is whose morality will be legislated.
How Has Morality Been Legislated?
Evidence that US Founders wanted government to encourage religion:
� "Free exercise" clause in 1st Amendment.
� Founders and early presidents gave federal money and land to Christian denominations to encourage religion among Native Americans.
� Early presidential proclamations of national Thanksgiving religious holidays.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter of "separation of church and state" he referred to protecting church from state. Within a year of that letter, Jefferson gave federal money to evangelize Native Americans. He used state funds to set up University of Virginia, which had a department of Divinity and expected students to attend religious services.
Founders never intended 1st Amendment to apply to state governments. Many constitutions of original 13 states required government officials to declare personal faith in orthodox Christianity. Upon ratifying 1st Amendment, 5 of 13 states had unofficial state churches, and didn't disestablish them.
Whose Morality Should We Legislate?
US has never had government based on biblical law; it's based on Moral Law, which is consistent with biblical principles. Declaration of Independence and Constitution aren't Christian documents.
Bible says Law of Moses was only for Israel, not Gentiles. Ps 147:19-20; Rom 2:14; Deut 4:88.
Gentile nations are never condemned for violating divine law for Israel (e.g., Sabbath, sacrificing at temple). They're condemned for violating Moral Law. Rom 2:12-15. God gave every nation Moral Law (Rom 1 & 2). Bible wasn't designed to be normative basis for civil government; Moral Law was.
Christ's reign now is nonpolitical and spiritual (John 18:36).
In sense that 10 Commandments are consistent with Moral Law principles (moral principles embodied in 2nd table of 10 Commandments are similar to those of Moral Law), it is right to legislate according to them. But we don't legislate 10 Commandments as part of Israel's divine law that included capital punishment for non-capital crimes.
We should legislate Moral Law, not Bible. Divine (Mosaic) Law is for church; Moral Law is for state.
Principles in legislating morality
� Increases in death or disease indicate moral principles are being violated.
� When 2 absolutes or rights conflict, choose the higher (e.g., life over liberty; people over things).
� Balance personal rights with personal responsibilities and community welfare. Laws shouldn't create rights without demanding responsibility.
� Don't write laws with only extreme exceptions in mind.
� Don't fail to draw a line because of ambiguity over where to draw it (e.g., legal drinking age).
How Should We Legislate Morality on the Tough Issues?
Good laws don't allow "anything goes"; they protect innocent people by limiting freedom of others to do harm. That requires imposing good morality.
Tolerating harmful behavior is unloving. We must love people by minimizing harmful behavior.
It's absurd to say, "I'm opposed to X, but we shouldn't legislate our values on others." Replace X with "murder" or "rape" to see absurdity.
Epilogue
When someone says, "Who are you to judge?" explain that they're judging you, and that laws couldn't be made without making moral judgments.
We should base laws on Moral Law, not religion or a religious book, but the inspiration to obey those laws is best provided by religion.
Laws should have zero tolerance for acts that are intrinsically evil, such as murder or rape. For acts that are harmful but not obviously intrinsically evil, such as smoking, zero tolerance isn't always attainable, so we should legislate the optimum under the conditions.
Questions to ask those who argue against absolute morality:
� Who said consent makes something right? Is that just your opinion or did you get that from a higher source?
� Why should we tolerate everything? And if we should, why are you intolerant of my position?
� If we are not to judge, why are you judging me? And if we can't judge, why are we even debating this issue?
October 13, 2016
My basic observation about this book is that for m it equates what is immoral with what is illegal. For ME morality is a God issue and legality is a civil issue or t put it elsewise church vs state, caeser vs God.
And while the other states religion be kept out of it, this kind of legalistic creeps into the church which then boomerang back into this books thinking. The Calvinist point of view.
The basis of the natural law and created given rights is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Is not only The Constitution the basic law of the land! Isn't the Constitution the touch stone of our laws!
If "these truths" were so self evident, we would not be in the growing moral confusion we are now. We are living out the moral capital of our past Christian heritage. Logical arguments require provable premises if they are to get wide acceptance. And we no longer have that.
The author presents the separation of church and state as part of a humanistic plot. Yet our church has taught the on the basis of what Jesus said: "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." "My kingdom is not of this earth, it is within you."
Thomas Jefferson produced version of the Bible for Congress the Jefferson said departed the pearls from the dung. All that he thought worth keeping was essentially the sermon on the mount. From reading on his life that pretty well stated his opinion of God. As every politician does he wrote what he thought would be accepted. He revered the enlightenment and all the IT meant.
I would agree the the supreme court has establish secular humanism as the religion of the land sadly. And around of 100 he agrees with much that I've written, so we are left with the conundrum of natural law which is almost an oxymoron. This is so because an absolute standard does not seem to be self evident, of the law written into the human conscience.
A gain I say reads like Christian apologetics, with which I agree. But his solution is no solution. It may seem a matter of the head, but rather of the heart and soul. Our current election choices 2016, seems pertinent. I see no clear choice based on morality.
I'd like to see some thoughtful and unbiased discussion of current issues as propose by our candidates.
And while the other states religion be kept out of it, this kind of legalistic creeps into the church which then boomerang back into this books thinking. The Calvinist point of view.
The basis of the natural law and created given rights is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Is not only The Constitution the basic law of the land! Isn't the Constitution the touch stone of our laws!
If "these truths" were so self evident, we would not be in the growing moral confusion we are now. We are living out the moral capital of our past Christian heritage. Logical arguments require provable premises if they are to get wide acceptance. And we no longer have that.
