|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2005 : 04:40:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by sweetmiracle
I understand what you're saying, Dave...
Where does your professional resposibility, as defined by the state, end and your right to freedom of/from religion begin?
Should you then be out of a job?
It's like the last paragraph I wrote, above, just doesn't exist.
As soon as some state says to some teacher "if you quit your job, you'll go to jail," then we can talk about "professional resposibility, as defined by the state." I'd be willing to bet that at least one teacher has quit due to objections to the teaching of evolution. A teacher's professional responsibility doesn't extend all the way to "teach, no matter what."
And, on the other hand, nobody has a Constitutional right to any particular career. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2005 : 02:21:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by sweetmiracle
I understand what you're saying, Dave. But what if we put the shoe on the other foot.
Suppose that out religious right-o-s got their beloved 'Prayer in schools' ammendment passed. (Yes, it may be unconstitutional, but so were income taxes, until the dubiously-passed 16th ammendment.) And suppose that you were a teacher. You couldn't bring yourself to lead the kids in your class through a generic 'blessings on us, our parents, our teachers and our country' stuff because you do not believe in a supreme being, or at least not one who pays any real attention to what goes on here on this piece of rock. But congress says you must. So does the constitution. Where does your professional resposibility, as defined by the state, end and your right to freedom of/from religion begin?
Should you then be out of a job?
If the above were the case, dismissing the separation of church and state for the moment, and were I a teacher, I'd teach in private school and I would also place my kids in private school. This is the same as I expect those with religious objections to the content taught in public schools to do now.
The point you are missing, IMO, is that there are many cases where practicing one's rights means denying another's. Everything is just not so clean cut as to say any right is absolute. Can I play my stereo as loud as I want at 3AM? Can I drain the wetlands I own? Can I have a church service in my very large home if thousands will be attending but the area is not zoned for commercial use?
Health care employers have allowed some limited practicing of religion. Like I said, most hospitals allow workers to opt out of assisting in abortion procedures. I know of some places that have allowed strict religious adherence to not working on the Sabbath or whatever. But how could you take care of people in a hospital if everyone refused to work on Saturday or Sunday? What about the patient's right to care?
Even non-essential products have only limited circumstances where one can discriminate against someone for 'moral' reasons. I believe hotel owners and landlords can deny rooms or rental homes to unmarried couples living together. I could be wrong or it may be certain states but not all states, but I do believe the law allows such discrimination. On the other hand you can't discriminate against Jews or Catholics for the same reasons. Suppose you only wanted to rent to someone of your own faith? Can you do that? I don't think so, even though you own the property.
Well, I think the point has been made so I won't go on but there are thousands of examples where we don't have absolute rights because it denies someone else their rights in the process. Yes, you may be out of a job if the law says you have to dispense BCPs and you don't approve. Too bad. But if I had to choose between the person's right to work over the other person's right to use BCPs, I'd choose the latter. Otherwise the precedent would be very very bad for a 'free' country. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2005 : 06:24:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How far should the state go in forcing people to act against their religious beliefs?
If you can find ONE single instance of anyone EVER being forced to act against their religious beliefs, please post a link.
Another way to look at it also:
My current profession requires me to administer blood and blood products to people regularly. If I were suddenly to become a Jehova's Witness could I refuse to do this? Would it be right for me to refuse care to people based on my personal religious beliefs? With no regard for their own beliefs or choices?
Some professions require a person to be able to act outside personal beliefs. If a person gets into one of those professions, they do not have the right to place their personal convictions first. All healthcare falls into this, including pharmacists.
If you were a janitor, and you joined a religion that stated floor mopping was a horrible sin, do you then have the right to refuse to mop floors and still keep your job?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2005 : 00:54:05 [Permalink]
|
This goes perfect here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000975.html
Two junior high science teachers (with the aid of The Thomas More Law Center) are threatening to file a lawsuit against the Gull Lake Public Schools in Michigan for telling them that they could no longer teach creationism in their classrooms.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 22:34:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
sweetmiracle, the state already places many limits on the actions one is allowed to make in practising one's religion. It is illegal for Rastafarians to use marijuana. It's illegal for non-reservation American Indians to use peyote. You'll never see strict orthodox Jews making burnt offerings in public cafeterias. And it's assuredly a big no-no for anyone to perform a human sacrifice, anywhere in the US.
In ruling after ruling, the courts have concurred that people have the absolute freedom to believe whatever they want to believe, but their freedom to act as they claim their religion demands they act ends when it becomes a burden to someone else. "Free practice of religion" doesn't give a person the right to inflict their religion on someone else, no matter how slight the offense, or how noble the intentions. If our hypothetical pharmacist got sued for refusal to dispense any medication, "it's against my religion" would stand against (probably) thousands of pages of precedent in law.
In other words, that defense wouldn't have a chance in hell. The pharmacist - if possessing deep pockets - would appeal decisions all the way up to SCOTUS, and even that would fail. (And then the Republicans could get all their knickers in a twist about another "abuse of judicial power" which is nothing of the sort.)
Uuh, yeah. What Dave said... |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 20:13:22 [Permalink]
|
In some rural parts of the country, eastern Oregon for example, where it's a 100 mile drive to another pharmacy, a pharmacist's refusal to fill a morning after prescription renders it moot, and refusal to provide birth control is a giant pain in the butt.
And how does the fundy pharmacist know that the birth control pills are not treating severe acne, or endometriosis. This whole thing demonstrates something touched on in an earlier post - the fundamentalist tendency to see and assume the worst of people. |
trish |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
