The really tough thing about freedom is that people have the right to have wrong philosophies, perspectives and beliefs. Not only that - they have the right to have dangerous ones too. Freedom - not just talking religiously here - is a two sided sword. Is his philosophy "dangerous"? It is to him and anyone who adopts it. But just as freedom means he can believe dangerous things - it also means I don't have to.
The key words you used were: if adopted. Thanks to freedom - we all can choose to adopt it or not. IF is one of the biggest "small" words in the English language. I choose not to adopt it - and I'd say the majority of Christians reject his view - at least the majority in my personal experience do. While his view may be dangerous, I don't have the "right" to deny him this freedom to choose it for himself. Which means at the end of the day, I can disagree. Should it ever become a real matter of discussion within the body of the faithful, then I am confident that the Lord will see to it that people are moved in their view according to His plan.
Sometimes I just have to follow the path He sets out for me and wonder what in the world He is doing when I look at the rest of the world - but given that its His decision I have learned to trust it even when I disagree.
Wow! Great point, Drsysadmin! You jogged something for me. Let me build towards it.
I am talking about responsibility. Now, let me draw a fine distinction. I believe we too often use responsibility as a bludgeon to blame: "You're responsible! You caused this!" There is a "whole 'nother angle" to responsibility--taking responsibility for something. And, I don't mean accepting responsibility for doing a wrong or harm. I mean taking responsibility for the things one causes, good
and bad. Extended into the future, it would mean being willing to take responsibility for doing something, seeing that something gets done, and so forth. Looking backward, it would mean being willing to be responsible for something one did. I think it boils down to willingness.
Drsysadmin's point about adopting an idea applies. Who is responsible for adopting an idea? Why, the person who adopted it, of course. I'm not talking about "holding him responsible" (blame). I am talking about simple causation. Who decided to adopt the idea? Whether he "fell" for it, or took a long time to inspect it and consider its ramifications, matters not to the point I am trying to make.
He adopted it.
I am disappointed when I meet a member of the faithful who forgets he or she adopted their beliefs. God this. Allah that. What about the decision to adopt the idea in the first place? It seems to get forgotten.
A quick example. And, apologies to any faithful for misstating doctrine or inferences therefrom. I've talked with a few who cite their religious beliefs for their opposition to abortion. They assign responsibility for their opposition to God's word or derived inferences. Yet, not once have I heard even one announce his own responsibility for adopting the preceding idea/premise. For example, a few have told me they believe the soul is created at conception, and thus abortion is murder. Yet, they never mention their responsibility for adopting the idea the soul is created at conception. The idea is untested. No conclusive evidence has been offered.
Now, one might say, "Well, that is the point of faith. Taking on an idea without test or evidence." This misses the mark. The point isn't faith. The point is responsibility.
Who decided to adopt the idea, uninspected, with no evidence? Again, and with tremendous emphasis, this is not about blame. It is about remembering the idea was adopted without evidence in the first place.
So, the anti-abortionist who cites religious justification is necessarily willing to cage (imprison) a woman who commits abortion. On invented certainty? Again, with tremendous emphasis, invented certainty (faith) is not necessarily bad. But, the religiously-justified anti-abortionist forgets, in my experience, that he himself is responsible for his justifications--he adopted his own ideas.
And, while he adopted his own ideas. Mere thinking. He is willing to
genuinely, actually imprison a woman for getting an abortion.
Forgotten responsibility. Forgets he adopted the underlying ideas himself.
Yet, he is willing to exercise responsibility to help the unborn child. He is willing to assume responsibility for the unborn child and save him or her from "murder".
Thus, it makes no sense that a religiously-justified anti-abortionist Christian would assume responsibility to protect an unborn child, yet not support that same child in the right to self-defense when he grows to adulthood. (This is the point Drsysadmin jogged for me.)