| Religious arguments |
 |
 |
| Written by Jason Jones | |
| Thursday, 22 May 2008 | |
|
Religious-political institutions around the world are criticizing the British Parliament for yesterday’s vote to no longer require doctors to include "the need for a father" when administering fertilization treatment. The argument that Judeo-Christian values, or any religious ideology, necessitate pro-family legislation automatically caters the legal system to a faction of society at the expense of those who believe differently. After criticising Barack Obama last week, I’ll praise his advice to religious political institutions: What [pluralistic democracy] demands is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. [For example,] those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God's will--they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, [or those of no faith]. (The Audacity of Hope). If for some reason fertilization treatment for lesbians were indeed bad for society, the arguments should be based on scientific and empirical facts, not religious doctrine. They ought to remember what Abraham Lincoln said: “Certainly there is no contending against the Will of God; but still there is some difficulty in ascertaining, and applying it, to particular cases.” Comments (3)
...
written by Tom Davis, May 22, 2008
Except of course, one might expect a religious argument to hold sway in a state with an established religion, of which the sovereign, in whose name the government supposedly acts, is the Supreme Governor. Of course it's more complicated in a nation composed of several countries, only one of which has a state religion.
New Zambia written by Cho, May 23, 2008
Jason,
The problem is that we mean by "scientific and empirical facts" . I would argue that the correct way should be for a philosophical explanation rather than a scientific approach. There are many truths which can be proven philosophically but cannot be tested empirically. Surely that does not make them less important? Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
About the ASI
The Adam Smith Institute is the UK's leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies. Politically independent and non-profit, the Institute promotes its ideas through reports, briefings, events, media appearances, and its website and blog. For further information, click here.Join our email list
Keep up-to-date with the latest events, reports and information from the Adam Smith Institute by joining our fortnightly email list. It's free and you can unsubscribe at any point. Just enter your email address here:
I agree with the Church that abortion shouldn't happen, it the big institutions need to come up with a solution AND be prepared to house a lot of unwanted kids
Realistically for the Church to say to people stop having abortions they should then say we can find a family to look after your baby.
The sensible way to do that is for Christians to adopt rather than breed!!"