The Case for Imposing Religious Views on Others

In the third debate, John Kerry said, "I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith." He repeated the idea Sunday in Florida: "My task, as I see it, is not to write every doctrine into law."

This sounds sensible until you think about it hard. In fact, it is perfectly appropriate to force one's religious beliefs on others.

Let's say a Senator A opposes the Iraq war on practical grounds. He thinks it's a distraction from fighting Al Qaeda, which erodes our credibility overseas. He votes no on the war.

Senator B also opposes the war. He's a good Catholic and has read up on "just war" theory. He has concluded that this war is immoral because it was preemptive and could have been avoided through peaceful means. He votes no, too.

They both voted no, yet one did so for reasons practical while the other did so for reasons moral and theological. Is one an appropriate vote and the other not?

Slice it further. Let's say Senator C also voted against the war and, like Senator B, did so primarily for moral reasons. But in his case, Senator C, didn't depend on Catholic "just war" theory, but instead came to view the war as immoral after seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11." So Senators B and C both voted against it for moral reasons, in one case because of a secular movie and in another because of a religious document.

Continued on page 2: »