Freedom.

There is no concept, no idea, more central to the American psyche and way of life than that of freedom.

Freedom to say, do and believe whatever. Freedom to go anywhere and be anything.

However, Americans — and everyone in civilized society — must draw lines when making laws and decisions. Put simply, certain issues should be off limits.

One person’s freedom often steps on another person’s freedom. This, of course, causes conflicts.

For example, take public smoking bans.

Smokers hate these bans because they believe it takes away their freedom to smoke wherever they please, but non-smokers generally like these bans because they do not like, or want anything to do with smoking.

According to smokers, the government is taking away their rights, while according to many nonsmokers the government is defending their rights be free from smoke in public places.

So, in scenarios like these, who is right and who is wrong? Or, more importantly, where should lawmakers and governments draw the line when deciding what should be legal and illegal?

I believe the answer to this question is science.

Science, when properly supported by time and testing, allows us to comprehend the world in the most complete way.

For instance, take gay marriage. Should it be legalized?

If the only reason one can give for it to not be legalized is a religious reason, like “homosexuality is a sin,” than this argument is not substantial enough.

America is a democracy and is populated by many different cultures, religions and opinions.

Religious arguments for — and even against — gay marriage are inherently not good enough because they are based on principles — religious principles — that not everyone can get behind.

Scientific reasons, unlike religious ones, are universal and transcendent. Everyone can get behind them.

So, we must ask ourselves, “Is there a good scientific argument against gay marriage?”

The obvious answer is no, so therefore it should be legalized.

Using this “test” to determine the legality of America’s social and cultural war is the best way to bring about resolve.

Abortion would be outlawed because most embryologists — the people who study the earliest stages of the embryo — believe life begins at conception.

They believe while life develops from conception onward, until our early twenties, it actually begins at the moment of conception.

In the case of a mother’s health being at risk, it should be noted that doctors do not even call the termination of a fetus —in light of a mothers’ health — an abortion.

Under the scientific approach to lawmaking, the mother’s health would be of higher concern over the fetus’ if the mother so desired.

The point here is this approach to lawgiving is not cruel or detached of human emotion.

Many Americans believe the deciding factor between what should be legal and what should not be legal are emotional responses to the issue at hand, and a person’s own free choice.

In other words, the government should regulate and restrict one’s freedoms as little as possible, giving people as many choices as possible, whenever possible.

I agree with this position, to an extent.

This position holds merit unless science has something definitive to say about the issue at hand.

However, I also firmly believe science allows us to see reality in the clearest of ways. It can allow us to understand what is right and wrong on many moral and cultural issues.

Scientific truth and facts are universal, while emotion and religion vary greatly from person to person.

Even from a single person’s perspective, religion and emotion can vary greatly with age or life experiences.

We, therefore, cannot use these reasons as deciding tools when making laws.

We must use what everyone can get behind, but, more importantly, we must use reality — truth — when making laws.

Under this approach, gay marriage would be legal because there are no good scientific arguments against it, while abortion would be made illegal because the scientific evidence is overwhelming that life begins at conception.

Smokers should not be allowed to smoke in public because science has proven that second hand smoke is extremely dangerous.

Schools, even private ones, should not be allowed to teach “Intelligent Design” simply because science overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.

All the cultural and moral issues that divide us as Americans could be resolved easily under the banner of science.

However, under the banner of one’s religion or one’s feelings, strife and quarrel will continue to exist.

We must put our religions and emotional responses to hot button, cultural war issues on the back burner.

We must embrace a standard that all can get behind. We must embrace the truth, and we must embrace reality as defined by science.
Scientific principles, whenever possible, should influence our laws not emotion or personal feeling and not religion.

By DAVID WOODSON

Newscast Editor

dwoodson@ius.edu