"I cannot violate someone else’s personal liberty as an exercise of my ‘freedom of conscience’ and I cannot treat some one unjustly as an exercise of my freedom of conscience"
Firstly, in all the following, when It is clear that I am referring to whatever actions might flow from a conscientious belief, then I am. We have already agreed that thinking in and of itself is inviolate and has no capacity to harm anyone. Only actions or lack of actions concern the question.
Who is the arbiter of when the beliefs of any one person affect either the liberty or justice of another person or persons? There is certainly no assumption that your conscientiously held belief (whatever it may be) will meet the standards of justice held by others or by society at large. When a person claims a conscience issue and requests to act or to refrain from acting in accordance with a deeply held belief, it is not the person who rules on the validity of his own case, or decides whether or not his belief does or does not infringe on the liberty or rights of others. It is a Court of Law.
You are responsible for your own subjective beliefs--that is fine. But it is neither your right nor your place to rule on their social value, intrinsic merit, or social acceptability. If they are beliefs which affect the rights of others, then the Courts must rule as to whether or not you may be allowed to act in a manner contrary to social laws and mores. If the Court, after due consideration, finds that actions proposed by your beliefs pose no harm to principles of law and justice, then he/she will likely find in your favour.
If you wish personal beliefs of conscience to correspond to justice and liberty for others...GREAT! And if your beliefs happen to not adversely affect the justice and liberty of others...GREAT! That is why you take your argument before a judge, and he (representing the people) decides whether or not it will serve justice to permit you to act on your beliefs--or whether the protection of society requires him/her to rule against you.
"Whenever you construct societal laws which encumber one member to provide a shield of opportunity to another you create a quagmire of litigious contention that mires in irresolvable conflicts"
First I will translate this: When society makes unfair laws, people will contend with one another in Court, but will not permanently resolve the issues.
Unfortunately, I don't take any especial meaning from that. Clearly, it does not require unfair laws to ensure an overloaded Court system forced to deal with violators of common decency and without respect for property and people. There is no good reason to expect an end to litigation whether the laws are 97% just or 100% just. The laws can be 100% fair and people will yet have good cause for litigation. |
