Today my husband ran 6 miles for the first time. As he has reminded me, it has taken 19 years for me to convince him to attack such a feat.
His comment at the completion of the run was, “After covering 6 miles, I have determined Nike, Suacony, Asics and Brooks are all fine, but Honda is still better.”
Often the greatest burdens in life are also the greatest blessings, or result from the greatest blessings. Just like there is a fine line between genius and insanity, there is a fine line between burden and blessing. Hope for days more blessed than burdened, and remember without burdens life would be boring.
In the light of so much being said about the US healthcare ruling on birth control, I find myself pondering historical “moral” legislation. It would seem that the people of the United States have a long history of defining what is moral and what is not. By the very concept of “moral behavior” one must consider the relationship of religion on its definition. Today’s debate on birth control seems to pit opposing definitions of what is morally responsible. One side of the debate argues that it is immoral to not provide birth control equally to all women. The other side claims that birth control, by its nature, is immoral.
This is not the first time that morality, and its connection to religious freedom, has been in the legislative focus of the United States. Here is a short list of other “morally responsible” issues that have been debated. Some made it to law, some only to be overturned.
Polygamy, Gay Marriage, Interracial Marriage, Divorce, Marijuana, Peyote, Public School Mandates, Homeschool Rights, Alcohol Consumption, Voting Rights, Age of Consent, Immunization, Military Draft. I am sure the list goes on.
Let me state for the record, I personally support religious freedom and religious morality, but I also wonder who gets to decide what a “religion” is in order for it to be protected by the first ammendment. As I belong to a faith that historically found itself to be under a state legislative order of extermination, I get anxious when religious fervor* becomes escalated to the point where it influences the legislative debate.
In a religiously free nation, I wonder if moral legislation should be defined by a consensus and not one religion’s precepts. As the granddaughter (many generations removed) of polygamists who had to publically dissolve their marriages, I can sympathize with the Catholic plight on birth control. However, I see the role of the government to be to govern all the people. To do so, the rights, desires and practices of some are bound to be trampled on for the good of the whole. This is not a new practice, but is one at the very heart of avoiding chaos and most will agree that chaos is immoral.
End Note: I am fully aware that many could use my final argument on chaos to support the ban on Gay Marriage, but I would point out that a broad definition of marriage is less chaotic than a plethora of terms to describe similar legal unions.
* See Also (on a lighter note): Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Witch Hunt, Birth Control Debate part 1, Birth Control Debate part 2
I read the most interesting talking point today and longed to be back in college with others debating not just this specific issue, but how this talking point could be used in other debates.
“Nobody disputes the fact that Americans opposed to gay marriage believe passionately in their ideas and arguments. But that doesn’t necessarily mean those arguments should win in a court.”By Dahlia Lithwick author of “Why the Proponents of a Gay Marriage Ban Will Soon Be Speechless” www.slate.com
“Nobody disputes the fact that Americans opposed to _____________ believe passionately in their ideas and arguments. But that doesn’t necessarily mean those arguments should win in a court.”
Pithy Ponderings 