C
CTuck
Guest
With the new HHS mandate I think this is in line with what is on everyone’s mind:
Where do you draw the line with the right to practice religion? We as Catholics should oppose this mandate, I agree, but not because it would attempt to impose itself on our right to practice faithfully, but because of what we believe about what it would impose on us to do. We have a moral obligation to oppose contraception, and so on, but restricing religious liberty per se? I could easily see someone saying, "what about honor killings? polygamy? relations with children? or the denial of proper medical treatment to children of parents who see their child’s illness as a trial of faith? " We do draw the line, to the merit of our own good sense, but how to defend our right to practice, while at the same time justifying the condemnation of certain practices is what I am aking for your imput on. What rule are we following when this is done and by what principles are we justifying it? It seems to me that the spectrum we are working on is one that has at one end laws based on moral truth, at the other, moral relativism ( or one law against laws against anything), and we are aiming towards truth with the need for humility and tolerance. Thanks.
Where do you draw the line with the right to practice religion? We as Catholics should oppose this mandate, I agree, but not because it would attempt to impose itself on our right to practice faithfully, but because of what we believe about what it would impose on us to do. We have a moral obligation to oppose contraception, and so on, but restricing religious liberty per se? I could easily see someone saying, "what about honor killings? polygamy? relations with children? or the denial of proper medical treatment to children of parents who see their child’s illness as a trial of faith? " We do draw the line, to the merit of our own good sense, but how to defend our right to practice, while at the same time justifying the condemnation of certain practices is what I am aking for your imput on. What rule are we following when this is done and by what principles are we justifying it? It seems to me that the spectrum we are working on is one that has at one end laws based on moral truth, at the other, moral relativism ( or one law against laws against anything), and we are aiming towards truth with the need for humility and tolerance. Thanks.