Tag - Love Life Jesus

A lot of hot-button topics are being debated in our state legislatures these days, topics of great ethical and bioethical importance, ranging from emergency contraception to gay marriage.

These debates address important issues for the future of our society.  Lawmakers face the daunting task of making decisions about what should or should not be permitted by law within a reasonable society. catholiceducation.org

Father Pacholczyk, Ph.D., serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center

Recently I was asked to speak in Virginia at legislative hearings about embryonic stem cell research.  After I gave my testimony, one of the senators asked a pointed question.  “Father Tad, by arguing against embryonic stem cell research, don’t you see how you are trying to impose your beliefs on others, and shouldn’t we as elected lawmakers avoid imposing a narrow religious view on the rest of society?” The senator’s question was an example of the fuzzy thinking that has become commonplace in recent years within many state legislatures and among many lawmakers.

First, the senator failed to recognize the fact that law is fundamentally about imposing somebody’s views on somebody else.  Imposition is the name of the game.  It is the very nature of law to impose particular views on people who don’t want to have those views imposed on them.

The second logical mistake the senator made was to suppose that because religion happens to hold a particular viewpoint, that implies that such a viewpoint should never be considered by lawmakers or enacted into law.  Religion teaches very clearly that stealing is immoral.  Would it follow that if I support laws against stealing, I am imposing my narrow religious viewpoint on society?  Clearly not.

So anytime we come across a lawmaker who tries to suggest that an argument in defense of sound morals is nothing but imposing a religious viewpoint, we need to look deeper at what may really be taking place.  That lawmaker may not be so concerned about avoiding the imposition of a particular view on others more likely, they are jockeying to simply be able to impose their view, a view which is ultimately much less tenable and defensible in terms of sound moral thinking.  Hence they seek to short-circuit the discussion by stressing religious zealotry and imposition without ever confronting the substantive ethical or bioethical argument itself.  Once the religious imposition card is played, and Christian lawmakers suddenly become weak-kneed about defending human life and sound morals, the other side then feels free to do the imposing themselves, without having expended too much effort on confronting the essence of the moral debate itself.