De Tocqueville Quotes

Since my blog title is borrowed from Alexis De Tocqueville's book of the same name, I decided it might be a good idea to actually read his book.  So that is what I am doing presently.  I am not the quickest reader though and after 6 weeks or so I am a little over half way through this 900+ page classic.  I just got through emailing a few quotes from the book to a friend.  After going to the work of typing them out I decided I may as well add them to the blog too.  The quotes are on my standard themes of marriage and religion.  Enjoy:)

Here is De Tocqueville commenting on marriage in America and contrasting it to the situation in Europe at the time (1835-ish; bold added):

"America is certainly the country where the bonds of marriage are most respected and where the concept of conjugal bliss has its highest and truest expression.  In Europe almost all social disorder stems from disturbances at home and not far removed from the marriage bed.  There men come to feel scorn for natural ties and legitimate pleasures;  there they develop a liking for disorder, a restless spirit, and fluctuating desires.  Shaken by the tempestuous emotions which often trouble his own home, the European finds it difficult to submit to the authority of the state's legislators.  When the American returns from the turmoil of politics to the bosom of his family, he immediately finds a perfect picture of orderliness and peace.  There, all his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys innocent and quiet; and since he reaches happiness through the regularity of his life, he has no difficulty in regulating his opinions as well as his tastes.  Whereas the European seeks to escape from his domestic troubles by disturbing society, the American draws the love of order from his home which he then carries over into his affairs of state."

Here is a great passage from De Tocqueville regarding the importance of religion to American Democracy:

In the United States, religion governs not only behavior but extends its influence to men's minds.  Among Anglo-Americans there are some who profess Christian dogmas out of belief, others because they are afraid they might appear to lack belief.  So Christianity reigns without obstacles by universal consent;  so, as I have already said elsewhere, the result is that in the world of morality everything is definite and settled, although the world of politics is given over to debate and human experiment.  Thus, the mind of man never beholds an unlimited field in front of itself; however bold he might be, man senses from time to time that he must halt before insurmountable barriers and test his most audacious ideas against certain formalities, which either hold him back or stop him altogether.  The imagination of Americans, even in its greatest flights of fancy, is circumspect and cautions.  Its impulses are restricted and its achievements unfinished.  These habits of restraint are found in political society and to an unusual degree favor the tranquility of the people and the stability of the institutions they have adopted.  Nature and circumstance have turned the inhabitant of the United States into a bold man;  this is easily proved by the manner in which he seeks his fortune.  If the mind of the Americans were free of all shackles, one would soon encounter among them the boldest innovators and the most relentless logicians in the world.  But American revolutionaries are forced publicly to profess a certain respect for Christian morality and equity, which does not allow them easily to violate their plans;  and were they to manage to rise above their scruples themselves, they would still feel hindered by those of their supporters.  Up until now, no one in the United States has dared to promote the maxim that everything is legitimized in the interests of society, an impious maxim which seems to have been invented in an age of liberty simply to justify every future tyrant.  Thus, while the law allows the American people to do everything, religion prevents their imagining everything and forbids them from daring to do everything.  Religion, which never interferes directly in the government of Americans, should therefore be regarded as the first of their political institutions, for, if it does not give them the taste for liberty, it enables them to take unusual advantage of it.

 That last section in bold is, I think, the key to liberty.  It's message may help us understand more clearly why our freedoms are under attack at the present.  Compare this message to a talk given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson (LDS Apostle) in October 2009: link to talk here.

Religion vs. Science

I have been involved for the past few days in a discussion with mostly atheists and some agnostics on the value of religion. The discussion has helped me formulate my own thoughts so I decided to transfer excerpts to my blog (sorry for such a long post!).  Check it out if you have any interest and let me know what you think.  If you are interested in this type of thing, check out this 2006 debate between two evolutionary biologists: Francis Collins (a Christian, and Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute) and Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion.)  I also highly recommend Francis Collins book The Language of God.

SAM:  Religion responds to the 'why?' questions in life. Why are we here? What is our purpose on earth.  Where do we find answers to these questions outside of religion?  CS Lewis describes it in this manner ( from Mere Christianity):

"Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such -and such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?"

VANESSA:  Okay, so you say the question is "what is our purpose on earth?" That could be answered simply enough, in evolutionary terms. Our purpose is to survive long enough to pass our genetic material to the next generation. If the question is widened to include all humanity, then it could be answered that our purpose as a species is to survive and perhaps evolve in such a way that we stave off extinction for as long as possible.

If the question is, specifically, "What is our spiritual purpose on earth?" then you have to define spirit and spiritual and explain why you think these things exist and why they demand a purpose if they do.

If the question is "How can I as an individual find a satisfying purpose for my individual life?" then the answer could be any of a wide range of possibilities. It could come through work or through relationships with others or art or music or religion. But it couldn't be a universal answer, because different people can be shown to find meaning and purpose in different ways.

If you have chosen the middle option then we would have to first agree that there is something which could be described as spirit or spiritual before we answer. So describe what that thing is and why it's not a matter of brain chemistry and evolutionary or cultural pressures on the particular animal we call human.


SAM:  [On the first question] all you are saying here is that the purpose of life is to perpetuate more life. So we are right back to square one. Why do humans exist at all?

[On the question, "What is our spiritual purpose on earth"] I'm not sure I would draw such a strong distinction between the spiritual and material. If there is a spiritual realm, it is apparently integrated with the material and it seems unlikely that the two spheres of existence have completely separate purposes.

I think my question is better expressed in the following ways: Is there a purpose for the existence of humanity (besides just perpetuating more humanity)? Do we share a common destiny? Is there existence beyond this earth life? If so, do our individual actions determine our place in the eternities? If my actions do matter, how am I to act? Did I exist in some manner before I was born?

These are the types of questions that lead people to religious inquiry. Many on this board apparently don't care. That's fine...I don't suggest that people have to ask these questions. But many of us do. In fact, the history of humanity suggests that most of us do. And it is ignorant to suggest that only the deluded and irrational ask these questions. There are countless examples of brilliant thinkers who were also deeply religious.

VANESSA: If the question is posed in a fair way I think it would have to be "Is there a (greater, spiritual, etc) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" Asked in that way, the Atheist can simple answer, "No." If you ask instead "What is the purpose?" or "Why are we here and no fair answering with how we came about through evolution?" that is a rigged question. It presupposes that you can't simply answer that there was an evolutionary reason for religions forming or that something in the human brains pattern recognition systems tends to recognize patterns and intentionality even where none exist.

There aren't any questions that can't be answered by beliefs in things like brain chemistry and evolutionary pressure. This does not mean that those are the true answers, just that I insist that it be recognized that some people find them perfectly acceptable and explanatory.

I tend to think that there is something to the totality of lived experience, morality, beauty, consciousness, that is better explained by spiritual answers than by science. However I don't see any reason to privilege one religion over any of the others unless it happens to be the religion you were brought up into.

I've always found my vague sense of something greater, my appreciation of art and music and nature, and my occasional doubts and tendencies towards atheistic explanations are very fulfilling and don't leave me with a sense of lacking anything either morally or in any other way. I also know that many atheists are perfectly happy explaining everything this through brain chemistry and evolutionary pressures and seem to feel they're not missing out on anything. They may feel the same awe I do on a mountaintop or under the night sky and enjoy it thoroughly without needing to find anything more than interesting neuro-chemistry behind it.

Now, a question for those believers who feel more strongly that atheists are wrong and/or their own religion is the right one:

If it's true that there are atheists (or believers in other religions) who have an internally consistent system of beliefs and live their lives in a way which is moral and find themselves as happy and satisfied in their lives as much as anyone, do you feel that this would somehow conflict with your own beliefs in some way? Does it make God less likely to be real?

Now I think of it, the question can be posed just as easily to the more vehement atheists. So:

If there are believers who have thought things through and arrived at a consistent set of beliefs which accord with science, and who are happy and moral etc, does this somehow threaten your own beliefs or your world view? Would it make god more likely to be real if other people persist in believing in spite of hearing all your arguments?


SAM:  Vanessa, thanks for a very insightful comment and great questions. As to your restructuring of the "Why?" question I posed, I think I see your point, but I don't think it gets us anywhere. If, in response to your question "Is there a (greater, spiritual, etc) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" an atheist answers, "No", the question is simply extended "How do you know there is no (greater, spiritual, etc.) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" It seems that the atheist has no answer other than to say, "that's my opinion." If this is the case, the best an atheist can claim is to be agnostic. All they are saying is that for some reason they don't care about asking the "Why?" questions.

