Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alan From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: govt. vs. religion, Indiana style Message-ID: <2530@allegra.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Jun-84 14:26:46 EDT Article-I.D.: allegra.2530 Posted: Wed Jun 13 14:26:46 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Jun-84 00:27:54 EDT References: <7476@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 37 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