The American heartland

[evmori]

Beavah, "clarify" means explaining a statement *I HAVE MADE*

 

Now aren't you doing EXACTLY what you accused Beavah of?

 

No, you idiot.

 

Now how is that debating? That is blatant name calling & the last resort of a desperate man!

 

How is it lying when the statement made by someone about you is based on your prior posts? Did you actually say that? No. Did Beavah post that you did say that? No.

[packsaddle]

"You've only demonstrated your willingness to confine people with religious beliefs different than your own to lower wage careers and reduced economic access."

Not at all, there's always financial and legal services or perhaps televangelism. Plenty of money and those don't seem to have any ethical entanglements.

 

You seem to be hung up on excommunications. The problem is that excommunication means NOTHING to me. I couldn't care less if someone is excommunicated, I challenge you to demonstrate actual physical harm from it. But excommunication is a red herring designed to distract from the principle being argued. I am arguing about a principle and I think you understand that but you're unable to interact on that level.

[Beavah]

You seem to be hung up on excommunications. The problem is that excommunication means NOTHING to me.

 

That it means nothing to you is irrelevant. Excommunication means nothing to me, either. What's important is what it means to a Catholic. It means giving up his/her religion and community. That has all kinds of psychosocial consequences.

 

More importantly, that is da definition of government coercion and forced conversion. Give up your beliefs or lose your job. That they've cared for thousands of patients successfully as an OB/GYN is irrelevant to you. They refuse to adopt your belief, and therefore should be deprived of their livelihood.

 

And that is the principle being argued. You believe da government through regulation and economic discrimination should force people to renounce beliefs with which you disagree. In American jurisprudence, that has uniformly been considered "making a law respecting the establishment of religion..."

 

Most of da rest of us support freedom of belief.

 

Thanks for at least being refreshingly straightforward and clear about your intent. Though I ain't a Catholic or a Muslim, I promise I will always oppose your attempts to deprive my fellow Americans of liberty.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[HICO_Eagle]

I am Walmart. I'm the biggest pharmacy chain in the nation. In order to get that big, I agree to take government funds in the form of Medicare/Medicaid and with my massive purchasing power, I can get drugs to consumers at a discount. Part of that agreement is to not restrict access to anything prescribed by doctors to customers.

 

REALLY bad analogy. Walmart sells things, in your scenario, prescription drugs. Their customers want to use a check from the government to pay for their prescriptions. Walmart is not receiving government funds the way universities get financial aid and research dollars. In fact, by agreeing to take a government check for those drugs, they are providing the taxpayer with a benefit by enabling access to the same drugs at a lower cost due to their buying power and distribution network.

 

Walmart is hardly a monopoly, the consumer has plenty of choices in places to get their drugs, condoms, etc. but some groups want to force THEIR values on the free marketplace provider by forcing him or her to be an accessory. It's funny but most of these same groups want to protect US universities that try to bar military or intelligence community recruiters despite the massive amounts of federal funds (some of it actually grants rather than payment for services rendered) they receive.

[packsaddle]

"You believe da government through regulation and economic discrimination should force people to renounce beliefs with which you disagree."

I'd like to understand where it is that I said the above is what I believe. How is it that you know my beliefs so well?

But I particularly noted the importance you place on psychosocial consequences. Nice.

 

Because you mis-represented it, I will state my intent clearly. My intent is for everyone to have access to health care that isn't limited by someone else's personal beliefs.

I am sympathetic to the idea of removing all government support for health care, including medicare, medicaid, indigent care by hospitals, etc. I have stated this in the past. Make health care totally private and available for whoever can afford it. Under that system doctors and hospitals can deny access on whatever basis they choose and the market will take care of things. Right?

But that's not reality. We have decided that we are going to have some kinds of government assistance. I don't expect that to last once the dollar has completely collapsed but that's some time in the future. In the meantime, if a doctor wants to be paid with my tax dollars, he should be ready to take the consequences if he denies treatment. That's today's reality. Tomorrow may be yours.

[fleetfootedfox]

There are two boys in my son's school who have "two moms". One of the moms came to our school night to join scouting. She seemed to be upset by the fact that when the other boys went to Dad and Lad camp, her boys would be left out. She wanted to send some other male with them to Dad and Lad. We didn't know what the rules were on this, but we suggested she take the boys to Mom and Me camp. She didn't like this, because her sons would feel left out.

 

You see, if these people have their way, we can no longer have father/son activities, because some boys don't have fathers and it's not fair to make them feel left out.

 

This is a perfect example of how these people want special treatment, not just equality. I have never heard any of the single, divorced, or widowed moms ask if they could send some other male friend to Dad & Lad in place of their sons' father.

[Beavah]

I'd like to understand where it is that I said the above is what I believe.

 

Right here:

 

In the meantime, if a doctor wants to be paid with my tax dollars, he should be ready to take the consequences if he denies treatment.