[In response to your question to the believers,] it should be noted that the question is loaded with certain conditions that would certainly never come to pass. An astute believer would probably probe the atheist until they found holes in their supposedly "internally consistent belief system." The gaps in logic that the believer found would undoubtedly be challenged by the atheist, and an argument would ensue that would have no resolution. In fact, I think it is fair to say that this is the current state of affairs on the very question you are posing: an ongoing argument. Also, the whole idea of persons being "as happy and satisfied in their lives as much as anyone" presupposes that there is some objective measure of happiness agreeable by all. I can't imagine such a universally accepted happiness meter existing.


[In response to your question to the atheists,] once again, I think the question is posed with certain conditions that are unimaginable. Religious belief presupposes that certain premises are taken on faith. How could science ever prove (for example) that Christ truly atoned for the sins of mankind, or that His resurrection ensures the resurrection of humanity? Every religion has these type of faith-based features. These are the features that make them 'religions'. A 'person of faith' who's belief system accords fully with science has necessarily ditched certain faith-based beliefs and is no longer a 'person of faith'.

VANESSA:  Well, as you say Sam an atheist can always find things he feels to be inconsistent or ridiculous in the believer's system, and a believer can always say that a simple "no" answer to the question "Is there a larger/greater/spiritual purpose behind the universe" is not good enough. When I say "consistent" I mean, there's no question you can pose to this hypothetical atheist that they can't answer in a way they find satisfying enough for themselves, with the converse true for the believer.

What I intended was just to exclude cases where the believer insists on things are completely opposed to all scientific evidence (young earth creationism comes to mind). And also exclude cases where the atheist insists on things which can be proven factually inaccurate- like those who claim that religion is a consistent force for evil and is at the root of all wars and killing or whatever.

I'm not sure, but you sound like you might be saying that an atheist who considers themselves happy and moral and satisfied with their life isn't really any of those things, by your measurement of those things, and that yours is right and their own is wrong. Is this what you believe- that they don't know what they're missing?

SAM:  If that is what is meant by your question, then I think the answer is obvious in both instances (the question to the atheist and believer) for that is the situation in which we find ourselves. Atheists and believers are convinced of the internal consistency of their belief systems. If they recognized (and admitted) an inconsistency how could they possibly be 'happy' in their belief system? They would be forced to reevaluate their system of belief to find contentedness.

[As for the 'young creationists' as well as those who insist religion is always a force for evil,] I think individuals that fall into either camp are not even worth having a conversation with.

What I meant [in regards to the happiness issue] was that both sides would most likely define happiness in such a way that excluded the possibility of happiness to the other side. The religious believer may base a large portion of their happiness on the joy they find through their faith. They may, therefore, conclude that anyone lacking that type of happiness has bought into a false and fleeting form of happiness. The atheist may conclude that a believer who is 'happy' because of their faith is deluding themselves and is actually mentally deranged. "The believer would be much happier", the atheist might say, "if he would face the truth and drop his delusions." My point was that the whole idea of an objective version of happiness could never be settled on.

DIATRIBALIST:  I suppose [Vanessa's comments about those who claim religion is a consistent force for evil] was directed partially at me. I have read much on the history of the creation of the Catholic Church and the corruption associated with it. There is nothing factually inaccurate in my assessment. The Church has a history of cruelty and corruption. And after the reformation, the Protestant religions did not do much better.
I do not believe in evil. What I do believe is that humans are animals. They have animal instincts. Religion is an attempt to quell those instincts. Instead, it gives an outlet to those instincts for the leaders and some enterprising followers. The instinct to control others. The instinct to do as little work as possible for the greatest reward. The instinct to feel superior to your fellow creatures. These instincts have lead people, using religion, using the fear of god, to start wars for economic gain. To torture and kill for the glory of god and the riches of the church. From the Crusades to the Inquisition. To Prohibition and todays modern Isalmic Jihadis, Religion has been the bane of civility for centuries. Always with the "best of intentions" and for "the glory of god", religious crusades always end in a bloody mess.

Religion was created out of human instinct. Humans are animals, so it follows religion will conduct itself with animalistic characteristics.


