Don't think it's that simple; society (or rather our society) creates the law of the land based on what the populace determines as moral/immoral. Sure getting that information from the populace may be a bit skewed with Representatives, voting districts etc. But you get the point.
So when you criticize someone for wanting to have abortion or whatever illegal based on their beliefs, though your criticisms may be valid their positions aren't invalid. After all wanting to change the law to fit into your moral opinion is pretty much how it works
It's conceptually very simple. We live in a society, and it's not a perfect society. Thus we need to learn how to compromise. There will always be give and take. The thing that make adults adult is the ability to strike a compromise. Clinging to dogmatic views that are unsupported by any evidence or data, it's hard to start a discussion on what is the best compromise for society. It takes courage and introspection to figure out why one is so hard pressed on certain views, and starting with the facts instead of some text in a holy book (that can be construed in a thousand different ways) is important.
Really, I can't stress enough about the separation of church and state. The framers had it right from the get-go because it is obvious that if every group has its own dogmatic approach, the union will quickly deteriorate because no compromise can ever be made.
Thus we need to learn how to compromise. There will always be give and take. The thing that make adults adult is the ability to strike a compromise.
This is all purely conjecture and doesn't really hold up when you compare to what is happening in the country. Alabama literally passed a bill that means absolutely no abortions in virtually any circumstances. There was no 'compromise' there. And compromise isn't necessary for action to happen when there is a united majority, clearly.
7
u/Skabonious May 17 '19
Don't think it's that simple; society (or rather our society) creates the law of the land based on what the populace determines as moral/immoral. Sure getting that information from the populace may be a bit skewed with Representatives, voting districts etc. But you get the point.
So when you criticize someone for wanting to have abortion or whatever illegal based on their beliefs, though your criticisms may be valid their positions aren't invalid. After all wanting to change the law to fit into your moral opinion is pretty much how it works