longreads, Philosophy, politics, rights, Thoughts on Life

The Right’s Balance

Much debate is going on currently regarding the rights of individuals, groups, organizations and whose rights take precedence.   This is dangerous territory when we begin to allow the wills of a church or group to be forced upon an individual’s personal freedom.  And it is dangerous in far greater reaches than it is presented to us.

Most prominent in the spotlight right now is on whether companies have the right to exclude the coverage of birth control and if pharmacies have the right to refuse to dispense them based on their personal moral and religious beliefs.  On the surface, this can cause many to think that these groups have such rights as their religious beliefs prohibit such things.  And this makes one hesitate on if they should be compelled to go against such dictates of their beliefs. But, what we fail to take into account is the myriad of areas this can be expanded to.  It also fails to allow for the respect of the beliefs of others that may be different.  It fails to respect the right to privacy of others to live their lives by their conscience, their beliefs.  And it also leaves them open to others imposing laws and rules that could compromise their lives. It also asks, where is the line drawn?  If one argues that a company has the right to refuse to allow coverage for birth control or that a hospital or pharmacy has the right to refuse to administer them based on their moral and religious beliefs against them, what is next?  There are thousands of people who believe that gays are an abomination.  That AIDS is God’s punishment for an immoral life.  Does that mean these same employers, hospitals and pharmacies have a right to refuse medical coverage for AIDS medicines and treatments based on their beliefs?  What about the interracial couple?  Many believe that is also against God’s dictates.  Can they also be refused?  Or children born out of wedlock?  There was a time when they could not even be buried on consecrated ground.  Or of any people that practice a religion, live a lifestyle, hold a belief that is contrary to their’s? And whose rights take precedence when your beliefs say to use prayer instead of seeking medical aid?  Whose rights take precedence then?  The parents, or the child who will die without that medical intervention?  What of the religious conviction of many Muslims who believe that a woman’s genitals be carved up for her moral good?  Or that she be hidden behind veils and locked doors?    What of the rights of the child?  Or of the women being forced under the knife?  Are their rights overshadowed by those of the group? The truth is that we open the door to all these possible scenarios when first we crack it for the first time.  It is a Pandora’s box, that once open, can unleash a firestorm that will quickly race out of control. It is the selfsame argument as of free speech.  We cannot limit it because we do not like it, because it goes against our beliefs, our religion, our morals.  To be truly free, we must also defend the rights of those we do not agree with, that do not share our religion.  So too, must we defend the freedom of a person’s body, their lifestyle, their private choices. Yes, the practitioners also have rights.  But, they must evaluate their beliefs when they enter into a profession that might put them in contact with people who do not share their beliefs.  If that vocation involves making available those things that they find immoral, then maybe they need look for another vocation.  Just as one who is a member of a pacifist religion, like the Amish, can be exempt from being drafted into the military, so too can they make a choice to not enter a career that forces them to go against their beliefs.  It does not give them the right to go into that vocation and then impose their beliefs on others that don’t share it.  You cannot join the military and expect to hold the belief that you can refuse to carry and use a gun of moral or religious principles.  You can only stand on those principles to not serve in the military that such a thing is a part of the job. I think it was best said by our president. “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.” Barak Obama — SephiPiderWitch February 23, 2012
Category :
Ponderings
Share :
Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Kavana

Quisque consectetur convallis ex, quis tincidunt ligula placerat et.

Subscribe and follow
Popular Post
Subscribe To My Newsletter

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit

My Gallery
See My Captured Moments