I'm glad to hear that Zoethe's post was inspiring. And I'm glad to hear that you were able to look beyond your personal religious beliefs and see that the laws in this country have to protect ALL of the citizens, and not just the ones in the majority. Legislating morality is always sticky business.
It's a strange concept to wrap one's head around - we have to have separate standards for our laws and for our religion. Which is why even though you may be morally opposed to abortion, you can still recognize that until there are better health care options for women in America and until the social conditions that lead to epidemic proportions of unplanned pregnancies are cured, there is still a legal need for safe and affordable abortion in America. You may be morally opposed to homosexuality, but still recognize that two people who love each other should not be driven apart by laws that make it impossible for them to care for each other in medical emergencies or in their old age. You may feel that God gave Man dominion over the earth, but still recognize that policies that damage our environment harm our children's future, and our own. And you be personally opposed to the use of fetal stem cells, but understand that millions of lives can be saved by allowing responsible medical use of those cells in research.
I think what bothers me, and many of my "liberal" friends, is that I DON'T have a problem with your religious beliefs. I don't think that they are trivial, or unimportant. But I don't want your religious beliefs imposed on me through the law we have to share - any more than you want my religious beliefs imposed on you. (How about outlawing the eating of meat in America! Egads!) I think that if we could recognize that public laws need to have a rationale that doesn't come from religious dogma, and allow law to be law and religion to be religion, having civil (ha! great pun!) discussion on the issues would be easier.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-07 03:01 pm (UTC)It's a strange concept to wrap one's head around - we have to have separate standards for our laws and for our religion. Which is why even though you may be morally opposed to abortion, you can still recognize that until there are better health care options for women in America and until the social conditions that lead to epidemic proportions of unplanned pregnancies are cured, there is still a legal need for safe and affordable abortion in America. You may be morally opposed to homosexuality, but still recognize that two people who love each other should not be driven apart by laws that make it impossible for them to care for each other in medical emergencies or in their old age. You may feel that God gave Man dominion over the earth, but still recognize that policies that damage our environment harm our children's future, and our own. And you be personally opposed to the use of fetal stem cells, but understand that millions of lives can be saved by allowing responsible medical use of those cells in research.
I think what bothers me, and many of my "liberal" friends, is that I DON'T have a problem with your religious beliefs. I don't think that they are trivial, or unimportant. But I don't want your religious beliefs imposed on me through the law we have to share - any more than you want my religious beliefs imposed on you. (How about outlawing the eating of meat in America! Egads!) I think that if we could recognize that public laws need to have a rationale that doesn't come from religious dogma, and allow law to be law and religion to be religion, having civil (ha! great pun!) discussion on the issues would be easier.