One of THOSE topics

[Beavah]

You then ignored any reasonable response

 

No, I declined to participate in your straw man because other people's comments were more interesting (and then more unnerving ). If yeh follow the current news, nuthin' I was commenting on seems particularly hyperbolic, but then I might be closer to some elements of da poor behavior of the state than you are.

 

But answer your own question, if yeh will. Should Christian physicians have refused to participate in forced sterilizations of those deemed mentally deficient when the state ordered it with the support of the scientific establishment? Do yeh think religion should have "trumped" science and the government in that case?

 

Eugenics laws were in place in more than half da states of the union for a time, if I remember correctly.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[moosetracker]

Guess I got some catching up to do, sorry busy day at work.. Normally my job is slow, and I have time to twiddle my thumbs as jobs run..

 

" Is it OK for a hospital to deny treatment, on the basis of religious beliefs, to interracial couples?"

Funny - I still remember watching a show that was a historical depiction of the South during Segregation. At that time hospitals would deny treatment on a person being black, if it was a whites only hospital. Their reaction to the thought was about the same as if you brought them you dog hit by a car and expected them to him into the operating room.

 

Don't know about interracial couples, as they would have to take them in and start the paperwork with the husband/wife sitting together. If the admission was done and then the spouse came in, it would be hard to kick them out.

 

Anyway to Packsaddles question "The real question is for us as individuals: should our religious views trump everything else? And if not everything, then where do we draw the line?"

 

Well that explanation is not straight forward for me. First it is not much of a religion to begin with if it teaches you to love thy neighbor, except of him, him and him (for whatever reason you fill in the blanks.) But, if the service means your heart has to be in it for the customer to get your best of your best (say wedding planner, or home decorator).. Then a white lie is ok, you have not hurt their feelings but you most likely did them a favor if it means they will find someone who can give them their best because they are not trying to get over their disgust of the person/people they need to work with.. But, if it is service that does not require detailed work (for example selling them shoes, serving them a bowl of soup, even renting them an apartment) or it is emergency service (hospital, police, fire).. Get over it and get it done.. At no time is it appropriate to be allowed to freely tell someone you will not serve them due to your religion or prejudices, where you can do it in no other manner then to be rude, belittling and hurtful.

 

What...most fractured threads ever?! Well I think--look a bunny! I always thought the response was "Let me explain the issue of - SQUIRREL!!!...."

[packsaddle]

Beavah,

Which of those two questions represented 'straw men'?

 

They might not have been interesting to someone who wants to provoke. Anyway, you played the abortion hot button in response. And it was not necessary in order to discuss the principles involved. Here are some examples, "Yeh can have your religion in private, just don't let it affect how you behave in public or we will destroy you financially." or this one, ""Those people", yeh see, can't be allowed to run hospitals or be an OB/GYN. They should go live on a compound in the woods."

Hyperbole.

 

To answer your question even when you refuse to answer mine:

Yes, they should have refused to engage in forced sterilizations. And then they should have played it out, however it went. They had a chance to bring the moral issue to the public arena and didn't. It was cowardly. Same for doctors in hospitals. They should 'put it on the line' if it is a matter of conscience. Same for pharmacies. As a matter of fact they don't need the ACLU action to push this point, they can do it right now if it's that important.

 

Edit: Thanks Moosetracker. I'm still not clear about where the line is for you, though. What I'm hoping for is a 'way' to make the decision...more than a survey of 'where' the line is for different people. Seems like if we could figure out 'how' to draw the line, then where it ends up might be a little more rational to more people. But reflecting on this thread, I am probably wrong about this.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[moosetracker]

I'm still not clear about where the line is for you, though. That makes two of us. All I know is it does not involve trying to force my government into passing laws to force everyone else to draw the line where I do.. While at the same time telling government to keep it's nose out of my business when I fear they are not going to draw it in the exact position that I want it drawn.. But, it does involve telling other people they have drawn their line too narrowly..

[Scoutfish]

Dammit! I have been mulling over the "woodsy" comment for a couple hours now, and I am still not sure if I was complimented or insulted.

 

And even if I was insulted...that in itself might still be a compliment!

[packsaddle]

Two hours!!!??? Trust me, it was with great affection. Now get some sleep.

No, not that kind of affection...NOW get some sleep.

 

[Beavah]

Sigh. Packsaddle, are yeh really goin' to play this game? I thought better of yeh. The first post in the thread that went off da rails was yours on the bottom of Page 1, long before I ever joined in:

 

"THREAT!!! You must understand the code being used here...the threat is from 'those fill-in-the-blank people', don't you know? They are going to infect our 'NOT fill-in-the-blank-people society'. 'Those people' could TAKE OVER!! "

 

Now, yeh claim that wasn't hyperbolic but my statements were. I always understand that we tend to see in others a reflection of our own weaknesses, so I really don't mind. And I get that apparently yeh were anxious that I respond to you, when this is really a discussion with a lot of people and I thought moosetracker's claim was the one worth responding to. Sorry, but that's what happens when you're in a room with a bunch of people, yeh join the conversation that yeh find most interestin'. And it is, after all, moosetracker's thread.

