Putting Phony Catholics In Perspective
See if you can spot anything wrong with the following:
Anything wrong with that statement?
How about this one:
The latter is the actual quote from Doug Kmiec's op-ed urging pro-life Catholics to give up their principled stance and support the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in U.S. history.
The former is my slight rewording of that statement.
If the first strikes you as a shocking example of moral equivalence, relativism, and blindness, but the latter does not, you need to ask yourself this question:
"Is murdering a person worse than shackling him?"
The Bible is clear on this. Perhaps Kmiec ought to read it more, and write op eds less.
The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy.
Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on slavery, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to liberty undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.
Anything wrong with that statement?
How about this one:
The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy.
Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.
The latter is the actual quote from Doug Kmiec's op-ed urging pro-life Catholics to give up their principled stance and support the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in U.S. history.
The former is my slight rewording of that statement.
If the first strikes you as a shocking example of moral equivalence, relativism, and blindness, but the latter does not, you need to ask yourself this question:
"Is murdering a person worse than shackling him?"
The Bible is clear on this. Perhaps Kmiec ought to read it more, and write op eds less.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home