Partea a 3-a!Foarte ingrijoratoare, insa, sunt comentariile si analiza judecatorilor conform carora intr-un stat de drept libertatea religioasa, exprimata la nivel de actiune, este limitata cind e exercitata in detrimentul drepturilor altor persoane. (“In a constitutional form of government, personal, religios, and moral beliefs, when acted upon to the detriment of someone else’s rights, have constitutional limits.”) Individul e liber sa creada cum vrea, au spus judecatorii, dar cind actiunile lui intra in conflict cu drepturile altora, e necesara o acomodare. (“One is free to believe, think and speak as one’s conscience, or God, dictates. But when actions, even religiously inspired, conflict with other constitutionally protected rights, then there must be some accommodation”.) E irelevant, au afirmat ei, ca fotografii sunt constansi sa-si compromita credinta religioasa care le-a inspirat si definit viata. Compromisul e o consecinta necesara a faptului ca traim intr-o societata “multiculturala”. (“A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less”.) Ba mai mult, compromisul e un pret pe care crestinul trebuie sa-l plateasca pentru a trai intr-un stat liber. (fotografii crestini “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. … But there is a price to pay, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life. .. it is the price of citizenship”.)
Posted on: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:22:25 +0000