Religious faith and moral conscience are equally subjective, and in practice there is often no clear distinction between the two. A Quaker may oppose military service based upon feelings of conscience, which in turn are grounded in religious belief. Someone may turn to Buddhism, as friends of mine have, based upon feelings of compassion toward other living things. Speaking for myself, I believe members of civilized societies are obligated to protect the weak and suffering. I developed this belief while under the influence of Maryknoll sisters who taught me at school. Though my religious beliefs have faded - I am a collapsed Catholic, if anyone's wondering - I retain my core moral beliefs. But it is not possible for me to objectively prove that my social views are correct. Someone might argue that caring for the weak only prolongs suffering and prevents the down and out from bettering themselves. The whole 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' argument. While I might with time, persistence and a little luck convince such a person that my views are superior and healthier for society and individuals, I cannot empirically prove my beliefs, at least not to the satisfaction of my intellectual opponents.

And that's just about what I have to say about matters of conscience and faith. If someone would like to respond to the wider argument I outlined in my initial post regarding the legal decision in question, I'll be following this thread and would be happy to engage in further discussion.