"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.

[Salvation]

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

[brytlea]

Actually, all rules/laws impose someone's beliefs on others.
susie

[Fiddlstix]

Needs to be repeated over and over

[ArGee]

First, the senator failed to recognize the fact that law is fundamentally about imposing somebody's views on somebody else.

Of course, whenever that question is asked, it's asked by somebody who does not agree and does not want the view imposed on themselves. They make it sound like a general principle they are fighting for, but they are really arguing for their own wants and/or needs.

But, of course, it's much more high sounding to phrase the issue in terms of wrongly imposing a viewpoint. Because if you don't do that, then you have to argue in favor of allowing the behavior you want to allow.

Thus it is better and easier to say, "Don't you think goverment should stay out of people's private sexual behavior?" than to say, "Don't I have a right to homosexual sex?"

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Tolerance applies only to persons ... never to truth.

You know the tolerance mantra is on shaky ground when the left is intolerant of the intolerant.

During the entire Anita Bryant thing my father used to ask, "I don't know why someone's right to be homosexual is more sacred than my right to be a bigot."

Of course, my father was not a bigot, but his point was valid.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

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?

Are you willing to engage in logical debate on that subject, as this author was willing to do regarding embryonic stem cell research?

A religious position that is not willing to open itself to logical debate is a smoke screen for a feeling.

Shalom.

[syriacus]

There is a big difference between imposing one's religion and presenting one's opinions.

I haven't noticed an increase in the imposing of religious beliefs in the US, though I have noticed a decrease in the tolerance of public expression of religion.

The Islamo-fascists who long for the caliphate, and are willing to pressure men like Steve Centanni to convert to Islam, are imposing their religion on others.

It seems to me, that we folks in the West had better get busy doing things to increase our faith, unless we want to allow Islamo-fascists to "choose" our religion for us.

[narses]

+

[little jeremiah]

I like your father.

[ducdriver]

"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."

And from there, it's even more sinister. Once it can be generally accepted that an embryo has no human value, it's not a large step to apply the same fuzzy thinking to the other agenda items of the culture of death.

What a great article, about a great priest!

[Convert from ECUSA]

"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

[Samwise]

Logic, the enemy of the left.

Rule 1 of Liberalism: Facts, logic, and consistency are irrelevant.

[ArGee]

I like your father.

And you wondered what the genesis of BRAAD was?

Shalom.

[Bigg Red]

Thanks for the ping.
God bless Fr. Pacholczyk. We need a lot more priests like him.

[Bigg Red]

Great tagline!

[little jeremiah]

I admit total ignorance about not only the genesis of BRAAD but its existence as well. What is it?

[ArGee]

I admit total ignorance about not only the genesis of BRAAD but its existence as well. What is it?

I thought you were on that ping list - but it was a while ago.

Based on that quote from my father I took a GLAAD press release and re-wrote it. I replaced Gay and Lesbian with Bigot and Redneck and the Bigot and Redneck Alliance Against Defamation was born. As you might guess, there wasn't much more editing that needed to be done, because there is just as much justification for tolerating bigots and rednecks as there is for tolerating gays and lesbians. There is just as much proof that it's genetic. Just as much proof that it is not a mental illness. Just as much proof that bigots and rednecks can't change. And bigots and rednecks are just as picked on by the general population. Can't you just imagine the pain that little Billy Bob feels when everyone else at school is always teasing him? Is it any wonder that bigots and rednecks commit suicide so often?

We had daily posts and some inside jokes ("We're here, we're intolerant, and we'll kick your a$$." Official theme song was "Goober Peas.") and we had fun, but Jim Robinson decided that wasn't what he wanted FR to be about. It's his place so we stopped.

But there are occasional references to it from time to time. I've long since lost the ping list, but I put a few of the charter members in the to box.

Shalom.

[Fiddlstix]

All Hail ArGee! Our Fearless Leader!
Long Live BRAAD!
BRAAD Shall Never Be Forgotten By The Loyal Members!
We're Still BRAAD To The Bone!

Good to see you ArGee J

Check your + FReepmail. I'm sending you the original Ping List J

[ArGee]

Great to see you again too, Fiddlstix. I got the FReepmail.

We're here, we're intolerant, and we'll kick your a$$.

Shalom.

[little jeremiah]

LOL! Thanks for the elucidation. I may be too late for the list, but consider me one in spirit with BRAAD.

I love all souls, it's their behavior and consciousness I don't like.

;-)