And the nanny state grows. In the mean time, it is okay to fire a gay man running a gay website if he happens to be a republican. Fantastic! All American citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law, and the California Supreme Court recognizes that. "Not discriminating against people and doctors not playing the role ofThat says it all. I can't wait to be a grandma again!. If it was such a moral issue, why did the doctors assist her all the way up to the actual procedure? Why even get involved, and then drop the morality bomb on her? Hypocritical. Either state your stance at the beginning, or follow through as your Hippocratic oath compells you. This is the bottom line for me. If you work for a secular organization, you cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs. If you have moral objections, go work for a religious organization where this would be supported; plenty of them out there. Or, start a private practice where you can dictate your own terms, and don't accept any insurance funded by taxpayer dollars. And the nanny state grows.Oh, heavens forbid that a secular nation uphold the rights of its citizens when it comes to religious discrimination that involves the medical decisions of individuals who have gone to a non-religious medical institution that accepts federally-funded insurance. Yeah, we're in big trouble here. This is NOT a secular nation. This nation is supposed to allow freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. But now the government is stepping in and telling you that you MUST do things against your religious beliefs or face a penalty. That is not freedom. A secular nation is one that has no official national religion. The United States is a secular nation. It has nothing to do with being a religious person individually. Freedom of religion does not mean you can arbitrarily impose your religious beliefs upon another to their emotional, mental and/or medical detriment. This woman invested a lot of time, emotional/mental input and $$ into going through the process, only to have the doctor refuse the end result due to "religious objection." If you do not agree with the morality of aspects of a job, don't take the job. Freedom goes both ways. If it was truly against his religious beliefs, he should never have entered into the process to begin with. So that argument is a bunch of BS. From the CBS article: "One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections" Why couldn''t this have been done at the start, rather than put a person through the mental cruelty of the denial after all the emotional, physical and mental challenges she''d been through to get to that point? If they started the process, and went that far, they should be morally bound to complete it, regardless of when they found out sexual orientation. When exactly did they plan to verify there was a father who would be involved in the pregnancy and upbringing of said child? Was counseling not done before the procedures began? Sorry, the doctors dropped the ball on this, and they should be held legally responsible for the mental, physical and emotional harm they've done. From the CBS article: "One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections" Was counseling not done before the procedures began? Sorry, the doctors dropped the ball on this, and they should be held legally responsible for the mental, physical and emotional harm they've done.While it is true that the Doctors seem to have dropped the ball on this one, it could be that they "got religion" between the start of the process and when they refused to continue or that this incident was the straw that broke the camels back. This is like having a member of a sect that abstains from alcohol taking a job as a bartender then refusing to serve the customers. Matthew 18:7 (King James Version) Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! That's blaming someone else for one's own troubles. You hear similar things every time there's a natural disaster - the televangelists start pointing fingers of blame for the latest storm, earthquake or terrorist attack. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the -- Jerry Falwell, 13 September 2001 on The 700 Club Wiccan, I'm with you on this 100%. This is NOT a secular nation. This nation is supposed to allow freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.That makes no sense what so ever. If you don't have freedom from religion then you have worship and or bow down to somebody else religious dogma. That like saying that freedom of speech is the freedom to say whatever you like, but not to keep your mouth shut if you so wish. secularism –noun 1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. This country wasn't founded, and the constitution wasn't written to 'reject all forms of religious faith and worship.' It was founded for the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion. Declaring the government to be secular is just as unconstitutional as if any single religion were declared the religion of the land. According to the first amendment, government rejection of religious worship is just as unconstitutional as the government establishing an official state religion. sooners, I don't know what dictionary you're using, but I suspect you pulled that definition out of your butt. Here's what the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 4/e says: secularism (sekˊ yə lə rizˊ ə m) n. 1. Religious skepticism or indifference. 2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education. —sec? u lar ist n. — secˊ u lar istˊ ic adj.Of course the operative definition here in terms of this topic is number two. A long-ago great-uncle of mine once said: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say ... QT in the Chicago Sun-Times had this to say: Doctor no News Item: "California's highest court has barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians . . ." Gays and lesbians should have quit while they were ahead. Care to estimate the odds that any doctor who would deny treatment to them isn't a very good doctor in the first place? I used dictionary.com, but lets run with the definition you provided. 2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.exclude –verb (used with object), -clud·ed, -clud·ing. 1. to shut or keep out; prevent the entrance of. 2. to shut out from consideration, privilege, etc.: Employees and their relatives were excluded from participation in the contest. 3. to expel and keep out; thrust out; eject: He was excluded from the club for infractions of the rules. Secularism is the exclusion of religious beliefs. It allows only beliefs that aren't religious based. No one can separate themselves from their own beliefs, which means se... Oh please, that just false. Why is it that conservatives have to equate everything to religion? Read the whole sentence. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.Religions considerations, in other words the goverment does not make decisions based on religious belief or dogma. That is to keep separate, not establish superiority. The goverment makes no comment, nor does it favor/disfavor any religious belief and or dogma. A secular goverment does not interfere in religious practices, nor does it enforce them. The Constitution simply says you can worship as you wish, which can also mean that you can choose not to belie... Secular: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns>
What you describe is this: secular humanism : humanism 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion |
View the Top Clips from August 18, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