[And Sam,]the goal of life should be truth, not happiness. But if people are happy believing in god, then so be it. The problem I have is when religionist take their beliefs into the public square and try to influence laws, forcing their specific morality on society at large. Pray in the closet, as Jesus suggested. Don't be proud in your faith, humble yourself before the lord and respect others right to disagree and possibly anger your god. That is the essence of religious tolerance.

SAM:  [In response to Diatribalist,] although there may be nothing factually inaccurate in your assessment, it is clear that you choose to selectively exclude the tremendous good that churches do as well. You speak about the history of 'cruelty and corruption' but you fail to include the work of someone like Mother Teresa who was motivated by her faith. That is why people like you are not worth having a conversation with. You look at religion with blinders on and you refuse to look at evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions. The irony is you accuse the church of 'cruelty and corruption' yet within the same breath you express your belief that evil does not exist.

Your foundation of moral relativism provides you with no firm basis on which to judge the actions of the church. The best you can say is that the church does things that you would choose not to do. But even in this statement you would be indicating the possibility of choice (and free will) thus lending an attribute to humanity that distinguishes it from the brute animal.

'Pure religion' is not created out of human instinct. It seeks to channel human insinct into its proper bounds. Human beings are agents in that they (i) possess a capacity to choose between options and (ii) possess the power (in many instances) to act on their choices (see Oxford Companion to Philosophy). This distinguishes the human animal from the brute animal, as the brute animal is guided entirely by instinct. Human beings are prompted by instinct, but they choose whether or not to act on those instincts. Religion seeks to guide those choices. I really like the way CS Lewis describes it:

"We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct--by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of' the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct."

 [And Diatribilist,] on the 'enforcing morality' issue, you are deluding yourself. Laws are by definition a codification of morality. Religious participants are wise to advocate their positions in terms that are agreeable to secularists, but they are under no obligation to do so. Astute religionists are every bit as capable of defending their moral positions rationally as any secularist out there. But the fact is, we live in a democratic society, and it is (as Prez Obama said) "[a practical absurdity] to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality into public policy debates."

Encore! Law and Morality Part II

My post yesterday was a bit heavy going so I thought I should throw something up today in case I scared anyone off :-)  Since my original post entitled 'Law and Morality' was such a hit (I got zero comments) I figured this might be a good chance to refine my views.

I am aware that my blog is turning into something of an outlet for the views of Robert P. George.  He really is one of my heroes and I am sorry for inundating my readers (all 3 of you) with a constant deluge of Catholic philosophy.  But that is the kick I am on lately, so deal with it.  I am reading a couple of books by Dr. George right now and he is certainly changing my views on the propriety of legislating personal morality.  I'll use an example to illustrate:

As explained in an earlier post (Law and Morality), in my more libertarian days (like 3 weeks ago...yeah I'm that unstable) I considered racial discrimination laws to be immoral because they violate private property rights.  Why shouldn't someone have the right to do what they want on their own property?  If the general populace finds it vile that a business owner excludes blacks, the populace will not patronize that business and it will lose money.

While I still may think that it is more prudent for the government to refrain from legislating on racial discrimination issues, I do not regard it as immoral for the government to do so.  I have come to believe that the whole idea of denying the government the right to 'legislate morality' is a 'practical absurdity' (in the words of Obama).  As Obama said in a 2006 speech, "Our law is by definition a codification of morality."  The rights that libertarians do esteem as appropriate for government enforcement (defense of life, liberty, property) are so esteemed based on a moral claim.  Why are libertarians okay with the government enforcing these moral issues, but not other moral issues?

In the pre-civil rights era, there were states that actually had laws on the books that were meant to promote racism.  These laws were clearly unjust.  They were not unjust, however, because they legislated personal morality.  They were unjust because they embodied a false morality.  A racist morality. 

There may be prudential reasons for denying the government the power to regulate certain aspects of personal morality, such as:

• A concern that the power of the state will grow excessively as a consequence
• A high cost to enforce, with minimal or questionable returns on the investment (the war on drugs would be a good example of this one)

I do not believe that one can claim that it is immoral for government to legislate on matters of personal morality though.  I think it is better to say that in particular areas of morality it is not prudential for the government to legislate.  It is a matter of practical judgment.  And what is prudent in one epoch or what is prudent in one culture, may not be prudent in another epoch or culture.  The foundational questions when considering a particular piece of morals legislation are:  Is the morality being considered for legislation correct?  If so, is it prudent to regulate this particular moral truth?  In many cases we may answer yes to the first question, but no to the second. 

