Dear editor:

During the formation of our nation, several of our Founding Fathers commented on the importance of morality in governing America. For example, John Adams stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” 

James Madison similarly stated that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”

Recently, I learned that one of our state representatives from Park County — the chair of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus — stated that, “the Legislature has an obligation to really take a stance on dictating morality.” I disagree.

When comparing the statements by our Founding Fathers and our current state leadership, I cannot help but notice a stark difference. Specifically, the concept of agency, choice or free will. The Founding Fathers believed that in order for America to be successful, the people had to first be moral. Alternatively, our current legislative leadership appears to subscribe to the idea that if they enact what they consider moral laws, the people will comply. 

My issue with the concept of “dictating morality” is twofold. First, the necessary governmental force required to “dictate” along with the lack of agency of those subject to such dictations, and second, the definition and subjectivity of “morality.” 

Generally, I object to the idea that a government should desire to “dictate” anything. Perhaps it was just a poor choice of words, but we have to take them on their face for what they mean and assume the speaker chose their words intentionally. For me, the use of “dictate” necessarily evokes images of authoritarian regimes that use force and coercion as their primary method of governing. When something is dictated, it is presented with no alternatives, room for interpretation, or consideration for alternative points of view. 

For the state to dictate anything, it must necessarily be accompanied by a possible loss of liberty or property. Governmental dictations or mandates require the backing of the State’s police powers to enforce them, otherwise the laws will be merely words on paper that express the hopes and desires of the authors. For the government to dictate morality, individuals will be robbed of their agency to conduct themselves morally and responsibility to determine what is moral.

Next, the question must be asked, “What is moral?”

For some, questions of morality likely will include issues like murder, sexual assault, lying, stealing, abortion and extramarital sex. Others might consider the use of birth control, invitro fertilization, suicide, homosexuality, drinking alcohol, gossiping on social media or swearing immoral.

Some of these issues will be “obvious” for many, but reasonable minds can and do disagree. The concern with dictating or legislating morality is that it opens a door for whoever is in power to dictate to those being governed to control the morals of society as a whole. Dictating morality also sets a precedent that governmental imposition is permissible and proper for future governments to follow. Where will it end?

I disagree that it is proper for any government to dictate morality. Instead, I agree with President Ronald Reagan who stated that, “[Our goal] is to help revive America’s traditional values: faith, family, neighborhood, work and freedom. Government has no business enforcing these values but neither must it seek, as it did in the recent past, to suppress or replace them.”

Plank 14 of the Wyoming Republican Party platform states, “The most effective, responsible, and responsive government is the government that is closest to the People. Government that governs least governs best.” I do not believe that dictating morality aligns with this principle. 

David Hill

Cody