 

In other words, the government should be permitted to force Catholic OB/GYNs to abandon their faith and convert to your way of thinking or lose their career and livelihood. That's what we call economic coercion and discrimination. You think that's fine, because you're not a Catholic and excommunication or forced conversion from Catholicism doesn't bother you

[packsaddle]

"In other words, the government should be permitted to force Catholic OB/GYNs to abandon their faith and convert to your way of thinking or lose their career and livelihood."

That would be your spin on what I wrote and that's why you wrote, "In other words...", yours specifically. The consequences that I am thinking about have nothing to do with abandoning their faith or conversion. They have a simple choice. It might be a tough choice but that's something we all have to face in life.

 

But since you mentioned it, and given the reality is that your fears are going to come to pass, you wrote that this would be "forcing large numbers of physicians and health care workers to make a choice between their livelihood and their faith..."

Really? Do you have those numbers available? I'm interested. What percentage of physicians and health care workers do they represent?

 

Edited part: Oh yeah, Sheldonsmom was not denied health care. She rejected the first practitioner, not the other way around. She made a choice based on HER personal needs. I'm ok with that.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[DanKroh]

"This is a perfect example of how these people want special treatment, not just equality. I have never heard any of the single, divorced, or widowed moms ask if they could send some other male friend to Dad & Lad in place of their sons' father."

 

So my son is asking for special treatment when he wanted to take his favorite "auntie" (she's no actual relation, just a family friend) to the Mom and Me dance at his school?

 

How very.

[Beavah]

The consequences that I am thinking about have nothing to do with abandoning their faith or conversion.

 

Yah, I know that you're not thinkin' about those consequences, eh? Because you don't care about 'em. But they exist nonetheless.

 

It would be great if there were never any negative consequences of da policies we want. Sadly, that's as likely as a perpetual motion device.

 

They have a simple choice. It might be a tough choice but that's something we all have to face in life.

 

Convert or lose your livelihood? Not unless we're livin' in Saudi or in some other century.

 

Really? Do you have those numbers available? I'm interested. What percentage of physicians and health care workers do they represent?

 

My guess is that they approximate da percentages in the general population. Muslims, faithful Christians, Catholics... 50%+. The ones who will be punctilious or uncomfortable? Some fraction of that.

 

Sheldonsmom made a choice based on HER personal needs. I'm ok with that.

 

No you're not, because you'd make sure that she wouldn't have a doc who shared her beliefs for her to go to.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

"My guess..." Wow, you really have no idea at all. Just some wild guess that didn't answer the question.

 

"I'm ok with that.

 

No you're not,"

And now you are a greater authority on what's in my mind than I am. Beavah, sorry fella, time to call this quits.

[Beavah]

Sigh. So we can try it da long way.

 

Yes, you're OK with that.

 

As long as you can ensure that da Pro-Life OB/GYN that she wants to see is no longer practicing medicine, and therefore she doesn't have access to a doctor that she is willing to see. Sounds like denying access to me.

 

For da rest, yeh know as well as I do that there's no authoritative source of data for da religion of medical practitioners in different fields. But da approximation seems pretty reasonable. From da U.S. Census bureau 2007 estimates:

 

Catholic 23.9%

Mormon 1.7%

Orthodox 0.6%

Muslim 0.6%

Pentecostal4.4%

Baptist 17.2%

Adventist .5%

Lutheran 1.6% (Missouri or Wisconsin synod)

 

Total 50.5% of da U.S. population self-identifies with denominations which view abortion as murder and feel pretty strongly about it.

 

Hmmm... my guess was pretty close, eh?

 

Gallup shows 76% of Catholic respondents agree with their church's position on abortion. Much higher than da percentages that agree with other sexual issues. Assumin' da same percentage for other denominations, that's 38% of da population. Even if dat's an overestimate, it's still what anybody would call "significant", eh?

 

Besides, is it OK if we oppress a small group of religious people?

 

Beavah

 

[NWScouter]

Some areas you cant find a doctor or facility to perform abortions. This is the result of groups protesting a legal procedure, with blockades by large groups making patients run gauntlets of chanting, heckling protesters. Also listing doctors, nurses and patients on websites for crazies to take potshots at or blow them up.

[evmori]

The only reason abortion isn't murder is because it is a medical procedure.

[Trevorum]

...

 

And back to the original topic ...

 

Change is inevitable. Our children will live in a very different world than that of our parents. Iowa has now approved same sex marriage (see original post) and the federal government will extend equal benefits to same-sex partners.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/24/AR2009052402145.html

 

At some point in the near future, the BSA will be seen by the majority of Americans as mean-spirited, reactionary, and out-of-touch for denying membership to homosexual persons. At some point, the BSA will discover itself to be marginalized from mainsteam American society, appealing only to certain religious groups in ever dwindling numbers.

 

You may not like it, but change is coming. It always has.