"Imposing Our Beliefs" on Others

CERC ^ | September 2005 | Fr. TADEUSZ PACHOLCZYK, Ph.D.

[Coleus]

Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.

---

After I gave my testimony, one of the senators asked a pointed question. "Father Tad, by arguing against embryonic stem cell research, don't you see how you are trying to impose your beliefs on others, and shouldn't we as elected lawmakers avoid imposing a narrow religious view on the rest of society?"

A lot of hot-button topics are being debated in our state legislatures these days, topics of great ethical and bioethical importance, ranging from emergency contraception to gay marriage. These debates address important issues for the future of our society. Lawmakers face the daunting task of making decisions about what should or should not be permitted by law within a reasonable society. Recently I was asked to speak in Virginia at legislative hearings about embryonic stem cell research. After I gave my testimony, one of the senators asked a pointed question. "Father Tad, by arguing against embryonic stem cell research, don't you see how you are trying to impose your beliefs on others, and shouldn't we as elected lawmakers avoid imposing a narrow religious view on the rest of society?" The senator's question was an example of the fuzzy thinking that has become commonplace in recent years within many state legislatures and among many lawmakers.
 
Two major errors were incorporated into the senator's question. First, the senator failed to recognize the fact that law is fundamentally about imposing somebody's views on somebody else. Imposition is the name of the game. It is the very nature of law to impose particular views on people who don't want to have those views imposed on them. Car thieves don't want laws imposed on them which prohibit stealing. Drug dealers don't want laws imposed on them which make it illegal to sell drugs. Yet our lawmakers are elected precisely to craft and impose such laws all the time. So the question is not whether we will impose something on somebody. The question is instead whether whatever is going to be imposed by the force of law is reasonable, just, and good for society and its members.
 
The second logical mistake the senator made was to suppose that because religion happens to hold a particular viewpoint, that implies that such a viewpoint should never be considered by lawmakers or enacted into law. Religion teaches very clearly that stealing is immoral. Would it follow that if I support laws against stealing, I am imposing my narrow religious viewpoint on society? Clearly not. Rather, the subject of stealing is so important to the order of society that religion also feels compelled to speak about it. Religion teaches many things that can be understood as true by people who aren't religious at all. Atheists can understand just as well as Catholics how stealing is wrong, and most atheists are just as angry as their Catholic neighbors when their house is broken into and robbed. What is important is not whether a proposed law happens to be taught by religion, but whether that proposal is just, right, and good for society and its members. 

---

That lawmaker may not be so concerned about avoiding the imposition of a particular view on others — more likely, they are jockeying to simply be able to impose their view, a view which is ultimately much less tenable and defensible in terms of sound moral thinking.

---

To be more coherent, of course, the senator really should have chosen to address the substance of my testimony, rather than talking about the imposition of religious views. The argument I had offered, interestingly, did not depend on religious dogma at all. It depended rather on an important scientific dogma, namely, that all humans come from embryonic humans. The statement that I was once an embryo is a statement about embryology, not theology. Given the fact that we were all once embryonic humans it becomes very clear why destructive embryonic research is an immoral kind of activity. Exploiting the weak and not-yet-born in the interests of the powerful and the well-heeled should not be permitted in a civilized society. This argument, moreover, can be clearly seen by atheists, not just Catholics.
 
During my testimony, I pointed out how in the United States we have stringent federal laws that protect not only the national bird, the bald eagle, but also that eagle's eggs. If you were to chance upon some of them in a nest out in the wilderness, it would be illegal for you to destroy those eggs. By the force of law, we recognize how the egg of the bald eagle, that is to say, the embryonic eagle inside that egg, is the same creature as the glorious bird that we witness flying high overhead. Therefore we pass laws to safeguard not only the adult but also the very youngest member of that species. Even atheists can see how a bald eagle's eggs should be protected; it's really not a religious question at all. What's so troublesome is how we are able to understand the importance of protecting the earliest stages of animal life but when it comes to our own human life, a kind of mental disconnect takes place. Our moral judgement quickly becomes murky and obtuse when we desire to do certain things that are not good, like having abortions, or destroying embryonic humans for their stem cells.
 
So anytime we come across a lawmaker who tries to suggest that an argument in defense of sound morals is nothing but imposing a religious viewpoint, we need to look deeper at what may really be taking place. That lawmaker may not be so concerned about avoiding the imposition of a particular view on others — more likely, they are jockeying to simply be able to impose their view, a view which is ultimately much less tenable and defensible in terms of sound moral thinking. Hence they seek to short-circuit the discussion by stressing religious zealotry and imposition without ever confronting the substantive ethical or bioethical argument itself. Once the religious imposition card is played, and Christian lawmakers suddenly become weak-kneed about defending human life and sound morals, the other side then feels free to do the imposing themselves, without having expended too much effort on confronting the essence of the moral debate itself.  Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. See www.ncbcenter.org.