The author presents the separation of church and state as part of a humanistic plot. Yet our church has taught the on the basis of what Jesus said: "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." "My kingdom is not of this earth, it is within you."
Thomas Jefferson produced version of the Bible for Congress the Jefferson said departed the pearls from the dung. All that he thought worth keeping was essentially the sermon on the mount. From reading on his life that pretty well stated his opinion of God. As every politician does he wrote what he thought would be accepted. He revered the enlightenment and all the IT meant.
I would agree the the supreme court has establish secular humanism as the religion of the land sadly. And around of 100 he agrees with much that I've written, so we are left with the conundrum of natural law which is almost an oxymoron. This is so because an absolute standard does not seem to be self evident, of the law written into the human conscience.
A gain I say reads like Christian apologetics, with which I agree. But his solution is no solution. It may seem a matter of the head, but rather of the heart and soul. Our current election choices 2016, seems pertinent. I see no clear choice based on morality.
I'd like to see some thoughtful and unbiased discussion of current issues as propose by our candidates.
May 21, 2016
Turek and Geisler are astute philosophical thinkers, which make them wise political commentators. Their apologetic for legislating the moral law is convincingly written and is broadly addressed to all ideologies as to make it a perfect fit for an age of growing secular leftism.
January 31, 2025
As with most of Geislers books I've read, he makes excellent points and defenses for correct thinking and moral grounding. He is definitely a great thinker and proponent for Christianity (though that is rightfully not discussed in this book...meaning anyone can read this book and not feel it was written only for a Christian audience). However, I removed a star because there are times when his emotion overcomes his desire to state the facts plainly and at times resorts to "name-calling", or inflammatory language that, while I agree 100% with his sentiment, is not helpful for convincing the other side to change their opinion, but rather instigate arguments. That said, he did better in this book of making unemotional defenses than other great books I've read by him, such as "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", but since I am aware that he does this, I could not get that out of the back of my mind while reading this book. Despite this minor flaw, this is an outstanding book, and everything mentioned in it is worth heavy consideration, whether you are for or against his defense for the Moral Law.
July 29, 2018
I stopped reading at page 192, just after the author misrepresented the arguments about euthanasia. Insisting that just because proponents of euthanasia don't want to watch the terminally ill suffer means that they want to kill the terminally ill was the final straw. This book was written by people who don't understand how the Supreme Court works, by calling decisions they didn't like as "judicial activism." I suggest avoiding books written by Frank Turek.
February 19, 2023
A lot of bias included in this book but the legal and moral arguments are incredibly sound and hard to argue against. There were some logical conclusions that were mildly short sighted or false, but mostly very good conclusions at least from the perspective of objective morality.
April 8, 2020
Excellent book about morality and behavior from a Christian viewpoint.
April 11, 2021
This book provided some very thought-provoking reasoning, but was far from a light read.
April 17, 2023
An incredible book. I encourage everyone to read it. The authors do a very thorough job of explaining why we need good morality to be legislated.
August 9, 2016
I placed on hold reading two other books in the hopes that this book would better equip me for the rising number of ethical and political discussions I've been having with skeptics and even fellow Christians. Legislating Morality certainly did not disappoint. The organized and reasoned way that Geisler and Turek presented their arguments was quite easy to follow yet went deep into issues of history and morality. As a defender of the Christian worldview, I really appreciated how they defended the existence of objective morality (a key premise in the moral argument for God's existence) and how they offer a set of guidelines to help identify a consistent set of moral values (which addresses claims regarding not being able to identify who's values are correct). The book has certainly prepared me to better articulate the case for objective morality and the content of that objective morality. Their focus on history, human experience, and reason eliminates any concern that their arguments are based upon a particular holy book, which is very good when dealing with people who do not recognize the accuracy and/or authority of the Bible (in whole or in part; this includes skeptics and some Christians).
Having said all that, I have to make two specific recommendations for this book. The first is quite obvious: if you are involved in, want to get involved in, or just want a solid foundation by which to judge political discussions, you would be doing yourself a great disservice to not get Legislating Morality. My second recommendation is for apologists who prefer to stay away from discussions of moral epistemology: While distinguishing between moral ontology and epistemology is important in logically addressing skeptics' concerns about the existence of objective morality, these same skeptics will often see that response as a clever philosophical dodge of their true concern: hypocrisy, especially regarding politics. If we are to alleviate that concern, we must delve into moral epistemology and demonstrate a lack of inconsistency. Legislating Morality addresses this concern, specifically in the context of politics, which will equip you to address this emotionally charged and difficult subject. This book needs to be in your apologetics toolbox.
You can check out my full chapter-by-chapter review here:
Having said all that, I have to make two specific recommendations for this book. The first is quite obvious: if you are involved in, want to get involved in, or just want a solid foundation by which to judge political discussions, you would be doing yourself a great disservice to not get Legislating Morality. My second recommendation is for apologists who prefer to stay away from discussions of moral epistemology: While distinguishing between moral ontology and epistemology is important in logically addressing skeptics' concerns about the existence of objective morality, these same skeptics will often see that response as a clever philosophical dodge of their true concern: hypocrisy, especially regarding politics. If we are to alleviate that concern, we must delve into moral epistemology and demonstrate a lack of inconsistency. Legislating Morality addresses this concern, specifically in the context of politics, which will equip you to address this emotionally charged and difficult subject. This book needs to be in your apologetics toolbox.
You can check out my full chapter-by-chapter review here:
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.