As members of the LDS church, we often sense that morals legislation deprives people of agency.  It is often mentioned that, "It was Satan's plan to destroy agency.  Forcing people to do good is exactly what Satan wants."  I have determined (with the help of a friend, and you KNOW who you are:) that this is a misunderstanding of scripture.  Read the verses again: Moses 4:1-3

1 And I, the ^aLord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That ^bSatan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the ^cbeginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will ^dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely ^eI will do it; wherefore ^fgive me thine honor.

  2 But, behold, my Beloved ^aSon, which was my Beloved and ^bChosen from the beginning, said unto me—^cFather, thy ^dwill be done, and the ^eglory be thine forever.

  3 Wherefore, because that ^aSatan ^brebelled against me, and sought to destroy the ^cagency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be ^dcast down

Satan made at least two mistakes:

• He rebelled against God.  God had already presented his plan, and Satan thought he had a better idea.  This was Lucifer's pride
• He offered to 'redeem all mankind that one soul shall not be lost'.  To redeem means to make amends for wrongdoing.  It means to remove the consequences.  No where do the scriptures tell us that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man by trying to 'make them do the right thing.'  Instead, it seems, he sought to destroy the agency of man by promising to remove the consequences of their bad decisions.  He was telling God's children that they could come to earth, do whatever they wanted, not repent, and still be saved. Since this plan was clearly an illusion, God recognized that Satan was setting a trap for His children whereby they would become Lucifer's slaves.  And we can see that those who did follow Satan are enslaved to him.  I highly doubt that Satan is currently depriving any of his followers of agency by employing a tactic whereby he 'forces them to do good.'  Their 'loss of agency' is reflected in their inability to make choices whatsoever.  They are completely in Satan's control.

The idea that morals legislation takes away agency is a mistaken interpretation.  Man is not being controlled by the law.  The law is a teacher, and man still has the choice whether or not to obey the law.  Those who follow Satan and lose their agency have no power of choice whatsoever.  To claim that laws remove agency when legislating personal morality, one would also need to claim that laws prohibiting murder remove agency.  But clearly people can still choose to murder. 

So to repeat, laws are only immoral when they embody a false morality.  That being said, it may very well be prudent for us to deny the government power of enforcement in certain moral spheres.

Law and Morality

After finishing my last post, the voice of Robert P. George was ringing in my ears.  If you have read any of my previous posts about marriage, you know what a fan I am of Professor George.  He has made headlines recently as one of the authors of the "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call to Christian Conscience" (link here), and as the subject of a piece in the New York Times Magazine December 20th entitled "Robert P. George, the Conservative-Christian Big Thinker" (link to article here).  Professor George is a tenured professor at Princeton where he lectures on constitutional interpretation, civil liberties, and the philosophy of law.

In my last post I castigated racial-discrimination laws because they violate private property rights.  I was not arguing that racial discrimination is okay.  I was arguing that government should not regulate this because it is a matter of moral interpretation and not the place of the government.  Here's a clip from a talk that Professor George gave to BYU students in 2008 (link to speech here) where he comments on this topic of law and morality (italics added):

 "It is a profound mistake to suppose that  the principle of limited government is rooted in the denial of moral truth, or a putative requirement for governments to refrain from acting on the basis of judgments about moral truths.  For our commitment to limited government is itself the fruit of moral conviction.  It is a moral belief.  It is not a belief founded on the idea that nobody can know the moral truth.  Quite the opposite.  It is an assertion of something held out to be 'the moral truth.'  This conviction is ultimately founded upon truths that our nation's founders claimed as self-evident, namely: that all men are created equal.  They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  At the foundation is the proposition that each human being, every member of the human family, possesses a profound, inherent, and equal dignity simply by virtue of his nature as a rational creature. 

