Replies

I don't really understand how you can look to the Constitution and say that it is based in Judeo-Christian law. What exactly in the Constitution is coming from "Judeo-Christian law? As for our other laws, understand that the federal government had very few of them at the time. Our "founding fathers" didn't write a lot of laws. Those laws Congress did write in the early years after the Constitution was ratified were for the most part all about running the country efficiently and handling the problems of the day. They were not writing laws micromanaging people's lives back then because back then they had a much better understanding of their Constitutionally limited functions. Back then, as was intended, states ran their own internal affairs. They policed themselves. State laws were in many cases derived from Judeo-Christian backgrounds of those who wrote them. Certainly not all of them were, not even most. But religion has always influenced law making. No doubt about that.

I personally do not like laws that are designed specifically to make people live how those who write them think God wants them to live. I do not trust government to make religious determinations for the people. People are going to differ on what God wants or expects of them. Some are not religious at all and I think it's wrong to impose religion on them. I prefer natural law, which in most cases is going to work out to be the same as laws based on religion anyway. We should look at what we all know is right and wrong, regardless of our religious background or lack thereof. If we are going to ban conduct we should look at what conduct is actually harmful to others and that which carries with it a great risk of harm to innocent people. We need to look at whether conduct is justified or excusable. In my opinion, and I'm sure you'll disagree, law making should be something we approach through reason and not through religion.

This great opposition to Oregon's assisted suicide law by so many bothers me because I see it as an attempt for one or many to impose their religious beliefs on another. That's all that is really going on here. Oregon's law appears to be a very limited law that only covers certain instances where someone of sound mind who is dying a painful death can end his life sooner to avoid the agony he is bound to suffer in the coming weeks or months. I personally have a problem with telling someone they must endure agony, needless suffering. The question of whether God will forgive their actions is really one between them and God. It is not for me to decide or anyone else. They may not believe in God or they may believe that God doesn't want them to suffer anymore and would permit them this transgression. This is a very personal question that I think we should let people answer themselves under these circumstances. We are after all a free country. Shouldn't we allow people to make this decision themselves? If these people will burn in Hell for it, that is their own fault. It's their risk to take.

The other problem I have with this is that I do not think this is the sort of thing the federal government has any business getting involved with. The feds want to tamper with a democratically enacted state law. This is Oregon's law regarding something not within the Constitutionally granted powers of the federal government to interfere with. It does not affect me. It does not affect you. It doesn't hurt anyone except perhaps those who knowingly and voluntarily participate in it. It is not "interstate commerce." It comes under no other enumerated power of the federal government either. It is none of the feds' business. They need to take care of their own affairs.

Anyway, that's all I have on this. And to answer your other question, I went to a Catholic prep school and both Methodist and Presbyterian colleges. So I guess you can't really blame my ignorance entirely on public schools.