Tuesday, January 25, 2005
CREEDS AND VALUES
Values were important to many voters in the November election. No one has yet published a report on just what the values were that influenced so many voters. It is implied that the “value voters” were mostly evangelical Christians and their values were parts of their belief systems. Two examples cited in news commentaries are the sanctity of unborn life (i.e., opposition to legal abortion) and the sanctity of marriage (i.e., opposition to providing any legal sanction to a loving and permanent union of two homosexuals). Evangelical and Roman Catholic Christians find support for their views in parts of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. The President believes that he needed and received the support of this group to win election and intends to make good on implicit promises to advance their causes.
We are, however, a pluralistic society, with many religious sects and many religious creeds. Our tradition has been that our government remains neutral among the conflicting beliefs and does not choose one particular sect or group of sects over others. Public policy should be made in our democracy on the basis of public judgment or consensus, not on religious doctrine. There is a consensus that murder, armed robbery, human slavery, rape and other forms of violence against an individual, and lying under oath are crimes. Nearly every one of us agrees that these acts are and should be crimes under law regardless of our religious creed. The same consensus does not exist regarding homosexual unions or abortions. We willingly put murderers, thieves, and rapists in prison. We do not put a homosexual pair in prison for living together and caring for each other as much as any married heterosexual couple. We do not put a woman in prison if she has an abortion. There is no consensus that these acts are or should be crimes, even though Holy Scripture specifies death by stoning to the participants.
Emotions run high on the abortion issue. A sizeable minority of Americans advocate laws that forbid abortion under any circumstance. Such laws that have been proposed or enacted are directed toward the medical providers of abortion, not toward the women who seek abortions. A majority of Americans believe that the woman should be free to seek competent medical treatment and termination of pregnancy without interference from a government agency. Many people agree that there should be a limit on when the procedure is carried out. A mere month before the baby is due is too late except in dire circumstances.
Let us suppose that we lived in a society in which the Jehovah’s Witnesses comprised a sizeable and influential voting bloc. As a matter of creed or religious doctrine, Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose all forms of organ transplant, including blood transfusions. A devout Jehovah’s Witness will refuse a blood transfusion even to save his own life. A parent will let his child die rather than accept a blood transfusion or an organ transplant. Should a President elected in a close election with almost unanimous support of Jehovah’s Witnesses feel obligated to advance their belief to the status of law? Should everyone be denied blood transfusions just because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it is wrong to contaminate the body God gave you with strange blood? Let us suppose further that the President himself is a Jehovah’s Witness. One can not blame him for trying to put into law a belief that he sincerely and deeply believes. But how about the rest of us, including those who voted for the President who were not Jehovah’s Witnesses? Should all the rest of us sit back and unhappily observe while laws are enacted that we do agree with? I say not. We would and should raise holy hell to prevent the enactment of laws that prohibit organ transplants, including blood transfusions.
So, what’s the moral? Let those who believe abortion is wrong forgo abortion under any circumstance. Let those who believe homosexual living together is wrong ignore homosexual couples who openly live together. Let them leave the rest of us in peace. Let us all get along.
We are, however, a pluralistic society, with many religious sects and many religious creeds. Our tradition has been that our government remains neutral among the conflicting beliefs and does not choose one particular sect or group of sects over others. Public policy should be made in our democracy on the basis of public judgment or consensus, not on religious doctrine. There is a consensus that murder, armed robbery, human slavery, rape and other forms of violence against an individual, and lying under oath are crimes. Nearly every one of us agrees that these acts are and should be crimes under law regardless of our religious creed. The same consensus does not exist regarding homosexual unions or abortions. We willingly put murderers, thieves, and rapists in prison. We do not put a homosexual pair in prison for living together and caring for each other as much as any married heterosexual couple. We do not put a woman in prison if she has an abortion. There is no consensus that these acts are or should be crimes, even though Holy Scripture specifies death by stoning to the participants.
Emotions run high on the abortion issue. A sizeable minority of Americans advocate laws that forbid abortion under any circumstance. Such laws that have been proposed or enacted are directed toward the medical providers of abortion, not toward the women who seek abortions. A majority of Americans believe that the woman should be free to seek competent medical treatment and termination of pregnancy without interference from a government agency. Many people agree that there should be a limit on when the procedure is carried out. A mere month before the baby is due is too late except in dire circumstances.
Let us suppose that we lived in a society in which the Jehovah’s Witnesses comprised a sizeable and influential voting bloc. As a matter of creed or religious doctrine, Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose all forms of organ transplant, including blood transfusions. A devout Jehovah’s Witness will refuse a blood transfusion even to save his own life. A parent will let his child die rather than accept a blood transfusion or an organ transplant. Should a President elected in a close election with almost unanimous support of Jehovah’s Witnesses feel obligated to advance their belief to the status of law? Should everyone be denied blood transfusions just because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it is wrong to contaminate the body God gave you with strange blood? Let us suppose further that the President himself is a Jehovah’s Witness. One can not blame him for trying to put into law a belief that he sincerely and deeply believes. But how about the rest of us, including those who voted for the President who were not Jehovah’s Witnesses? Should all the rest of us sit back and unhappily observe while laws are enacted that we do agree with? I say not. We would and should raise holy hell to prevent the enactment of laws that prohibit organ transplants, including blood transfusions.
So, what’s the moral? Let those who believe abortion is wrong forgo abortion under any circumstance. Let those who believe homosexual living together is wrong ignore homosexual couples who openly live together. Let them leave the rest of us in peace. Let us all get along.
