Leaky Pen -- Impostion of Religious Views on Others When I was seven years old my step-grandfather died. During the days afterward there were many people crowded into the home he and my grandmother had lived in. My younger brother and I were there for much of it. I am sure that at some point in all of these events that we had become more bored than sad, but an elderly lady who must have looked at our expressions and construed them as sadness came up to us and attempted to comfort us by saying, "Don't be sad; you'll see him in heaven." I also remember reflecting my young religious training by replying, "No, we won't. He smoked." The remaining details might are not really relevant for this page, but my mother had to do some apologizing to the woman who a close relative of the deceased. One thing the anti-smoking lobby is failing to mention is that they are trying to impose selected religious views on all. Smoking is still viewed by many religious groups [particularly fundamentalist and "neo-evangelical" Protestants in northern-dominated denominations or independent congregations] as sinful. Many of those who proclaim to be the greatest of libertarians do not seem to mind curtailing liberty to help these people out. I understand that many of those pushing Thune's smoking ban are not doing so for religious reasons or because their spiritual leaders tell them to. But allow me to note some comparisons with another issue which also involves religious freedoms and personal liberties -- the right to legally terminate a pregnancy. Let me note some parallels: Some pro-life people take their position for religious reasons; others do not. As I have noted, some anti-smokers take their position for religious reasons; others do not. Liberty-loving people [or at least people who think of themselves as liberty-loving] oppose smoking bans even though there may well be some health disadvantage to others, victims who may be unwilling and innocent. They opposed restrictions on abortion even though there may well be more than just a health disadvantage to the unborn who has not consented and can reasonably be considered innocent. Just think about this for a bit. You may not agree. I likely will be writing on the folly of worshipping choice in a bit. RS |
| Response[s] below |