There is a law in Greece. Possibly in some other countries in the Eurozone as well. Probably. A lot of the countries seem to have a number of philosophies in common.
It goes like this: The government supplies lots of benefits, but to receive them you need to meet certain requirements. One of the requirements is that you are employed if possible. I was right with them at that point, but the devil is always in the details. Sometimes, that phrase seems a bit more literal than others. Anyway... If you are not employed, the government will find you a job. If they find it, you have to take it. Otherwise, no benefits. Health care is one, I suppose. I'm sure there are other subsidies.
Of course, some of the jobs, though legal, are not particularly appealing. Sex worker, for example. It's a tidied up way of saying "prostitute," but it amounts to the same thing. It's a legal occupation in the country, so if that's what is available when your number comes up, that's what you have to take. If not, kiss everything from unemployment compensation on down goodbye.
That's significant, you see. Just because the profession is legal, doesn't make it desirable or respectable among the public. Lots of women (and possibly men, I haven't researched that aspect) are basically forced into it by the state. A lot of the women are married. Have children. And that isn't exactly the kind of thing you can hide from your family.
I think about that kind of decision being forced on women, and I get incensed, and at the same time I wonder...
I wonder how a vegetarian would feel about being forced to take a job in a slaughterhouse, or possibly starve.
I wonder how someone who is unalterably opposed to the death penalty would respond to being forced to throw the switch that powers the chair, or starts the poison...
I wonder how a member of Green Peace would respond to being forced to work as a lumber jack..
I wonder about all of those things, and honestly, I don't have a clue. No of those cases apply to me. Now, how a devout Christian baker, or photographer, or florist feels when forced to participate in a gay ceremony... That I can imagine. The difference between this case and the others, however, is stark. The forcing of the bakers and florists and photographers is real and legal. The others... not yet.
That's all we can say right now. Not yet. Those who claim that we must limit a person's ability to act, or refrain from action, based on conscience are overlooking a very basic principle: Governments have no conscience. There is no place that rules and laws that disregard the conscience cannot take us over time. The founding fathers recognized that. That's why they included in the Constitution an explicit amendment to ensure that, even though government had no conscience, men would, and that they would be able to act accordingly.
There's a reason that it's called the "free exercise" clause. The "free" part should be obvious. Without the ability to choose one's beliefs and morals, no other freedoms will last. And this is a freedom we are to "exercise." It doesn't stop in our homes, or churches. It is and was always meant to be a lasting part of the public square. That's an unpopular view right now, but an accurate one just the same.
There's more than a little irony at work here. Because of that right, because they were free to "exercise" their faith in the public square, Christians became the single substantial force for the abolition of slavery, eventually succeeding in eliminating it as a lawful institution in the west. And now, in our "more enlightened" times, as the left seeks to once again put people in chains, Christians are the first to be targeted. And they'll succeed, too, unless we all begin to take our "exercise" a good deal more seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment