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