Generally, any human being or citizen in the United States of America is entitled to his or her own personal freedom of religion and speech. However, does the first amendment pose some dilemmas whether they are ethically or legally? For example, Clark states that The Founders’ intent, in response to harsh English colonial rule, and then the populist whims of state legislatures, was to secure an individual’s freedom of conscience against the tyranny of both monarchs and majorities. Thus the separation of church and state, requiring an ideologically neutral public space, became an essential democratic precept. Thus from this example should or should not religion be intertwined with the law, in any country. Truly many Americans do have their individual beliefs but sometimes religion can be conflicting with multiple issues.
On the other hand, when it comes to the long term debate of abortion (Roe vs. Wade), is it immoral and unethical in or acceptable in society? On one side (religious) abortion is not even an option whatsoever, because the death of a fetus is murder even though the fetus cannot feel pain at the time of the abortion. However, on the other end of the spectrum, there is nothing wrong because in most cases it is either the female does not want to have the child for monetary reasons or personal. Either way there is a current dilemma and who is to tell whom in this situation, is right or wrong? After analyzing this article more at a legal and religious perspective (pragmatic empiricism), does succeed at carving out a neutral ground for adjudicating the contrasting worldviews of naturalism and supernaturalism. However, the terms naturalism can be extremely confusing because personally these terms have never crossed my mind, thus not being “second nature”.
When it comes to subject of religion, should an individual segregate their personal beliefs (Religious) from ethical and legal decisions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment