Name That Quote

You know the rules*. Who said this:

[S]ecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

A. Mitt Romney

B. Mother Teresa

C. Billy Graham

D. Barack Obama

E. Bono

It's an interesting quote, and one that I am not sure I fully agree with. Yes, law is a moral code, and we ought to bring our values to the public policy debate. But the danger in that is very soon the government then starts to act as our moral barometer. And that can't go anywhere other than down the road of oppression. Indeed, that exists largely in our society today, where "morality" is often determined by the political party in power (or 9 judges) rather than the individual states and/or communities themselves. And when those communities do vote, such as we are seeing nationwide with same-sex marriage, then those who oppose the outcome start stomping their jackboots on the throats of those who "injected their personal morality" into the debate.

The other danger is that things that have little to do with morality at all become moral issues, which all too often strips the objectivity out of the whole process. Global warming is the standard example. It's no longer a scientific argument. Nor even an economic one. It's religious. You either believe or you don't. And if you don't, then to hell with you.

Incidentally, this reminds me of the local fervor right now about the LDS Church endorsing an anti-discrimination bill that would protect people from being fired or evicted based on sexual preference. Both sides are making the moral argument that defends their overall position on such things. Even the church in its endorsement has said that this law will not hurt the definition of marriage. Which is precisely irrelevant. My objection to the bill has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, but entirely to do with the obvious result of its passing, which will be the effective hostage-holding of employers and landlords who will find that no matter how incompetent a gay employee or tenant is, cannot be fired. That no law maker seem to understand that is baffling. And what about the straight male that feels burned when he gets fired?

But I have hijacked my own post.

I read much of the speech that the above mystery quote came from, and it's full of the author's typical speechifying. In fact, the speech is a fine example of exactly my concerns with the quote - namely the moralfication of political, economic, and environmental issues that are not inherently so. I'd be quite interested to find out if the author of the above statement still stands by it (this all is a pretty solid hint, by the way).

Your thoughts?

You can find the answer here. But before you click, take a guess, or chime in with your thoughts in the comments section.

*No google cheating.

h/t: NRO