When thinking of distinctions between right and wrong -- good and evil -- many people inevitably think of religion, perhaps their own particular religion. Belief in God gives meaning to words like, "It is right," and, "It is wrong." To acknowledge God is to acknowledge a standard of right and wrong that is not merely a matter of personal preference, social mores, or a majority vote. One important affirmation of such a standard, handed down through the ages, is known as the "Ten Commandments."
Of course, notions of right and wrong are not exclusively the property of believers in God or exceptionally devout individuals. For believers and non-believers alike, the idea that there is nothing that is truly right and nothing that is truly wrong is absurd! Furthermore, believers and nonbelievers often heartily agree on many points of basic morality. Certain things are right or wrong, not because a particular religion says so; they are right or wrong just because they are. Neither the believer nor the unbeliever requires a theological treatise to prove, for instance, that it is wrong to defraud a senior citizen of his or her life savings.
Such a thing is wrong not because a religion happens to SAY that it is. But religions do rightly condemn things like this -- because they are just plain wrong.
Should we as individuals worry about such things, particularly if we are not personally involved or personally affected? In fact, there are many good reasons, religious and secular reasons, for all of us to be concerned about JUSTICE. But one very logical reason to be concerned is that there might really be a God, and a soul, and thus, 100 years from now, you and I just might find ourselves still accountable for how our lives affected the wellbeing of others.
And so, religious leaders concern themselves with questions of, -- justice and injustice. They speak and write, not infrequently, about the injustice of such things as abortion -- and euthanasia -- and infanticide, the killing of newborn infants.
This is proof, say some critics, that the right and wrong of these things are merely religious issues, and therefore matters for personal choice protected by our constitutional guarantees (in the United States) of religious liberty. Strangely enough, the same conclusions do not seem to apply when religious leaders say it is wrong to steal from senior citizens!
In reality, as with the question of stealing, leaders from very diverse religious faiths and religious traditions have aligned themselves in pro-life solidarity with each other AND with men and women of good will who are not so notable for spirituality, religious affiliation, or church attendance. Abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are NOT merely matters of religious practice. The right to life for the innocent and the powerless is a matter of fundamental justice which appeals to basic human sentiments.
However, to those who do engage in the fight against the "pro-choice" principle, the main problem is that the opposition takes a rational, pagan stance. For them, the right to abortion is a matter of convenience, personal choice and, in the case of the "unfit," a dire necessity. It is truly difficult to see what arguments can be deployed to shift their position. It is as much a question of belief as ours--only they are SURE that there is no God and, so, no absolute morality, while we believe the contrary. [emph. added]
Of course, notions of right and wrong are not exclusively the property of believers in God or exceptionally devout individuals. For believers and non-believers alike, the idea that there is nothing that is truly right and nothing that is truly wrong is absurd! Furthermore, believers and nonbelievers often heartily agree on many points of basic morality. Certain things are right or wrong, not because a particular religion says so; they are right or wrong just because they are. Neither the believer nor the unbeliever requires a theological treatise to prove, for instance, that it is wrong to defraud a senior citizen of his or her life savings.
Such a thing is wrong not because a religion happens to SAY that it is. But religions do rightly condemn things like this -- because they are just plain wrong.
Should we as individuals worry about such things, particularly if we are not personally involved or personally affected? In fact, there are many good reasons, religious and secular reasons, for all of us to be concerned about JUSTICE. But one very logical reason to be concerned is that there might really be a God, and a soul, and thus, 100 years from now, you and I just might find ourselves still accountable for how our lives affected the wellbeing of others.
And so, religious leaders concern themselves with questions of, -- justice and injustice. They speak and write, not infrequently, about the injustice of such things as abortion -- and euthanasia -- and infanticide, the killing of newborn infants.
This is proof, say some critics, that the right and wrong of these things are merely religious issues, and therefore matters for personal choice protected by our constitutional guarantees (in the United States) of religious liberty. Strangely enough, the same conclusions do not seem to apply when religious leaders say it is wrong to steal from senior citizens!
In reality, as with the question of stealing, leaders from very diverse religious faiths and religious traditions have aligned themselves in pro-life solidarity with each other AND with men and women of good will who are not so notable for spirituality, religious affiliation, or church attendance. Abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are NOT merely matters of religious practice. The right to life for the innocent and the powerless is a matter of fundamental justice which appeals to basic human sentiments.
Self-Evident Truth "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted..."
-- Preamble to the Declaration of Independence
Pro-life statements from various religious perspectives will be offered on these pages. Hopefully, all of our visitors will find some inspiration for both the spirit and the intellect, and perhaps become more aware of the extent to which some truths and insights transcend religious differences.
However, to those who do engage in the fight against the "pro-choice" principle, the main problem is that the opposition takes a rational, pagan stance. For them, the right to abortion is a matter of convenience, personal choice and, in the case of the "unfit," a dire necessity. It is truly difficult to see what arguments can be deployed to shift their position. It is as much a question of belief as ours--only they are SURE that there is no God and, so, no absolute morality, while we believe the contrary. [emph. added]
Lynette Burrows, well-known English author, journalist, and broadcaster, "The Pagans are Coming," or, "The Higher the Ape Climbs the Tree, the More We See His Bald Behind"Human Life Review
No comments:
Post a Comment