[msnimje]

Logic, the enemy of the left.

[jwalburg]

Hmmm. Clear and logical. Better to rail against it than read it.

[murphE]

"America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded...

Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil ... a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons ... never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error ... Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.

In the face of this broadmindedness, what the world needs is intolerance." - Bishop Fulton Sheen 1931

[BigBobber]

Brilliant point about the eagle egg.

[marron]

shouldn't we as elected lawmakers avoid imposing a narrow religious view on the rest of society?

The word is not "impose", the word is "persuade". In a democracy you seek to persuade your fellows of the rightness of your view. Citizens have that right, and if they succeed in convincing their fellows, they can enact their view into law, as long as that view does not violate some prior constitutional protection.

The idea that religious sensibilities ought never to affect our view of the world and the issues we face is silly. There is no "ought" about it, our religious and philosophical sensibilities always affect our world view. That our sensibilities differ is the reason we do political battle before imposing any law on ourselves.

That this senator wants impose a change in the law without considering the views of the citizens is not surprising. He shouldn't imagine we should go along with it without pushing back.

[vox_freedom]

Wonderful quote by Bishop Sheen. 1931, and timeless.

[ladyinred]

No one should have to impose not murdering babies on decent human beings. Of course, we are no longer dealing with such people are we?

[ClaireSolt]

The priest is arguing logically. That is appropriate in a science discussion. Sensibilities is to vague for me. but I think this whole push for embryonic stem cell research funding must be a boondoggle or pork, as there is no rational reason to do it at all.

[DeweyCA]

There is a very rational reason that some people are pushing for embryonic stem cell research, even though adult stem cell research has been producing all of the results so far. If people can get the government to authorize embryonic stem cell research, then that helps to promote the idea that an embryo is of no value. It's the abortion crowd that is pushing the killing of embryos.

[DeweyCA]

Every law that is passed imposes a value system. The Libs want to impose their godless worldview which is entirely different than what the Founding Fathers ever envisioned. We have to out-vote them. It's as simple as that. There are only some basic rights in the Bill of Rights that cannot be imposed upon us.

[hocndoc]

He used my analogy!
From my email sig:

Human Life. Human Ethics
Crack the egg of a bird on the Endangered Species list and you'll find that it doesn't matter that the bird embryo or fetus can't survive outside the egg. You've still broken the Endangered Species Act.

[mugs99]

There are only some basic rights in the Bill of Rights that cannot be imposed upon us.

Rights are imposed upon us?
.

[Rembrandt]

Well, it's ok for them, in their beliefs, to impose Sharia Law on your brother, mother, father, sister, rape and kill them in the name of outlaw, oops I mean allah, that's all ok, right?

[ofwaihhbtn]

That was a great article! Thanks for posting it.

[garylmoore]

shouldn't we as elected lawmakers avoid imposing a narrow religious view on the rest of society?"

What a stupid question when all of our views are decided by our religion. I mean just look at the stats, anyone attending church on a regular basis are 90% pro-life and all heathens are for killing babies, so you see, religion does play a part on our views.

[DannyTN]

This reminds me of Margarette Thatcher's speech ("Reason and Religion: The Moral Foundations of Freedom")

"The unparalleled horror of the Nazi holocaust shows most clearly what happens when perverted science is allowed to overflow moral and ethical banks. If man is simply the measure of all things then justice is whatever a majority of men at any given moment says it is, or whatever a "dictator of principles" may impose by force. Without a standard of justice external to human reason there will be no necessary restraint on what men may legitimately do. The only law will be "that of the tooth and the claw."

"The great moderating influence in Western civilization has been the Judeo-Christian tradition. The idea of an omnipotent God who not only judges but may mete out punishment in the next life for transgressions in this one bolsters man's rational impulse toward civil society and obedience to the positive law. That one might commit crimes in this world and elude punishment by the civil authorities, but still have to face one's Maker in the next, tends to focus one's attention.

"The broader importance of our religious tradition is that it reinforces man's sense of responsibility to his neighbour, of trusteeship towards the next generation, and of respect towards society's institutions and achievements. Religion teaches us that there is something higher than mankind, and therefore a need to restrain oneself in accordance with those higher standards. As Tocqueville described it, the power of religion in a democratic republic means that "the human mind is never left to wander over a boundless field; and whatever may be its pretensions, it is checked from time to time by barriers that it cannot surmount." Certainly a world that lived by the moral guidance of the Ten Commandments would be a better place. And to an extraordinary degree, those dictates of divine law have informed and defined the Anglo-American constitutional and legal tradition. As Edmund Burke put it, "There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law - the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity, the law of nature and of nations."

[Left2Right]

That's a great quote. I'm always fascinated by how little human nature changes over time, even thousands of years.

[Salvation]

I was just about to post this. Excellent article.