your defense of Neocon's right to force others to live by his religious and most
dubious stipulation of what a human being is meant you yourself took that position.
You ain't never heard the expression "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
Actually, it's not Neocon's right to force others to live by his values, it's Neocon's right to try to persuade the forces of government to adopt his values rather than other competing values the proponents of which are also trying to persuade the forces of government to accept their values which I am defending.
Now a question for you. You don't like my equating religious and moral. How about we use the term "values." Values can arise from many places -- experience, teaching, religious belief, secular humanism, and on and on. I think almost anyone would say if asked that there are certain values they belive in.
Now the question: why does it make a difference to you, as it seems to, whether a person's values arise from a belief in God, from a denial of God, from experience, from inate beliefs, etc.? If somebody says "I believe that women should have a right to an abortion" does it matter whether they go on to say "and I believe this because something inside me tells me it's right" or to say "and I believe this because it's what I believe God teaches me"?
I don't think anyone is trying to convert you by law to their religious beliefs. But they may be trying to get you to live by the values they believe in. And you are probably trying to get them to live by the values you believe in. What I don't understand is why you are so hostile if those values are based in religion, but apparently so unconcerned if they are based in something else.
Personally, while I basically agree with the ACLU, I think they are FAR more aggressive in putting forward their values and forcing others to live by them than any religious body I know of. |