 

The glorous [sic] thing about the seperating [sic] church & state is the goverment [sic] rarely can force changes to religions

 

That's the comment I responded to, eh?

 

If yeh follow the news this week, yeh will have seen that the government is usin' the health insurance mandate to require Catholic employers to provide contraception. Doesn't matter if they don't get federal money. Doesn't matter if they're doin' their best to serve others. No exemption for conscience. The ACLU has a similar petition before the same regulatin' body to require abortion coverage and providing abortions.

 

Now I'm not in agreement at all with OGE's church's view on contraception, eh? But that isn't the point. It's a long-held tenet of their faith that dates back to the first century. It isn't irrational or oppressive; at it's core I reckon it's just a notion that people should exercise some self control without drugs. But regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them, do we really want the government to decide that their belief isn't valuable and should be forcibly suppressed? As close as I can tell, da U.S. Catholic conference considers this a direct assault on their faith. Who are we to claim differently?

 

So yeh see, the government can indeed use indirect means via economics, regulatory mandates, education, etc. to try to change religions. Which was the point I was making to moosetracker.

 

Yah, I get that you don't mind the government interferin' with those Catholics. But this isn't a slippery slope, it's a cliff. The drums of war are beatin' over Iran again, eh? If the government can mandate Catholic institutions offer contraception, is there any argument that doesn't make it also OK for the government to mandate that Quaker institutions host military recruiting nights?

 

Seems like the out afforded to Catholics is that they can stop doin' health care, education, or social work. Or maybe stop havin' anything to do with non-Catholics: don't help 'em, don't employ 'em. In other words, stop living the core tenet of their faith that salvation comes through good works, not just faith. Go live in the woods on an all-Catholic compound, and we'll leave yeh alone. For now.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

"Now, yeh claim that wasn't hyperbolic but my statements were."

I never made any such claim about what I wrote and you know it.

The difference is that I'm willing to admit it when I use hyperbole.

Besides, what you just quoted from me IS A QUOTE of what I heard FROM A PULPIT and in other places back in the 1960s. I really do collect these things and then throw them in peoples' faces at times. It's good to remember these things. It's good to make others face those memories too, a nice reminder.

 

But at least now I got you to provide some reasoned discussion. Thanks.

And that is why I maintained near the beginning of this thread, that all government support should be removed to allow the market to work the way it should. That is still what I maintain. The Catholics (and others) can discriminate if they want as long as they're 'up front' about it. The market will take care of everything.

 

Edit: take a glance over your shoulder back through the rear window. See that edge receding in the distance? We went over the cliff before this administration arrived. The ACLU and the Catholics are just a distraction. accelerating at 9.8(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[moosetracker]

Well, this is probably one of those political election year, the-sky-is-falling! Tactics to control the conservatives vote. But I will bite.

 

I take it that since you are talking about the Catholics right to control the personal lifes of their non-Catholic employees by means other than the fear of God. We are not talking about their priests or nuns. So it is the who they employee in their business.. Yawn.. Fair game..

 

As stated before birth control is used for a wide variety of other things then contraception.

 

Why is it fine for the Catholics to regulate(more like meddle in) the personal lives of employees via economics, regulatory mandates, but, it is not OK for the government to do the exact same thing to them.

 

If this is even remotely true, it is not the same thing as forcing a Dr. to perform what he believes is murder. In which case if government ever does do that, the Catholic has the choice of not going into OB/GYN medicine and probably shouldnt even now, in case they cant get employment in a Catholic hospital, and would need to take employment with a non-catholic facility that would expect them to do their full job, or be unemployed.

 

This is more in line with being a Catholic pharmacist or even a cashier at a drug store, and ringing up the purchase of birth control pills or condoms.. Get over it and do not try to force everyone around you to follow your beliefs.

 

[packsaddle]

Moosetracker,

...trying to get back to those two questions...

I'm not sure that 'get over it' is going to provide resolution. While I'm sympathetic to the individualistic approach (that is to say focus on individual freedom) I also see that freedom being expressed in the form of trying to force views on others.

So let me pose a different question.

We all know the golden rule. How can it be applied in this situation? Could it be used as a key to finding a resolution? Or does it fail?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[moosetracker]

Yes the Golden rule.. Do unto others as they would have them do unto you.

 

Don't meddle in the lifes of others, if you don't want others to meddle in yours...

 

Therefore the Catholics should not be meddling in the lifes of their employees by dictating what they can and cannot have done healthwise, if they don't want the government to meddle in thier meddling ways..

[Scoutfish]

I think it falls back to just what Moose said: very basic morals.

 

Specifically what she said in "Do unto others as you would mhave them do unto you..."

 

Meaning. let others make their own decisions and run their own life by making the choices they decide.

 

And the kicker is this: If you were a pharmacist back around the time birth control first came out, I could see you having an objection to this new "evil" pill.

 

But the pill ( along with other means of contraception) have been around so long now, that if you go to schoo to be a phamacist, then you are going into a profession that you already know has particulars that you object to.

 

But again, the thing here is individual choice.