Now to speak of truth frightens some people today.  In the type of University environments that I usually spend my time people get very nervous when you talk about 'the truth'.  They evidently believe that people who claim to know the truth about anything, and especially about moral matters, are fundamentalists and potential totalitarians.  But as my friend, Professor (??), has patiently explained, those on the other side of the great moral debates make truth claims all the time.  They assert their positions with no less confidence and no more doubt than one finds in pro-lifers or defenders of conjugal marriage.  They proclaim for example, not as some mere matter of abstract opinion, but as something true, that women have a fundamental right even to elective abortion.  They maintain, with all the conviction you can have when speaking something you believe to be true, that love makes a family.  The question then, is not whether there are truths about such things as the morality of elective abortion and the nature of marriage.  The question in each case is, "What is the truth?""

So regarding my stance on private property rights, I think Professor George would ask me this: Why should the government respect property rights?  I would answer that it is wrong for the government, or anyone else to tell me what to do with my property.  In other words, I would be asking the law to recognize my moral right to my property.  Since we have established that I am okay with the law enforcing this particular moral truth, why am I opposed to the law enforcing another moral truth? Namely, the truth that all men are created equal, regardless of their race, and deserve equal treatment as such.  Even on someone's private property.

Darn this Professor George and his superior intellect.  So now I ask myself these questions:  Are there certain moral truths that the government should enforce, and others that it should not?  If so, how does a society determine which moral categories are fair game for legal enforcement?  And beyond that, what happens when laws enforcing morality come in conflict with each other (i.e. private property rights vs. right to not be discriminated against)?  I think a strict libertarian would answer that since the government derives its just power from the consent of the governed, the government can only enforce morals on the citizenry that an individual, in the absence of government, could enforce on his neighbor.  In other words, people can only lend to the government powers that they themselves possess.

For example, we all recognize stealing as wrong.  If my neighbor steals one of my cars, I have the right to force my neighbor to give it back to me.  Since I posess this power, I can empower my agent, the government, to take the car back for me.  Now think of a racial discrimination example:  What if I observe that my neighbor never lets black people on his property.  Do I have the right to force him to let black people on his property?  It does not seem so.  Therefore I do not have the right to empower my agent, the government, to force my neighbor to allow black people on his property.

It is for this reason that libertarians limit the powers of government to the defense of life, liberty, and property.  It all seems quite reasonable until you start reading where this logic takes you by hard core libertarians.  A few years ago I was listening to a libertarian podcast entitled Free Talk Live.  The host of the show was defending abortion, and even infanticide if I remember right, on the grounds that an embryo, or small baby is not yet a rational creature with the capability of defending its rights.  Therefore, an infant cannot logically empower its agent, the state, to defend its rights.  Therefore the infant is not guaranteed protection under the law.  Or something like that.  Like I said, it gets pretty bizarre.

I think Professor George would argue that the libertarian view is nonsense.  He would agree with President Obama that, "our law is, by definition, a codification of morality. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity." (link to Obama speech here) In his talk to the students at BYU, Professor George says this:

"We must not adopt a merely pragmatic understanding, or speak only of practical considerations, in addressing the pressing, morally charged issues of our day.  Sound positions cannot be effectively advanced by citizens and statesmen who are unwilling, or unable, to engage moral arguments.  That is why we should, in my opinion, rededicate ourselves to understanding and making the moral argument for, for example, the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions, and the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman. 

Our task, as I see it, should be to understand the moral truth, and speak it.  In season, and out.  Speak it lovingly, speak it civilly.  Engage those with whom one disagrees in civil discourse, open to hearing counterarguments.  Open to hearing the other side's point of view.  Yes, speak it lovingly, speak it civily, but speak it firmly, and vigorously.  Because so much is at stake."

Elsewhere, Professor George has written (article link here):

"Christians and other believers are right to defend their positions on key moral issues as rationally superior to the alternatives proposed by those who have abandoned traditional moral principles.  Opponents of these traditional principles can be shown to be stuck.  Not because they have been beaten over the head with the bible, but on the plain where they have made the argument: the plain of rationality."

I am not certain which moral categories are, and are not, fair game for legal regulation.  I do know that law will inevitably represent a 'codification' of public morality.  Since it is impossible to keep the law out of the moral sphere, it is imperative that we strive to ensure that the law embodies the moral truth.  It is imperative that we are able to articulate the rational argument for traditional morality.  LDS scripture teaches us about an ancient civilization facing similar circumstances:

"For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted."    Helaman 5:2

Laws become 'corrupted' when they embody a false morality.  We should rededicate ourselves to understanding the argument for traditional morals because, as Professor George stated, "so much is at stake."