The authors asserted, at p. 1, that the events of the Wagar trial: ``... undermine public confidence in the fair administration of justice, both in general and in relation to Justice Camp's current capacity for independence, integrity and impartiality, and his ability to respect the equality and
dignity of all persons appearing before him.»
Not exact matches
On the other hand, Maximus
appears to find fault in the Areopagite's strict representation
of an order that tends to overrun the
dignity of the
person and the centrality
of the Incarnation, rendering divinisation the inevitable outcome
of a Neoplatonic «return to the source», that is, to the Logos.
If a
person you love is able to enhance their quality
of life for longer, or able to exercise the same kind
of autonomy that
people able to choose when to die can exercise, then the prohibition
appeared cruel and undermining
of human
dignity.
But now I'm stumped because there
appears to be a contradiction between the values: «communicate in ways that build others up, according to their needs, for the benefit
of all... treat all
persons with respect and
dignity, and uphold their God - given worth from conception to death... be responsible citizens both locally and globally who respect authorities, submit to the laws
of this country, and contribute to the welfare
of creation and society» and «sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness
of marriage between a man and a woman».
If a
person you know is vulnerable and compromised by illness and / or disability, the prohibition
appeared protective, life - affirming, and enhancing
of human
dignity.