 

The Catholic hospital is not an individual. It is a group or an association. The government is standing up for the individual here. It is not saying the hospital has to perform abortions on babies. The government is saying the hospital must leave that decision to the parent(s) as individuals, and not some board or group.

 

And the thing here is rthat an individula is making a personal decision based on may reasons while the hospital is deciding , before hand , for everybody based on a personal tennat.

 

Now, my next question about the pharmacist is this:

 

Does that same pharmacist prscribe Viagra without any hesitation?

 

Do the sell ( ring up at register) condoms? A diaphram? KY jelly or other lubricant for sex?

 

 

What about Vicatin , Demeral( spell that right) Dilatin, or many of the other narcotics that so often get abused or people get addicted to?

 

What about medicines used for ADHD and ADD? We all have seen how those get over prescribed and way too fast and often. I have seen it used for bahvior control just because a parent wants a "Be seen but not heard" & "Act like a grown up" child.

 

Is that pharmacist going to object to that too?

 

How about selling of beer or wine? Cigarettes too? - Yeah, some drug stores sell wine, beer and smokes down here in the south. They also sell lottery tickets too?

 

So far, I have never seen on the news, or read in the papers where a pharmacist has objected to selling anything other than the pill.

 

And it comes down to the pharmacist making a person choice for him/her self..what it is - is the pharmacist making a choice for somebody else based on their own personal beliefs.

 

And that's where the hospital; falls to. The hospital is making a choice for others. The government is saying : No, you have to let individuals make thier OWN choice.

 

Now lets change the question a bit:

 

Do doctors have the right -as individuals -to refude to perform abortions as it goes against their personal values, beliefs, or tennants?

 

I say absolutely! And I would bet that the dr in question would probably pursue the abotion option in the case where the abotion would in fact save the life of the mother due to severe or mortal defects in the baby that would prevent any life of the baby.

 

And I'd give the individual Dr that chpoice as much as I give the dr the choice to decide on any procedure or operation. Becausde the Dr is only choosing his own participation - which does not prevent the patient from seeking the service from another doctor.

 

 

Now, all of that aside, with the exception of abortions for medical reasons..I do not know why anybody seeking an abortion would go to a Catholic ( or any other religious) hospital in the first place.

 

I would not go to Mickey D's seeking a vegan atmostphere. I would not go to a car dealership when looking to buy a boat. I would not go to the butcher seeking vegetarian recipees.

 

You know what I mean?

 

I wouldn't pm Kudu and ask him how to help promote WB to my district either!

 

\But if I was a Catholic, and I needed an abortion due to impending mortality because of severe birth defects and real danger to my wife if she tried to carry to term...then yes - I would expect the Catholic "hospital" to perform that procedure.

 

 

[moosetracker]

Well I might have confused Scoutfish with my comparison of the pharmasist.. But, what he said goes just the same for a health insurance. Does the insurance group that denies the contraception cover any of the other medical prescriptions Scoutfish has mentioned?

[Scoutfish]

Nah, I know what you meant about the pharmacist...I just added an aditional elemnt to it....or at least tried

 

I get your comparrison and what you are saying about the pharmacist trying to control somebody els's life..

 

I was just adding to the fact that a person who decides to become a pharmacist in this day and age is pretty much setting out to do just that as they have to know about dipsensing contraceptives is a part of the job.

 

Another way I see this is a contientious objecter to war. I get that people are against fighting and war. I respect that too.

 

But if you are a contientious objecter to war, DO NOT join the military and when you are actually about to go to war - be upset with the military and complainm, fret and try to sue or change what you are rsupposed to do.

 

War is a part of/ chance of happening part of being in the military.

 

Filling prescriptions for birth control is part of a job as a pharmacist.

 

If You get a job as a pharmacist and then pull out the "Birth control is against my religion" ..then it pretty much tells me you have a pre dispositioned agenda and knew ahead of time you were goping to try to impose your religious will on other people .

 

And that's crappy.

 

And while pharmacists are supposed to be the top knowledgeable experts when it comes to drugs..they are not doctors , nor are they privy to the what, why or reason for a dr prescribing something.

 

As I mentioned before, my wife uses birth control to regulate and prevent a pretty serious hormonal imbalance - not birth control.

 

But it does not say on her prescription what the reasons for that birth control are.

 

So, the pharmacist is just assuming and jumping to conclusons as to what it is being used for.

 

They are judging and creating bad, where there was no bad to begin with.

 

Yeah, I'd call that real Christian-like behavior!

[JMHawkins]

Why is it fine for the Catholics to regulate(more like meddle in) the personal lives of employees via economics, regulatory mandates, but, it is not OK for the government to do the exact same thing to them.

 

Because the Catholics don't run a prison system for people who refuse to follow their rules?

 

Or, if you're worried about employment, the worst the Catholic Church can do to a doctor who doesn't want to follow their rules is say he can't work for them. The government gets to say he can't work for anybody.

 

Right now we have a liberal Democrat as President. Four years ago we had a born-again Christian. A year from now we could very well have an LDS President appointing a new cabinet. Are you sure you want D.C. deciding who's the decent person and who's the ignorant fool? Whatever side of the debate you're on, the other side has been in power before. Do you really want to bet the farm that they never are again?