flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (06/13/84)
Ah, the joys of iconoclasm! It seems that many of those who get labeled "secular humanists" or who tend to take what are called "liberal" positions on social issues are now supporting the Indiana law to override religious objections to medical care for children. Could these be the same people who I so often hear (on or off the net) railing against "imposing morality", who now ask the government to interfere in the moral decisions of these parents? It would seem that whether "imposing morality" is wrong, all depends on whose ox is getting gored! Don't get me wrong: I support the Indiana legislation too. Three cheers for imposing morality, as long as it's the right one! (Or, failing that, a good one!) And now, would it be too much to ask my fellow agnostics (that's right, fellow) and the adherents of liberal religions, etc., to give up a stupid slogan, now that I've caught you in the act of hypocrisy? "The ideas you love to hate" from --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (06/13/84)
Paul Torek writes: > ... > > It seems that many of those who get labeled "secular humanists" or who tend > to take what are called "liberal" positions on social issues are now > supporting the Indiana law to override religious objections to medical care > for children. Could these be the same people who I so often hear (on or off > the net) railing against "imposing morality", who now ask the government to > interfere in the moral decisions of these parents? It would seem that > whether "imposing morality" is wrong, all depends on whose ox is getting > gored! > > ... Sorry, Paul, but I think I have been entirely consistent in supporting the following three principles: (1) Every person has rights which should be protected. Murder is a violation of the right to life, theft is a violation of the right to property, and so on. Therefore, we have laws against these acts. (2) Some people (children, the mentally handicapped, etc.) aren't capable of taking care of themselves. Some sort of guidance or supervision is necessary in this special case. (3) A person's freedom should not be restricted in any way except as a direct consequence of (1) or (2). If the Indiana law restricted an individual's right to make choices for him or herself, then I would oppose it. That's not what is says, though, is it? -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (06/13/84)
I've already posted a reply to Paul's article, but I want to add one more thing. If you're looking for hypocrisy, look at Bob Brown, who posted a long tirade about freedom (which started this discussion), then turned around and defended laws against prostitution. Actually, I don't think Mr. Brown was being hypocritical. I think he was being manipulative and dishonest. You know -- "I may not believe it myself, but heck, it's a stirring argument, isn't it?" (If Mr. Brown still wants to claim that he was being honest, I'd love to drag this one out... To be consistent with what he's said so far, he has to argue that avoiding public nuisance is more important than human life. :-) -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories