Your Eroding Freedoms

[Jubashero]

Let’s change the situation and focus on the issue of faith.

You’re a man who is having trouble and decide to go to the hospital to get Viagra. The hospital you go to is run by a group whose denomination is “Profitism”, their belief is that the better a business the closer to their deity. The doctor, who is a Mennonite, decides that he can prescribe Viagra because his belief won’t let him. The hospital fires the doctor because he is losing profits. Does the hospital have a right to do this? Which faith is more important?

Take the same doctor and he is employed in a catholic hospital. An unruly child comes in and eventually the doctor gives him a slap in the butt because his belief is “spare the rod spoil the child”. Is this acceptable practice?

My point is I think that the faith-based church has a place. I would rather bring a dying family member to a faith-based hospital, and not because the personnel are less caring at the non-faith based hospital, but it is harder to hear the sterile vernacular in most hospitals such as “the patient has expired” for a death. Having said this, if the standard a care was based on one’s religion, there would be no standard of care. So, the faith-based hospital should be required to inform patients of the various options; they do not have to support not perform all optiona, but cannot coerce one into not selecting a particular option as well. To me this is thus not a question of hindering one’s faith.

[standish]

jubashero said:

Let’s change the situation and focus on the issue of faith.

You’re a man who is having trouble and decide to go to the hospital to get Viagra. The hospital you go to is run by a group whose denomination is “Profitism”, their belief is that the better a business the closer to their deity. The doctor, who is a Mennonite, decides that he can prescribe Viagra because his belief won’t let him. The hospital fires the doctor because he is losing profits. Does the hospital have a right to do this? Which faith is more important?
If Profitism is a religion and not a motive, it is protected under the first amendment. Thus, when two faiths collide, the controlling interest is, whose institution is it? The faith-based hospital may dismiss the person of another faith who fails to comply with its faith-based policies. When profitism is simply a personal or institutional motive, and not a demonstrable religion, faith trumps.

Take the same doctor and he is employed in a catholic hospital. An unruly child comes in and eventually the doctor gives him a slap in the butt because his belief is “spare the rod spoil the child”. Is this acceptable practice?
If his belief is a personal one, certainly not. If it is a faith-based hospital policy contrary to prevailing mores, with treatment offered to the general public, the policy should be noted at admission and a release signed by the patient before administration. If treatment is of an immediate emergency nature, internal hospital policy should prevent the exercise of corporal discipline (although restraint may be necessary for treatment). Even then, the State may have an interest, if harm is demonstrable and excessive. If my religion permits me to "murder infidels", I cannot perform that rite at my hospital.

However, we are speaking of a hospital and not a school. My position does not anticipate every instance or circumstance, and I am sure there are extreme exceptions. I do not think you win the argument by citing them.

My point is I think that the faith-based church has a place. I would rather bring a dying family member to a faith-based hospital, and not because the personnel are less caring at the non-faith based hospital, but it is harder to hear the sterile vernacular in most hospitals such as “the patient has expired” for a death. Having said this, if the standard a care was based on one’s religion, there would be no standard of care. So, the faith-based hospital should be required to inform patients of the various options;
I would not disagree. Perhaps that is what the legislation should address.
they do not have to support not perform all optiona, but cannot coerce one into not selecting a particular option as well.
The faith-based institution should be able to exercise its obligation to inform the patient, from a faith perspective, the consequences of treatment. Coercion, on the other hand, should not be an option.
To me this is thus not a question of hindering one’s faith.
As long as the hospital is not forced, or coerced, to act against its faith.

[standish]

Dear commentators;

You may know who I am. I have been identified by others on this board and have identified myself. I will do so again: Leigh Standish.

Would Jubashero, Syzygy and others be so kind as to also do so? Your relative life situation may help reveal the basis for your positions...

[SyZyGy]

As a basis for
ideological and theological discussions,

• Important: my religion, my faith, my standards;
  
• Insignificant: my "relative life situation",
  including my name;
  
• Insignificant: your "relative life situation",
  including your name.

[standish]

If I were a rape victim, or the mother/father of one, or a priest, or a hospital administrator, or a legislator, or the governor, or... I suspect it would make a difference. What my mother and father named me, not at all, except that it would force me to publicly own my comments.

[SyZyGy]

standish wrote:
"... the letter-writer, a well-known liberal commentator for NPR, who seems to identify and sympathize most with the atheist..."
You seem to have a bias against liberals, NPR, and atheists.

"...If you are saying that people of faith have no place in the public square and should shut up unless they are offering help, then, perhaps you should view their concern for life as that very compassion you deride..."
I say that religion-based organizations should not be subsidized by the State: no funds to run hospitals or other social relief efforts, no funds to run parochial schools, no funds to perform relief efforts, no tax deductions or waivers for individuals or their religion-based institutions, all of which free up funds they have at their disposal to promulgate their religion. If a religion-based organization wants to perform these functions, they should do so with no desire for nor expectation of support, subsidy by the State. Organized religions in the USA are soft, rarely if ever giving till it hurts and more than happy to accept relief from the State. Expect from Caesar and Caesar will expect from you. Religion-based organizations should free themselves from the teat of the State.

"... If a government cannot first guarantee the right to life, even before liberty and happiness, it fails to fulfill its first purpose...."
It would be interesting to hear the exposition of the Founding Fathers on the definition of "life". I seriously doubt that they would have conferred the status of "living" on an ovum, fertilized or not, or even an early fetus. The woman bearing the fetus is "living" but the fertilized egg is not - though it may have potential. The amendment does not read "potential life" and only assures the pursuit of happiness, without guaranteeing the acquisition of happiness.

"... Nor is the issue about a voice for those who act on their faith beliefs, except as it relates to the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That, my friend, is the topic at hand. Your annotated letter clouds, not clarifies, the issue."
Sorry, my friend, that my annotated letter complicates your dissertation on this issue.

I'm wondering if every woman at any given moment knows if she HAS ovulated and exactly when that ovulation has occurred and for how long that ovum might be ripe for fertilization. Does every woman, just brutalized or sexually assaulted even want to know if she has recently ovulated? Does every woman, who is not sure, want to go through sufficient laboratory tests to "confirm" (there are such things as false positives and false negatives you know) that there is an ovum or two floating around in her tubes, not knowing if the rape has resulted in a fertilized ovum? If she refuses to be examined in this manner, should she be refused the care that she desires from a religion-based hospital? Sounds like inhumanely cruel and unusual handling of a patently living patient in deference to a possibly penetrated egg perpetrated on the woman. The woman, man, the woman!

[standish]

xntryk said:

standish wrote:
"... the letter-writer, a well-known liberal commentator for NPR, who seems to identify and sympathize most with the atheist..."
You seem to have a bias against liberals, NPR, and atheists.
I am conservative, opposed to government-subsidized ideology and a person of faith. I am not biased against atheists, but, pray that they might find a relationship with their creator.
"...If you are saying that people of faith have no place in the public square and should shut up unless they are offering help, then, perhaps you should view their concern for life as that very compassion you deride..."
I say that religion-based organizations should not be subsidized by the State: no funds to run hospitals or other social relief efforts, no funds to run parochial schools, no funds to perform relief efforts, no tax deductions or waivers for individuals or their religion-based institutions, all of which free up funds they have at their disposal to promulgate their religion. If a religion-based organization wants to perform these functions, they should do so with no desire for nor expectation of support, subsidy by the State. Organized religions in the USA are soft, rarely if ever giving till it hurts and more than happy to accept relief from the State. Expect from Caesar and Caesar will expect from you. Religion-based organizations should free themselves from the teat of the State.
All hospitals, both secular and of every religion, are subsidized by government. They could not afford to operate otherwise, which is an unfortunate result of over-taxation. If government took less, charitable giving would be more. Then, religious hospitals would be in a position to stand alone. Perhaps it would be the for-profit hospitals that wouldn't survive without the subsidy.
"... If a government cannot first guarantee the right to life, even before liberty and happiness, it fails to fulfill its first purpose...."
It would be interesting to hear the exposition of the Founding Fathers on the definition of "life". I seriously doubt that they would have conferred the status of "living" on an ovum, fertilized or not, or even an early fetus. The woman bearing the fetus is "living" but the fertilized egg is not - though it may have potential. The amendment does not read "potential life" and only assures the pursuit of happiness, without guaranteeing the acquisition of happiness.
I have no doubt that the founding fathers would be appalled at the notion of mangling a fertilized egg or fetus in a woman's womb.
"... Nor is the issue about a voice for those who act on their faith beliefs, except as it relates to the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That, my friend, is the topic at hand. Your annotated letter clouds, not clarifies, the issue."
Sorry, my friend, that my annotated letter complicates your dissertation on this issue.
Clouds... not complicates.
I'm wondering if every woman at any given moment knows if she HAS ovulated and exactly when that ovulation has occurred and for how long that ovum might be ripe for fertilization. Does every woman, just brutalized or sexually assaulted even want to know if she has recently ovulated? Does every woman, who is not sure, want to go through sufficient laboratory tests to "confirm" (there are such things as false positives and false negatives you know) that there is an ovum or two floating around in her tubes, not knowing if the rape has resulted in a fertilized ovum? If she refuses to be examined in this manner, should she be refused the care that she desires from a religion-based hospital? Sounds like inhumanely cruel and unusual handling of a patently living patient in deference to a possibly penetrated egg perpetrated on the woman. The woman, man, the woman! If she were only asked "if you're ovulating, do you want a chemical abortion?" the issue could be resolved with that simple question.

You still haven't identified yourself.

[/color][/size]
[/quote]

[standish]

Many of your supposed representatives in the Federal Government want to force you to listen to liberals drone on talk radio (commercial examples of which [Air America] have had to file for bankruptcy, because nobody listens if they don't have to). They want to force an equal proportion to commercially successful and market-supported conservative talk radio. This indoctrination will cause station owners to artificially limit conservative talk radio because, for every successful, revenue-generating hour, they will be required to likely lose money for an equal amount of liberal talk time.

An assault on your right to representation is found in the gyrations and manipulations employed to force amnesty for illegal immigrants on the electorate. Harry Reid employed a tactic only once used in the 1840's to circumvent the people's will as expressed in a Senate filibuster. Mail and calls are running in high proportion against this bill. Yet, "the people have been found wholly wanting; the legislature has dissolved the people and formed a new one." (Bertolt Brecht paraphrased). Then there's McCain/Feingold.

Religious freedom; Property rights and eminent domain; Free speech limitations; Government by and for the political class: Civil disobedience, anyone?