<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gerson on Locke and religious freedom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/03/gerson-on-locke-and-religious-freedom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/03/gerson-on-locke-and-religious-freedom/</link>
	<description>A First Things Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:35:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nikolai Volk</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/03/gerson-on-locke-and-religious-freedom/#comment-20999</link>
		<dc:creator>Nikolai Volk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:31:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=12170#comment-20999</guid>
		<description>Jason,

First, I never claimed defense was a &quot;luxury product;&quot; I claimed killing other people is morally impermissible. I only brought it up not to show how it and contraception are alike but instead to show that I have to pay for lots of things I find immoral, yet I don&#039;t act like I&#039;m an oppressed minority.

Second, contraception is NOT a luxury product. It has multiple medical uses, not the least of which is moderating severely irregular periods that cause excessive bleeding and pain. Just because it&#039;s called &quot;the birth control pill&quot; doesn&#039;t mean that its only use is birth control.

Third, I could easily argue through virtue ethics that it&#039;s wrong to reward immoral behavior. If we&#039;re looking to improve people&#039;s character, ignoring their faults and rewarding them anyway (which enables them to keep doing more immoral things; cf. the bonuses they keep giving themselves) is a morally wrong action.

I love it how many are so quick to defend Wall Street bankers, but women who want contraceptives for actual medical reasons are anti-religious zealots looking to impugn on our freedom.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jason,</p>
<p>First, I never claimed defense was a &#8220;luxury product;&#8221; I claimed killing other people is morally impermissible. I only brought it up not to show how it and contraception are alike but instead to show that I have to pay for lots of things I find immoral, yet I don&#8217;t act like I&#8217;m an oppressed minority.</p>
<p>Second, contraception is NOT a luxury product. It has multiple medical uses, not the least of which is moderating severely irregular periods that cause excessive bleeding and pain. Just because it&#8217;s called &#8220;the birth control pill&#8221; doesn&#8217;t mean that its only use is birth control.</p>
<p>Third, I could easily argue through virtue ethics that it&#8217;s wrong to reward immoral behavior. If we&#8217;re looking to improve people&#8217;s character, ignoring their faults and rewarding them anyway (which enables them to keep doing more immoral things; cf. the bonuses they keep giving themselves) is a morally wrong action.</p>
<p>I love it how many are so quick to defend Wall Street bankers, but women who want contraceptives for actual medical reasons are anti-religious zealots looking to impugn on our freedom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jason taylor</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/03/gerson-on-locke-and-religious-freedom/#comment-20998</link>
		<dc:creator>jason taylor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2012 14:07:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=12170#comment-20998</guid>
		<description>Defense is not a luxury product. Contraception is. 

As for the crooks on wall street, please note that no philosophy has been invented that claims it is intrinsically immoral to give money to crooks on wall street.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Defense is not a luxury product. Contraception is. </p>
<p>As for the crooks on wall street, please note that no philosophy has been invented that claims it is intrinsically immoral to give money to crooks on wall street.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nikolai Volk</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/03/gerson-on-locke-and-religious-freedom/#comment-20997</link>
		<dc:creator>Nikolai Volk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=12170#comment-20997</guid>
		<description>Gerson&#039;s dichotomy of the public/private is true; religion is not merely a personal belief, and the government is not the only social institution worth protecting. That said, I do agree with you Ancius on the faultiness of Gerson&#039;s key question. I wouldn&#039;t necessarily call it a straw man, but rather a slippery slope. 

There&#039;s a tendency for people to think when the government imposes something on religious people that, &quot;Well, if they can subsidize this thing that bothers religious people, then ANY atrocity can be justified!&quot; Given the beyond bloated defense budget, a good deal of my tax revenue has likely gone to wars. I&#039;m a pacifist; I find war morally objectionable. The government used my money to bail out the crooks on wall street; I certainly am not happy with that. I could point to any number of things the government does that I find morally objectionable. Yet I don&#039;t feel like my freedom of religion is constantly under threat. We live in a society, which necessarily involves an intersection of beliefs that invariably result in someone being displeased. 

With that in mind, yes, we should always make our voices heard. Freedom of speech is important. However, by having legislation passed against our favor we do not suddenly become a repressed minority. Christianity still has a massive influence on the US government, and we still make up the majority of the population. In some societies people face jail or death for their faith. It&#039;s not the end of the world if our money has to go toward women&#039;s health products that some find morally objectionable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gerson&#8217;s dichotomy of the public/private is true; religion is not merely a personal belief, and the government is not the only social institution worth protecting. That said, I do agree with you Ancius on the faultiness of Gerson&#8217;s key question. I wouldn&#8217;t necessarily call it a straw man, but rather a slippery slope. </p>
<p>There&#8217;s a tendency for people to think when the government imposes something on religious people that, &#8220;Well, if they can subsidize this thing that bothers religious people, then ANY atrocity can be justified!&#8221; Given the beyond bloated defense budget, a good deal of my tax revenue has likely gone to wars. I&#8217;m a pacifist; I find war morally objectionable. The government used my money to bail out the crooks on wall street; I certainly am not happy with that. I could point to any number of things the government does that I find morally objectionable. Yet I don&#8217;t feel like my freedom of religion is constantly under threat. We live in a society, which necessarily involves an intersection of beliefs that invariably result in someone being displeased. </p>
<p>With that in mind, yes, we should always make our voices heard. Freedom of speech is important. However, by having legislation passed against our favor we do not suddenly become a repressed minority. Christianity still has a massive influence on the US government, and we still make up the majority of the population. In some societies people face jail or death for their faith. It&#8217;s not the end of the world if our money has to go toward women&#8217;s health products that some find morally objectionable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ancius</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/03/gerson-on-locke-and-religious-freedom/#comment-20996</link>
		<dc:creator>Ancius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=12170#comment-20996</guid>
		<description>Gerson threatens to attack a straw man by making this his key question: &quot;Why not impose this social consensus on all private institutions?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gerson threatens to attack a straw man by making this his key question: &#8220;Why not impose this social consensus on all private institutions?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
