Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, February 27, 1994 TAG: 9403010204
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
So?
Is there something wrong with that?
Isn't that what politics is about? Isn't that what laws are about - imposing someone's moral beliefs on the rest of society?
Surely civil-rights activists during the 1960s attempted to impose their belief - that racial discrimination is immoral - on those with differing views.
Surely, if someone believes homicide is OK, he ought to be constrained by other people's attempts to impose their morality on him.
Some anti-abortion activists believe fetuses should have civil rights. Some believe abortion is the equivalent of murder. Surely it is reasonable for them to want to change the law to reflect their beliefs.
This observation is prompted by receipt, in the mail the other day, of an invitation to a Roanoke workshop in April, titled "Countering the Radical Religious Right."
The session is sponsored by a group called Planned Parenthood Blue Ridge Advocates. Among the scheduled speakers: a "Coordinator, Public Impact Campaign and Director of Public Affairs," and a "Media Consultant and Director of Communications" for Planned Parenthoods in Arizona. Also to appear, interestingly enough: the president of an "Institute for First Amendment Studies."
Presumably in an attempt to show open-mindedness, the invitation includes this note: "The term 'religious right' refers to groups working to alter state and federal law to conform to their narrow set of religious beliefs. It is not meant to connote all religious conservatives."
Oh, that explains it. It's OK to hold beliefs, as long as you don't work to alter state or federal law to conform with those beliefs.
To do that would be downright, well, democratic.
by CNB