April 05, 2005
The Looming American Theocracy
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances…US CONT, amend 1.
The Founding Fathers have failed. They knew the dangers of allowing religion to invade the body politic and infect it with misplaced righteousness, and they attempted to separate the two, leaving politics to the Public Square and religion to the privacy of church and home. They attempted to enshrine the notion in the federal constitution, but their wording was too vague, their intent is lost on the often rudimentary and perfunctory understanding most Americans (including politicians) have of their own founding document. The Founding Fathers have failed, or is it we who have failed them?
There has been a new trend afoot across the landscape of American society. It arguably started with the election of Ronald Reagan and it continues apace today. That trend has taken religion out of the private sphere and thrust it - sometimes by force - into the Public Square with disastrous results to the fundamental rights of all Americans. Across this great land, the Religious Right populated by Christians of all stripes is making its voice heard, from pharmacists refusing to dispense medications, to the insistence by some that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public venues; from the new push to teach Intelligent Design alongside The Theory of Evolution, to the pervasion of religious rhetoric in the body politic; from the right to life movement to the enshrinement of discrimination in state constitutions in an attempt to deny homosexuals and lesbians the right to marry—in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Across this great land, secularism is under siege.
It is in my mind a dangerous trend that borders on fanaticism, the same extremism we are fighting in other parts of the world that seek our destruction. It is ironic that we seem to be accomplishing from within, what they seek to bring about from without; namely the collapse of American democracy, and the rise of Theocratic state, one based not on Islam, but on Christianity. It was faith, or more accurately, misplaced, and misrepresented faith that saw the Congress of the United States pass a law designed to help the one, and not the many; that saw the Congress cross the line and violate the separation of powers so vital to the continued well-being of our nation; that saw the President violate his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is this religious fanaticism and the pandering to thereof that increasingly pits the Legislative and Executive against the Judicial in an effort to discredit the latter in the eyes of the American public.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. US CONT, art. VI, clause 3.
The seminal 1947 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Everson vs. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing et al. laid the legal and Constitutional foundation for the Separation of Church and State Doctrine that is both embraced and rejected by the American populace. In it the Court ruled:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
The case itself, which I counsel all to read, is stimulating and illuminating reading in that the justices recount the history of religious persecution and the oft disastrous results of mixing religion and government. And the case points out that the Founding Fathers had solid reasons for erecting a wall between religion and government. Their reasoned arguments make sense to those who seek to keep religion private and prevent it from unduly influencing public law and policy. On the other hand their arguments seem to fall on the deaf ears of those who seek to make all citizens subject to the conservative dictates and confused morals of Christianity.
As we sail deeper into the bosom of the 21st century, America is ever morphing into a multi-cultural society, one in which peoples from diverse religious backgrounds increasingly interact both publicly and privately. Islam, by all accounts, is the nation's fastest growing religion; like it or no, the religion is here to stay and flourish. But so too is Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions of the Far East. Yes, we are a nation born of Christian people, but we can hardly lay claim to being a wholly Christian nation when so many religions are practiced freely within our borders.
The government (state and federal) must represent these Americans too; the message must not be sent through plaques and monuments erected on public property, or through political rhetoric, that other religions have no place in America; that Christianity is the favored religion. That is a direct affront to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Nor must the government seek to ban personal freedoms based on religious dogma as the Republicans seek to do by banning Gay Marriage and trying to enact an Amendment banning abortion. Nor must School Boards seek to force our public schools to teach religious dogma; we rail against this in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, how can we condone it here in America?
I am personally of no faith, I am an agnostic, and came by my position within myself, using logic, history, and the oft heinous behaviors of mankind towards one another as my guides. I do not prescribe to the belief that the Bible (which is full of glaring contradictions, wonderful poetry, spectacular fables, and is after all is said and done a great work of fiction) holds the answers to all of life's mysteries and problems, and I certainly do not believe that our government received its mandate from God as many of those in the Religious Right movement believe. Our government springs from the will of the people as embodied in the Constitution. It is the constitution politicians owe their "public" allegiance to, not the Holy Bible.
Not that I do not understand the need for religion in some people's lives. Indeed, religion can offer stability and focus in lives that suffer from a lack of both. It can offer moral grounding, and sound societal principles that can last a lifetime, but religion is not for everyone, and everyone does not need religion to live a happy and whole life. The government must represent ALL Americans on a fair and equal footing before the law, not just those Americans who clutch the Bible close to their breast. The government must not be seen to endorse any one religion over another in order to hold true to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment. To do otherwise is to invite the very melding of religion and government the Founding Fathers sought to avoid.
Ask yourself this question: is worship of the Devil a legitimate religious practice, and if so, if that religion seeks to have the Ten Commandments of Devil worship displayed on public grounds, on what basis could that be prevented if the Ten Commandment of God are also displayed therein? And if the answer is no, that Devil worship is not a valid form of religious worship, why not; what makes it any less legitimate than the worship of God? After all, the Devil is actually mentioned in the Bible, in the very first chapter. And what of worship of Witches, and Pagan worship, and the other myriad religions that now make up the American cultural landscape; should they be given equal footing and display rights in the public square that Christianity now enjoys? If the government were to hold true to the First Amendment, how could they be legally denied equal access and space? Remember the 1st Amendment proclamation: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
Religion and religious teaching and dogma have no place in the public arena, they should remain private. If Christians - who now claim by the way that they are being persecuted by not being allowed to insert Intelligent Design into public school curriculum—want to limit their personal freedoms that is their choice to make; do not seek to impose your beliefs on others. If you morally object to contraception, do not practice birth control, and do not become a pharmacist, where you can interfere in the (legitimate) health care of others; if you do not believe in pre-marital sex, don't engage in it; if you do not believe in Gay marriage, don’t practice it; if you do not believe that abortion is right; don't have one; if you believe in Intelligent Design, or Creationism, learn it in the church or at home, but do not seek to have it taught in the public schools.
Leave the rest of us alone; don't seek to have your misguided beliefs legislated into public laws that we all must follow. If you want to have a right to freedom of religion, then conversely, I - and others of like mind - have a right to freedom from religion.
History has shown that any society that sought to incorporate religious doctrine into the very fabric of public law, has suffered at the hands of those who would use such laws to oppress the populace, especially women and minorities. And one only has to look at modern-day Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and other countries where Islamic law holds sway to validate my assertions. In all of these countries, women and minorities are the ones being oppressed in the name of religion. Real human progress has stopped and whole segments of the population are valueless. Is this what we want for the U.S.; a Theocracy, a nightmarish script straight from the pages of A Handmaid’s Tale? Is this where the Grand Experiment in representative Democracy is leading us? Are we casting aside the Constitution in favor of the Holy Bible?
Posted by V. Edward Martin at April 5, 2005 10:12 AMA big problem for an with religion is the relentless government intrusion into all aspects of individual life. Government now regulates, subsides, taxes or owns almost everything. It is difficult to get government out of religion, because it is generally too big and too intrusive.
You mention one example: pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives. Liberals are outraged and want to enact regulations to remedy this problem. That itself is the problem. If a pharmacist does not want to dispense birth control, or anything else, that is his business. A private decision that he can make for whatever reason he wants. If he chooses not to make money in that way, it is his business. The same is true of insurance covering abortions. If a firm chooses not to cover such things, it is up to the customers to change carriers. The courts and government should stay out of it.
Aggressive policies that intrude into people’s lives have provoked this reaction. Christians sometimes feel that they and their faith are under siege. Some of the more aggressive among them respond by setting up laws to specifically promulgate their beliefs.
The best solution is for the power of the state to pull back. Certainly don’t enact laws to require religion, but just as certainly don’t enact rules that interfere with religion. Don’t require prayer or subsidize it, but don’t prohibit it. Don’t outlaw contraceptives, but don’t prohibit individuals from not selling them.
Some people think that democracy doesn’t only mean doing what you want; it also means getting other people to do what you want. This is wrong. The enemies of liberty sit on both right and left, religious and secular. The answer is to give neither the power. Leave people alone. Let people pray or not. Within the largest possible bounds, let them sell what they wish to whom they wish. Let them associate with whom they please. Keep the courts and the power of the state out of it. So the pharmacist doesn’t have to sell contraceptives and you don’t have to buy anything else from him.
VEM-
I’ve had a really difficult time fighting the notion (within my local church) that by not banning homosexual marriage, we are somehow condoning from a moral perspective. Most christians seem unable to grasp the separation of legality and rights from their sense of approving the moral aspect. Even the spiritual leaders seem to be sold on presenting the same misconceptions.
But, my point is this, you say: “Across this great land, secularism is under siege.” While most Christians I know would say the same of Christianity. Both sides, secular and Christian, view themselves as threatened by the other. What happens is members of both sides begin to create a sort of meme complex that continues and perhaps escalates the conflict. For instance, the homosexual rights issue, Christians have been taught that allowing them rights is the same as “condoning or encouraging the behaviour”. And secularists are anxious to fight the pharmacists who won’t fill prescriptions for birth control pills. A private establishment can decide what products they will and will not carry.
I don’t see why either of these two topics require all the attention which they are receiving, other than both sides feel as though they are at odds, and won’t give even when it makes legal sense to do so.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 11:46 AMI guess I didn’t quite wrap up my thought in that second paragraph. (I got interrupted…)
The commonality with these two examples is in the fact that from a legal standpoint, both sides should stand down. Homosexuals should have the same legal rights as married couples, and individuals should not be legally forced to carry and sell any particular product. But what happens is the sense of being at war makes both sides unwilling to back off, and in actuality they become more likely to create problems where there should be none, as in the two examples I gave. Both sides end up defending a rather ridiculous position; which, in turn, only furthers the distrust and animosity between the sides.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 11:52 AMBoth sides, secular and Christian, view themselves as threatened by the other.
Sure, but how many athiest presidents have we had?
The whole “I’m like Christ because I’m persecuted!” thing gets sorta old for us non-Christians when religion remains a litmus test for office in many places and positions around the country.
Posted by: ceejayoz at April 5, 2005 12:18 PMceejayoz
I’m sure your point would make a deeper impact if you resisted mocking them first.
You have a point, but it does not change the fact that both sides _feel_ threatened by each other.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 12:30 PMJack—
Please explain to me how and where the Christian religion is under siege or otherwise under pressure, and how the government (allegedly) intruding into people lives causing those in the Religious Right to react?
A. Parker—
Same question to you: Please explain to me how and where the Christian religion is under siege or otherwise under pressure, and or being persecuted? Where is the evidence of this? How is it being manifested? Are there laws that have limited the practice of religion, if so what are they?
A. PArker—
The problem I have with the Pharmacist is this: they have a duty to serve the public private or no. the big chain pharmacies like Walgreens, Osco, Rite-Aid are in the business of despising drugs; they are a vital part of the health care system, and it is not their prerogative to not dispense drugs; I find the practice reprehensible, and part of the religious activism that threatens all of our liberties.
While I certainly respect a pharmacists’ personal beliefs they have no place in the workplace and certainly no pharmacists has the right to impose those personal beliefs onto another person by refusing to fill a prescription! And while I am respecting his right to belief, he is disrespecting my right not to believe and to live my life as I see fit. Like I said I find the practice reprehensible. Drugstores are in the business of dispensing drugs; if they can’t do it fairly then they should get out of the business and sell trinkets and food items.
My idea on gay marriage: First, separate the idea of “marriage” from the government and make it completely a Church sanctioned matter. Second, make civil unions legal. Civil unions shall not be associated with marriage nor love and shall instead be merely a legal bond allowing two people certain legal expediencies. This way, all the legal “rights” granted to married couples right now will be available to anyone and everyone. Also, the sanctity of marriage shall not be infringed by homosexuals.
Everyone’s happy right?
(BTW, America is not supposed to be a democracy!)
Posted by: Zeek at April 5, 2005 01:55 PMZeek, no need to shout; what is America supposed to be? My take: Represenative Democracy…
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at April 5, 2005 02:43 PMVEM,
My opinion is that attacking Christians (although you are not doing that) is fairly pointless. The fact remains that Christianity is dying in the Western world. Christianity is growing in the sewers of the world such as Kenya. If this was 50 years ago, the Schiavo case would have been a done deal with the Christians but now; they don’t even have the influence to keep Terri Schiavo alive.
Ceejayoz,
One could make the case that Abraham Lincoln was an Atheist.
Eh hehe, sorry for “shouting” VEM ;P
We are supposed to be a Constitution based federal republic. You could argue that we are a 1/3 representative democracy, but we really are more of a republic even now.
Posted by: Zeek at April 5, 2005 03:02 PMVEM,
Why should the pharmacist be forced to sell a product? He has every right to deny the sale of any product from his pharmacy that he chooses. If he is part of a chain, it is the company’s choice to force him to sell the product or fire him.
Remember: the customer can always go somewhere else to fill their prescription.
Posted by: Tim at April 5, 2005 03:49 PMVEM-
The question is not ‘are Christians being persecuted by the law’ or ‘where is the evidence?’ Rather, it is a pervading mindset, a perceived reality. Feeling persecuted is exactly that… a feeling, and dismissing their feelings only escalates the situation. (Isn’t that where political correctness is supposed to help?)
As for pharmacists, if they work in their own pharmacy, they have the right not to sell any product they want, whether a doctor has requested it for them or not. Additional government interference into private business is wholly uncalled for.
And while I am respecting his right to belief, he is disrespecting my right not to believe and to live my life as I see fit.
Isn’t it equally disrespectful to expect someone to discard their beliefs to suit yours? Your only recourse is to force all Christians out of the Pharmacy business, and that is hardly reasonable. And that is exactly what legal intervention will do, in effect say ‘people with principles have no place doing business.’
In addition, the pharmacist is not preventing you from “living your life as you see fit.” You are simply being told that you may not fill that prescription here, you must find someplace else. While inconvenient, it is hardly insurmountable. So, it seems as though you are not only expecting them to contradict their principles, you are asking that they do so merely for your convenience.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 03:58 PMAs a side note, I’d like to hear the contradictions you’ve found in the Bible.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 04:14 PMWhat if I own a pharmacy and believe in White supremacy? I could refuse to fill the perscriptionn of African-Americans, Asians and other non-whites. Is this right? After all, it is my business and property.
Is this right? I don’t think so, and if we allow pharmacists to deny someone medicine because they believe it is against their religion, like the morning after pill, what is keeping them or any other business owners from denying service to minorities?
Remember: the customer can always go somewhere else to fill their prescription.
What if the customer is physically handicapped with limited transportation options and the neighborhood pharmacist won’t fill a prescription because of religious beliefs?
Today it’s birth control, but what if, tomorrow it’s insulin or heart medication?
Sorry, but I have to agree with V. Edward on this one. Pharmaceuticals are regulated and for good reason. A pharmacist is bound by law not to be able to dispense medications without a prescription, and I think the reverse holds true as well. It’s the doctor’s decision of what is right for the patient, not the pharmacist’s bible.
If the FDA approves a prescription treatment for anything (birth control, lipitor, ice cream, heroine, satan worship eyedrops), a pharmacist should be required to fill a legitimate prescription that a patient has been given by a doctor. If a pharmacist can’t get past their beliefs enough to do thier job, then they need to be fired.
Allowing free enterprise to solve the problem is a noble idea, but you have to remember not everyone who requires medical attention has access to the same options most of us might. Just driving to the next Walgreens isn’t always an option. That said, there has to be some standard. Birth control is NOT an illegal substance. If prescribed, any pharmacist should be required by law to dispense it.
Posted by: Taylor at April 5, 2005 04:50 PMI respect those who do not wish to see religion in the “public square”. However, I do not respect your revision of history, based on a misreading of an admittedly vague text.
If you look at the sum of the founding fathers’ statements and actions, you will see that they considered faith not anathema but integral to the functioning of the American federal republic.
John Adams: “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity? I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
Benjamin Franklin: “God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”
Alexander Hamilton: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.”
Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
Thomas Jefferson (an avowed deist): “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever” and “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
James Madison: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We?ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity?to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
George Washington: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
These quotes (source) and actions are often too strong even for me, an avowed Christian conservative. And the left seeks to call these men in the service of secularism?
Jefferson’s famous “wall of separation” was in a letter written to a Connecticut Baptist group which was concerned that Jefferson would make Episcopalianism the national religion. Jefferson’s letter famously - and rightly - ruled that out entirely.
Posted by: Chops at April 5, 2005 05:20 PMJack, AParker, Tim, etc.,
With this pharmacy business, you folks are making one of the silliest arguments I’ve heard on this board in quite a while. (I’m attacking the message here.) Pharmacy is not just a business; it is a licensed profession. Just as there are certain things doctors can and can’t do, the same holds for pharmacists. The idea of keeping the government out of the pharmacy business is a non-starter, unless you want to go back to the bad old days of “patent medicine”.
The problem with letting people “follow their conscience” is that there are infinite varieties to the human conscience. How would you feel if a left-wing pharmacist decided that his conscience tells him that poor people and wealthy people should have access to the same medications, and decided that if Medicaid didn’t cover a drug he wouldn’t even give it to people who could pay?
Or suppose a pharmacist decides that society shouldn’t waste its medical resources on people over a certain age. Doesn’t that strike you as meddling in other peoples’ business? The same principle holds for birth control.
A practical reason to make pharmacies uniform is that no one everyone has access to a variety of pharmacies, especially if they live in a small town. (Not to mention, most people are tied down by their insurance.) A lot of people need to pick up drugs in the middle of the night. Letting pharmacists dispense at their whimsy would lead to chaos.
My opinion is that attacking Christians (although you are not doing that) is fairly pointless. The fact remains that Christianity is dying in the Western world. Christianity is growing in the sewers of the world such as Kenya. If this was 50 years ago, the Schiavo case would have been a done deal with the Christians but now; they don’t even have the influence to keep Terri Schiavo alive.
As much as it excites me to hear someone say that jesusdom is dying, I’m not sure it’s on the mark. The number of sheeple grazing on the green acres of America is still astonishingly high. I think we are still at least several generations, 2 armageddons, or 1 “legitimate world-broadcast visit from aliens” away from kicking the christianity addiction. It is wishful thinking Woody, but I wouldn’t recommend christian bookstore owners close up shop yet.
Posted by: Taylor at April 5, 2005 06:22 PMTaylor,
The thing you have to realize is that Christians may be huge in numbers in the US (although under 50% in England) but there influence is dying. Without true influence and high ignorance (as is my opinion of the masses), Christianity just will die by the majors in 50 years. People are getting smarter. Hell, I would never have became a Deist if I didn’t have the Internet to open my eyes that Nazareth didn’t even exist when Jesus was “alive.” When people research, a lot of previous theories die and most people who research Christianity will show that the religion itself is as credible as Ted Kennedy being the posterboy for MADD. The samething goes with Judaism and Islam. Islam is on the rise and Judaism will die as Jews die. In the end, as information spreads, people grow up. The Internet is the key to the next generation’s viewpoints and idealism.
Edward:
Great article. I disagree with your main premise however, that something “new” is happening. Religious liberty has always and will always be a struggle in a free society.
As Thomas Jefferson said on January 1, 1802, by Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
Obviously this was a problem in his day or he would not have said it!!!
As we have seen in France that Muslim school children are prohibited by federal law to wear traditional religious clothing, it is an issue predominantly secular societies.
In addition there has been some concern about letting Turkey into the EU because it is strongly muslim.
I think every generation will have to figure this out for themselves. The constitution is extremely well written. I believe from Divine Providence. It certainly is not perfect, or slavery would not have happened. (interesting how people who brag about our Christian heritage like to skip over slavery).
I also disagree with you about the pharmacy. In free enterprise, we do not need to take away this owners rights to sell what he prefers. He did not violate anyone’s rights. There are plenty of pharmacists ready to sell these products. You have the right to take your business elsewhere.
With Gay marriage, traditional marriage has been the norm for all of civilized society. How about a bit of patience before society starts accusing people of being bigotted or religious zealots. 6,000 years of history does not need to be change in a twinkling of an eye.
I have served as an elected official for 10 years as a religous conservative. (Well really I’m more moderate). I was on a school board with 11,000 students. Religious liberty was never a big deal. There is quite a bit of respect in our district. I can tell you how most educators feel about the debate over evolution verses “intelligent design”. They don’t have time to think about it, they are so focused on No Child Left Behind, and all the implications. Evolution is such a tiny subject in public education, and there are so many bigger fish to fry. I am not sure it is that big of a deal what either way. As a Christian is this issue were to of come before me, I would question the District as to why we are spending so much time here, instead of improving our students test scores!!
Thanks for the article,
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 5, 2005 08:13 PMThe ironic thing that I find is that for every pharmacist who does not want to sell contraceptives; there will be 5 that will. Sure, transportation may be a problem for the few but that is like saying that we should let 999 serial killers go if we convicted 1 who was really innocent. The analogy doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, I know but if you can see my point; businesses tend to what to make a profit so very few will seriously turn down the sell of contraceptives. Usually, educated people are smarter than that in terms of open-mindedness, free thought, and the social ramifications of such things.
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 5, 2005 08:21 PMTaylor,
We have a case of mistaken identity. I think Christianity is alive and well. In Arkansas, certainly.
Donny:
I would prefer to buy my drugs from a pharmacy that has values close to mine. I would think liberals would like that as well. Maybe education and discosure is more the point. I am sure that the doctor in the article of question now prescribes these medicines through a pharmacy that will fill them. It would seem to be a simple thing have a list of pharmacies that do, and those that don’t. We could call them “Red” or “Blue” pharmacies!!
Craig
We do it lots of other areas.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 5, 2005 09:35 PMTaylor:
Today it’s birth control, but what if, tomorrow it’s insulin or heart medication?
Please. This is ridiculous, we shouldn’t be quick to legislate future problems that don’t exist today. This type of thinking (legislating future ‘problems’) is what will make sure there are random searches of homes and vehicles to ensure future safety. Do you want that?
Just driving to the next Walgreens isn’t always an option.
We’re not talking about pharmacies within a large corporation, since they can fire any pharmacist they please.
Warren:
What if I own a pharmacy and believe in White supremacy?
You could refuse service to minorities, but don’t expect to do it without a lawsuit.
Your analogy isn’t close enough to the real situation for the simple fact that the refusal to fill the prescription has nothing to do with the person, and everything to do with not wanting to sell a specific product. I mean, if I ran a magazine stand in a large city, and I refused to sell porn magazines, should I legally be forced to do so?
Woody:
Or suppose a pharmacist decides that society shouldn’t waste its medical resources on people over a certain age. Doesn’t that strike you as meddling in other peoples’ business? The same principle holds for birth control.
Yes, that does seem like meddling, but you’re talking about a problem that doesn’t exist. I’ll tell you what I told Taylor, let’s not be in a rush to legislate problems before they arise. The point is that there is no threat posed by this whole thing, as it stands. Don’t get carried away by prevention, which sacrifices freedom for a false sense of security.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 10:22 PMAs far as I know, no shop carries every product and the government does not (and certainly should not) dictate inventory. I understand that pharmacists are specifically licensed, but surely not every pharmacy carries every drug that customers might demand. Birth control should be no different. Birth control is never an emergency situation. You won’t die without birth control; in the worst case scenario you can’t have sex.
The pharmacy is only one example of the intrusive government. It just is not their business. Most pharmacies will probably continue to sell birth control. If not, people who want it will have to make other arrangements. We don’t have a constitutional right not to be inconvenienced.
Anyway, the reason I pointed to this was not to argue the merits of this particular case, but rather to give an illustration of how and why Christians might feel that their faith was threatened by the secular world. If you force pharmacists to sell birth control, you are essentially saying that a person who holds contrary views cannot be a pharmacist or own a drug store. Would you force a shop run by PETA activists to sell leather or hamburgers?
Your rights mean that you are not prevented from doing what you think is right. It doesn’t mean that you should be able to make everyone else do what you think is right.
AParker: “This type of thinking (legislating future ‘problems’) is what will make sure there are random searches of homes and vehicles to ensure future safety. “
So, you’re saying we should wait for our problems to begin knocking on our door before we do anything`about them? Fine, let’s just leave Social Security as it is right now and see where that gets us in 20 years.
Chops, one cannot claim to divine the thoughts of those that have long been deceased through merely a few quotations, and certainly not for men as complex and sophisticated as the founding fathers. You do not know whether they would have wanted Christianity spread throughout America, or whether they merely wished for the IDEALS of Christianity to spread throughout America.
Of course, that just opens up a whole new can of worms. Since today there are many different interpretations of the Bible, how can one say just what the founding fathers intended when they said, “principles of Christianity?” I do not doubt that the founding fathers would have wanted Christianity to exist in America, as it does today, but I also believe they would not object to the existance of other religions or atheists/agnostics, nor would they attempt to stomp out those other beliefs by smothering them with Christianity. Therein lies the importance of separation of Church and State.
This sort of brings us back to the pharmaceutical deal. If the pharmacists have the prescription/drug and give it to some (married couples for instance) but not to others, that is a form of discrimination. If, however, the pharamcy simply does not carry the drug and gives it to no one, that’s fair game. So how we handle this issue varies from case to case.
Posted by: Zeek at April 5, 2005 11:10 PMZeek-
So, you’re saying we should wait for our problems to begin knocking on our door before we do anything`about them?
No, what I’m saying is that this problem isn’t even “knocking on our door”. Can you show me, in any way, that the supposed ‘future problems’ which people have given will actually become a reality? There is no indication that this will actually manifest itself and pharmacists will be denying life and death medications to those who need it, or that they will begin discriminating against certain sectors of society (to which there is already legal recourse).
If you look at how I brought this topic up, you will see that this is just one half of the example of both parts (secular and christian) feeling as though the other side is warring against them. Don’t lose the message in the details.
Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 12:38 AMThe pharmacy is only one example of the intrusive government. It just is not their business. Most pharmacies will probably continue to sell birth control. If not, people who want it will have to make other arrangements. We don?t have a constitutional right not to be inconvenienced.
We do have a constitutional right to buy birth control (Griswold vs. Connecticut). As to the larger point about government, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think that there are certain businesses that the government MUST be involved in for the public good, and pharmacies are one of them.
Funny thing about being “inconvenienced”: it’s always OK if it’s someone else. Tell a Christian they can’t have organized prayer in school and being “inconvenienced” is a big deal.
If you force pharmacists to sell birth control, you are essentially saying that a person who holds contrary views cannot be a pharmacist or own a drug store. Would you force a shop run by PETA activists to sell leather or hamburgers?
I think someone’s ethical beliefs could limit their career options in a lot of ways. Lawyers, for example, are supposed to zealously defend their clients even if they appear to be guilty as sin. If this is against your beliefs, you shouldn’t be a defense attorney. Similarly, doctors have to believe in modern medicine. A practicing Christian Scientist shouldn’t (and I would imagine, can’t) be an MD.
Your rights mean that you are not prevented from doing what you think is right. It doesn?t mean that you should be able to make everyone else do what you think is right.
That is a great argument for all pharmacists to dispense birth control. They don’t have to use it themselves.
This points to a problem I have with limited-government conservatism: under the guise of keeping government busybodies (like this guy?) out of my life, it often empowers the local busybodies. The other problem is, hardly anyone really believes in it when the local yokels do something that ticks them off. At least, hardly anyone with power.
Posted by: Woody Mena at April 6, 2005 07:50 AMOops, let’s try this again:
This points to a problem I have with limited-government conservatism: under the guise of keeping government busybodies (like this guy?) out of my life, it often empowers the local busybodies. The other problem is, hardly anyone really believes in it when the local yokels do something that ticks them off. At least, hardly anyone with power.
Posted by: Woody Mena at April 6, 2005 07:54 AMGrrr… those links were supposed to go to Bill Frist and Tom Delay.
Woody
We have many people making many diverse points.
Mine is less of a “should do” than a general principle. If you keep government rules in general to a minimum, people aren’t forced into the public debate about them. Most rights should be negative i.e. the government can’t make you do something. I don’t have much use for positive rights i.e. the government makes somebody do something for your benefit. These get to be too broad. A good example is the silly rules being promulgated because of a theoretically good law – the ADA. Many of societies disputes should stay disputes between individuals. If it is not completely fair or equitable, that is too bad. The cost (in liberty, time and money) is usually not worth getting the state involved.
I see how there could be different interpretation of my note on getting people to do what you want. However, I think it applies more to the defense of the pharmacist. If he gets his way, he does nothing and the person on the other side gets nothing. If the customer gets her way, she forces the pharmacist to do something that he wouldn’t normally do. I give the benefit of the doubt to the nothing case, unless there is a compelling reason. Convenience is not. I would object if the pharmacist provided birth control differentially, as I think you said.
A similar decision rule applies to Christian groups in public buildings. If groups generally use public buildings, the groups are asking for nothing special or positive. If the group asked for a special building to be constructed, it would be a different story.
VEM,
Very well put. I really liked it and agree with you 100%.
I do find it funny that christian America wishes to to make their beliefs a part of public teaching; for some reason we have to now need the idea of god in public school. If we were a truly religiously free country, any teaching associated with an old religious practice in a government setting would be illegal/unconstitutional. Why is it that we as a whole country are bound by the bible simply because the majority of Americans are bound by the bible? I know the majority rules but, what if the majority of americans are brainwashed.
What do you call it when people are made to think a certain way since birth? Do life long christians have a choice in whether or not they are saved or, is it God’s will to make sure everyone is the same? How are children that are forced to go to church and to beleive everything their pastor says not being brainwashed. Religion is a very powerful thing and should be used carefully.
Today it’s birth control, but what if, tomorrow it’s insulin or heart medication?Please. This is ridiculous, we shouldn’t be quick to legislate future problems that don’t exist today. This type of thinking (legislating future ‘problems’) is what will make sure there are random searches of homes and vehicles to ensure future safety. Do you want that?
It’s a licensed profession. And yes, I want it controlled. I guarantee you that if Phelps opened a pharmacy he would not make HIV medications available, because he believes all those people are sinners and the faster they go to hell, the better. I would consider those life saving drugs, wouldn’t you?
Or what if a paramedic, who happens to be an atheist, refuses to defibrillate you because you’re wearing a crucifix around your neck, and he believes your religious nature is harmful to society? From what you are saying, I presume you advocate this as acceptable behavior from a parmedic, yes?
By allowing pharmacists to make the decision of what they will and won’t dispense based on thier personal faith, you are advocating a variety of behavior that makes medical care quite unreliable.
There ARE certain professions, especially in the area of health related matters that require people to put aside their beliefs. It’s tough luck that someone may not be able to practice their beliefs every minute of every day, but for the good of the public, it must be that way. If people don’t like it, then don’t enlist in those types of professions.
I would much rather see the government keep it’s nose out of everything possible… but in these examples, someone has to enforce a standard, it’s not going to enforce itself.
Taylor-
Your comments would indicate that you want government regulation of situations where life and death are at stake. That situation is not a problem which we find ourselves faced with. As it stands right now, I’m sure that there are legal consequences for the situations which you have described, and certainly in the paramedic’s case.
How can you, in good conscience, say that people of faith (strong principles, whatever you want to call it) should be kept from certain professions? Because this is exactly what you are advocating:
It’s tough luck that someone may not be able to practice their beliefs every minute of every day, but for the good of the public, it must be that way. If people don’t like it, then don’t enlist in those types of professions.
As long as you have the mindset that this is an acceptable outcome, there is no way that this discussion can progress.
Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 11:05 AMThis paramedic/pharmacist debate is becoming ridiculous. The reality is that our government can, should, and does distinguish between shades of gray.
Should we say that anyone can do or refuse to do anything if their religious beliefs back it up? No. Should we say that nobody should be allowed any exemptions for religion? Again, no. Yet these arguments are being used here as straw men.
We all know how to detect b.s., and we should allow the government to do the same thing.
The best example of government moderation in a case like this was a few years ago when a Catholic soldier said he didn’t want his current job - doing graveyard shift guard duty in an enclosed space with a female. Rather than getting bent out of shape (as the liberal media did) or trying to turn it into a crusade (as the conservative media did), they simply transferred him as he had requested. Wow, that was easy.
With pharmacists, there could easily be a similar arrangement, like a referral to another pharmacist who does carry the med you want. Nobody should be forced to sell something - that’s a command economy. Just as a restaurant is allowed to keep kosher, a newsstand can refuse to sell pornography, or a hospital can choose not to perform abortions, a pharmacist has every right to refuse to carry any medication for any reason. As long as customers are given the right to patronize any pharmacy, there is no infringement on anyone’s rights.
It’s a free country.
Posted by: Chops at April 6, 2005 11:24 AMHow can you, in good conscience, say that people of faith (strong principles, whatever you want to call it) should be kept from certain professions? Because this is exactly what you are advocating
We are looking at this topic from 2 different spheres I suppose. There are simply times when I feel you either tuck your pride away and do your job, or go find another job. There are plenty of options in the job market.
For example, I’m an atheist, but for several years I was a church organist. I didn’t refuse to play certain hymns because I found them too offensive to my beliefs. I took the job, I sucked it up, and did my job. I found pride in the art and enjoyment in the instrument, I didn’t have to subscribe to the philosophy or content to get by. I had respect for the expectations of my trade. I elected to do the job, and that included all required tasks.
In the same breath, I could never be a soldier. I simply could not take another life under those circumstances. Hence, I’m not rushing out to enlist in the military. I understand why the military does what it does and have respect for those who are in it, but I’m sure I could not perform the tasks required of me if I found myself in that vocation, and I will not voluntarily put myself in a position of taking human life. But again, I’m not taking the job, and refusing to do part of it, I’m avoiding the job altogether because of my beliefs.
A belief system is important, and I’m not advocating that people abandon thier beliefs for sake of a job. There are such a multitude of positions and industries available, that I have to say, yes, in good conscience, I think if your beliefs get in the way of your ability to perform a job completely and wholy, then you should not chose that vocation. Maybe I simply have a different work ethic, I don’t know?
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 11:30 AMAs long as customers are given the right to patronize any pharmacy, there is no infringement on anyone’s rights.It’s a free country.
Part of what some of us are trying to convey here, is when it comes to healthcare… it is NOT necessarily a free country anymore. Thanks to HMO’s, someone may not be able to go to a different pharmacy or hospital. It could be many miles to the next hospital on your plan. There may be prohibitive factors like handicaps or transportation issues that make alternatives unavailable.
Quite honestly, if a woman living in the inner city with no car, and already on welfare with 3 kids, wants birth control… I’d prefer she get is as conveniently as possible, and not further burden the welfare system with more children. (I’d really prefer she also get help, get motivated, get off welfare and abstain from sex — but that’s a different discussion) We don’t all live in suburbia where we can drive our Hummer to the next Walgreens in the strip mall 3 miles up the way. Again, saying it’s the pharmacists right to put the bible before his vocation sets a very bad precident.
Restaurants/newsstands, different issue. These are not examples of licensed, regulated professions, which puts them in a class not applicable to this argument. I would deem them free to peddle whatever they choose, and let consumers dictate if they stay in business or not.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 11:59 AMThe topic is “The Looming American Theocracy”
There is a lot of protest about religion being taught in public schools. The principles taught in the Constitution of “Separation of Church and State”, have been taken to the extreme. What our founding fathers were trying to avoid were the state sponsored religions of Europe, considering most of the colonists had been persecuted by one religion or another before they came to America. The belief held by most is that the government has no right to impose any religion on us, especially in government or schools. It is the judicial who has pushed this agenda. The problem is, “we are closing the barn door after the horse got out”. At the same time religion (especially Christianity) is denied access, religion is being taught. It is the religion of humanism. Humanism teaches situation ethics. Whatever you do in any given situation is acceptable. This type of teaching goes against the very morals our Constitution was based upon. While the judicial absolutely forbids any teaching that would institute a good moral standing, it whole-heartedly supports teaching anything that is contrary to good morals.
What we have in the public schools are teachers, (who have now become priests) teaching their own theories, (which are their religious beliefs). The moral dilemma with our youth today is a direct result of this type of thinking. Those of us who are baby boomers are well aware of the problem.
In conclusion: for those who fear a looming American theocracy, it has already taken place. The judges are making sure the religion of humanism is being not only taught in the schools, but also an integrated part of our government. Why fear Christians, who vote their consciences, and not fear runaway judges who impose their own beliefs on all Americans, instead of the constitution?
Blaine,
Since when could Atheism (you didn’t mention that one) or Humanism be considered religion? I don’t even see that argument. Plus, you should do more research on Humanism because you are pretty off base with how you described it. If you know what it is, you are certainly trying your hardest to make Humanism look bad.
Donny Goodman said:
“My opinion is that attacking Christians (although you are not doing that) is fairly pointless. The fact remains that Christianity is dying in the Western world. Christianity is growing in the sewers of the world such as Kenya. If this was 50 years ago, the Schiavo case would have been a done deal with the Christians but now; they don’t even have the influence to keep Terri Schiavo alive.”
1. If Christianity is a dying religion, then why were right wing conservative Christians given so much credit for Bush’s re-election?
2. Not very tolerant of you to call 3rd world countries “sewers of the world”.
3. Fifty years ago, it would not have mattered who was a Christian. The populace would have been against starving Terri Schiavo to death. It would have been a moral issue and not a Christian issue.
“Christianity just will die by the majors in 50 years.”
That argument was made 2000 years ago, but Christianity is still alive and well on planet earth.
Does your hatred of Christians go back to your childhood? You have mentioned them in almost every post.
AParker:
“There is no indication that this will actually manifest itself and pharmacists will be denying life and death medications to those who need it, or that they will begin discriminating against certain sectors of society (to which there is already legal recourse).”
Actually pharmacists are already denying certain sectors of society birth control drugs. So, that means you’re completely wrong…
“No, what I’m saying is that this problem isn’t even “knocking on our door”. Can you show me, in any way, that the supposed ‘future problems’ which people have given will actually become a reality?”
I wasn’t talking about this particular instance, which is a mix of acceptable and not acceptable cases. I was saying that in general it is a good idea to fix problems before they happen.
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 03:01 PMDonny Goodman said:
Since when could Atheism (you didn’t mention that one) or Humanism be considered religion? I don’t even see that argument.
If we were talking about finances or organizational behavior, then you would be correct: neither atheism nor humanism is an organized religion. However, since the subject is education and the role of religion in society, then both atheism and humanism can be considered “religions” in the sense that they are large-scale worldviews into which the subscribers thereto fit the world they see and inasmuch as they are incompatible with other religious beliefs.
This is a sore spot for Christians: those who share the philosophical views of the liberal elite get a free pass to teach those views in school and advocate them on NPR, while those of us who hold an identifiable non-elite view are shut out in the name of religious freedom.
Posted by: Chops at April 6, 2005 03:04 PMThanks for the response Chops.
You have to understand the difference between Humanism and Christianity being thought in schools and why Christians do not get those special priviledges.
This example will sound extreme but in all honesty, I would think atleast 25% of the churches openly express this and 80% of Christians openly speak it.
Could you imagine a Christian teaching their faith? Here are a few examples of why they are thrown off and ridiculed.
“If you believe in Muhammed, you are the anti-Christ.”
“We are in the end times right now.”
“All faggots should die because they are an abomdination of God but I don’t hate homosexuals; I just hate the sin.”
“Let’s support wars before we might have a rapture.”
“Jesus died for you and you should covert people.”
I could go on and on but I hear that atleast once every three days, of the examples I have mentioned. Do you wonder why Christians are laughed at?
The difference between Humanism is that it is not ideaological, in that they discriminate against a class. They believe in equality, see the best in human potential (rather than the worst like a lot of Christians see), and so forth. Another difference, contrary to your claim, is that Humanism isn’t really thought in schools. It is but it is not taken seriously, in that it is not thought like a religion or ideaology. Christians are completely antithetical to that. They will teach their faith, keyword faith, as fact, are very idealogical, and will teach it like a religion rather than philosophy. If Christians only used the Jesus “love your neighbor as yourself” with suggestion rather than “you are going to Hell” then they would be given more credit. Heed my words, the more extreme Christians get, the more they will alienate people; thus die. Atheism isn’t thought in schools either. I have never ever heard my teacher speak about why Atheism is good or bad. Let’s face it. Atheism is still a relatively new ideaologue but also, Atheism doesn’t have much philosophy behind it; unless Humanism is thrown in the mix. Another thing that I got the impression in Blaine’s article is that Humanism emphasizes human selfishness so you can be happy and fulfilled. That is false. That is Astrology. You can get that impression through Humanism but it really isn’t that. It is more on satisfying the need to be loved, have fundamental needs and eventually, you will hit the hierarchy of five that Abraham Moslow describes. That is not being selfish or whatever. You can’t be a sake of crap and usually, usually, be a good person.
The Christians need to learn to evolve with the times. They did that decently in the 60’s and 70’s but right now, they are alienating people. When you have nutballs calling Mr. Schiavo and threatening to kill him; people will start to get the impression that Christians will justify God in horrible acts just like Al-Qaeda.
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 6, 2005 03:22 PMFifty years ago, it would not have mattered who was a Christian. The populace would have been against starving Terri Schiavo to death. It would have been a moral issue and not a Christian issue.
50 years ago Terri Schiavo would have been in the morgue the same day she collapsed from bulimia-induced heart failure. So that’s really a non-starter.
In conclusion: for those who fear a looming American theocracy, it has already taken place. The judges are making sure the religion of humanism is being not only taught in the schools, but also an integrated part of our government.
Yes, I’d also be interested in hearing how humanism is a religion.
Why fear Christians, who vote their consciences,
Christians don’t just vote with their consciences, but also kill with them, discriminate with them, oppress with them, segregate with them, molest with them and persecute with them. Please don’t try to sell the idea that christianity is without reproach.
and not fear runaway judges who impose their own beliefs on all Americans, instead of the constitution?
“Runaway”? Simply because judicial decisions don’t jive with your belief system they are runaway? Exactly what cases are you referring to where judges have passed unconstitutional rulings?
I Say:
Slavery was also the norm for all of civilized society until about 140 years ago. Should we tolerate slavery simply because it has a long history? Bigotry and religious persecution was also the norm until our country was founded in 1776. Should we scrap our constitution because it has a long history? That argument to deny rights to homosexuals doesn’t hold water. The same arguments were used in the South to deny rights to non-whites.
The argument that private business has to right to do what they will was also an argument used by segregationalists to keep blacks out of stores, shops, bathrooms, restraints etc. I don’t think it can be resurrected by religious groups. That argument has been settled.
Interesting though, that the same Catholics, that find religious foundation to deny birth control to their customers, seem to ignore the explicit biblical laws that prohibit lending money for interest. They should remove their money from banks since that money is propping up the current system of usury.
Johann
Zeek-
Actually pharmacists are already denying certain sectors of society birth control drugs. So, that means you’re completely wrong…
Please give a source for this, as I’ve heard nothing of the sort. All I’ve heard is the refusal of pharmacists to issue certain types of birthcontrol prescriptions.
I wasn’t talking about this particular instance, which is a mix of acceptable and not acceptable cases. I was saying that in general it is a good idea to fix problems before they happen.
To which I stand by my statement, that it is not good to solve problems which don’t have any indication of existing in the future.
Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 03:40 PMTaylor-
I completely understand your point. I myself could never be a soldier, nor do I wholeheartedly agree with everything coming out of my church.
However, this conclusion of essentially barring those who are unwilling to compromise their beliefs leads to the feeling of persecution (which was the original point), and all the more so if government means are used. Because it is exactly their beliefs which would make them ‘unfit’ for the given profession. My question is, what do you propose to do with those persons of faith who have dedicated so much time and money making careers in pharmacy, when suddenly the rug is pulled out and they are incapable of reconciling their beliefs and the law?
Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 04:46 PMTaylor said:
Christians don’t just vote with their consciences, but also kill with them, discriminate with them, oppress with them, segregate with them, molest with them and persecute with them. Please don’t try to sell the idea that christianity is without reproach.
Taylor: if you have any evidence of the above, please call your local police station. If not, please stop smearing me.
If this is your openminded humanist tolerance, color me unimpressed.
Posted by: Chops at April 6, 2005 04:51 PMDonny-
I can’t help but address this:
“If you believe in Muhammed, you are the anti-Christ.” “We are in the end times right now.” “All faggots should die because they are an abomdination of God but I don’t hate homosexuals; I just hate the sin.” “Let’s support wars before we might have a rapture.” “Jesus died for you and you should covert people.”
A) These can in no way be seen as majority viewpoints of any sect of Christianity (with the exception of the last one, which is hardly an excuse to ridicule). You see ‘big name evangelicals’ saying things like that in the media because its sensational and the masses eat it up.
B) You are giving these as reasons why Christians are laughed at. But aren’t we all supposed to be tolerant? Or is tolerance exclusive to those who will return the tolerance? It seems as though you are attempting to excuse the ridicule of an entire section of society based on what you hear from the few.
When you have nutballs calling Mr. Schiavo and threatening to kill him; people will start to get the impression that Christians will justify God in horrible acts just like Al-Qaeda.
Herein you make your asinine point. Are you incapable of distinguishing Al-Qaeda’s views from Islam? How can you then identify all Christians with the ‘nutballs’ threatening murder?
Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 05:03 PMAParker
“Please give a source for this, as I’ve heard nothing of the sort. All I’ve heard is the refusal of pharmacists to issue certain types of birthcontrol prescriptions.”
Did you read the original post? The link was right there…
“To which I stand by my statement, that it is not good to solve problems which don’t have any indication of existing in the future.”
If there was no indication of a problem existing in the future how would someone think of it in the first place? However, it is true that while some may interpret info in a certain way, others may not. So whether you see something as a possible future problem or not really counts for little; it’s more about how you came to that conclusion.
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 05:11 PMGreat post V. Edward,
And, obviously a spirited debate that should be addressed at WatchBlog. But, I’d like to touch on one aspect that is missing from the debate, so far.
It is a given that the Christian Conservatives driving this theocratic assault represent a small segment of the electorate, yet wield great power within the Republican Party. A good example, is that they stuck by Alan Keyes’ Senate bid here in Illinois, where he got 20% percent or 3.1 million votes.
However, that same force within this state’s GOP, is able to dictate who the Party slates in General Elections, all they way up to Governor and U.S. Senate.
In rural and small communities even in a Blue State like Illinois, they are able to elect state legislators who introduce such pharmacy bills and legislation to strip ‘sexual orientation’ from the state anti-discrimination statute, mere weeks after it was passed following a decade long fight.
James Dobson has threatened withholding his support if Bill Frist does not win on ‘the nuclear option’. And, the last desperate hope of preventing his Party from turning on him, has sent Tom DeLay begging the Evangelicals to protect him from ideological and religious persecution.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 6, 2005 05:39 PMTaylor: if you have any evidence of the above, please call your local police station. If not, please stop smearing me.
Chops:
How am I smearing you? I’m talking about christianity. It’s history is one big long scar of death, killing, intolerance and persecution. Anyone with access to a history book knows this. If you’d like more recent examples, search CNN for the string “Catholic priest sexual abuse”.
If this is your openminded humanist tolerance, color me unimpressed.
I don’t recall using those terms for myself, nor am I sure I’ve set out to impress you.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 05:46 PMZeek-
The value of my time is rapidly exceeding the merit of our discussion.
First off, none of your posts contain any links.
Secondly:
If there was no indication of a problem existing in the future how would someone think of it in the first place?Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 06:18 PMAre you suggesting that thinking of a problem indicates a reasonable chance that it will come into existence? Nonsense.
So whether you see something as a possible future problem or not really counts for little; it’s more about how you came to that conclusion.On the contrary, the probability of these wild excuses for government intervention actually occurring is of the utmost. Because if there is not sufficient cause to believe that the events we seek to discourage will actually come about, there is no reason to legislate it.
what do you propose to do with those persons of faith who have dedicated so much time and money making careers in pharmacy, when suddenly the rug is pulled out and they are incapable of reconciling their beliefs and the law?
Well, I think Illinois came up with an acceptable compromise, that another pharmacist had to fill the order in a timely fashion. I forget the exact language, but they indicate another pharmacist at the same facility.
Personally, I stick by my opinion that “if you can’t serve the time, don’t do the crime”. If you’re a hard core catholic and spend all that money becoming a pharmacist and get all pissy dispensing birth control and get fired, tough titties baby. Go get a job in an unrelated field like most college graduates today have to do, or go get “retrained” like Shrub suggests when consoling all of the IT people who’ve lost thier jobs to outsourcing. I spent 14 years in piano and organ lessons and ended up sitting behind an organ bench for a few years, listening to scripture and sermons I found offensive, and I didn’t shed a tear about it.
No one is forcing religious zealots to be pharmacists. They have lots of options and a wide open job market.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 06:30 PMA good example, is that they stuck by Alan Keyes’ Senate bid here in Illinois, where he got 20% percent or 3.1 million votes.
3.1 million down-staters. Chicago is the only reason Illinois is blue. Redraw the state line and put chicago in Indiana and Illinois goes red, Indiana goes blue =). Alan Keyes is a nutjob. BTW - Don’t you just think it’s DELICIOUS that Alan Keyes daughter came out of the closet nationally? That was just too rich for words.
In rural and small communities even in a Blue State like Illinois, they are able to elect state legislators who introduce such pharmacy bills and legislation to strip ‘sexual orientation’ from the state anti-discrimination statute, mere weeks after it was passed following a decade long fight.
I wasn’t aware of this, can’t say however I’m surprised. Again, down-staters. It’s very sad, but you’ve got a good point, a small portion of the electorate is yield a disproportionate amount of power. That’s why the rest of us need to stay on top of things. Else we will find outselves living in a theocracy where our voices will no longer be heard.
AParker
“First off, none of your posts contain any links.”
I wasn’t referring to my post; I was referring to VEM’s original post titled The Looming American Theocracy. The fact that you didn’t know this clearly shows that you didn’t even bother reading the initial post.
“Are you suggesting that thinking of a problem indicates a reasonable chance that it will come into existence?”
No. Whose posts are you reading?
“On the contrary, the probability of these wild excuses for government intervention actually occurring is of the utmost.”
Exactly. And how do you determine the probability of such interventions? Through a thought process… Which is what I’m saying is important. So why are you disagreeing with me here?
“Because if there is not sufficient cause to believe that the events we seek to discourage will actually come about, there is no reason to legislate it.”
See, when you say “sufficient cause to believe” you are implying that the thought process is what’s important. Which is exactly what I was saying. I’m beginning to think you’re just copy/pasting random quotes from me and responding capriciously.
Wow. There’s a whole lot of anger and invective here.
VEM -
Quite a while back, you asked if anyone could provide evidence of Christians being persecuted in this country. There is a book called Persecution on the subject, written by Rush Limbaugh’s brother, David Limbaugh. If you make me, I’ll go through the book and actually list instances, but I don’t really want to do that.
Taylor -
I’m talking about christianity. It’s history is one big long scar of death, killing, intolerance and persecution.
Don’t you understand how much words like that hurt? The history you refer to is the history of humanity … please, find a shining example of cultural goodness and truth. The Chinese? The Incas? The Arabs? The Mongols? The Indians? Christianity does not have a “long scar of death, killing, intolerance and persecution,” humanity does. And you know what? I have a reason for that - it’s called the doctrine of original sin. What’s your explanation?
Listen, if Christianity is for real, it’s not going to die. True, Christianity in America seems to be on the wane … but it’s growing by leaps and bounds in Africa, China, and Latin America. It’s not “a white man’s religion” anymore, praise God.
As you agitate for a country that has a place for atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Wiccans, and everyone else … please remember to save a place for Christians to live with the same dignity and respect you want for yourselves and for those other groups. When we Christians listen to you, the world you paint for us seems to have a place for everyone … except us. Where everyone is tolerated … except us. Where everyone’s beliefs are protected … except ours. To quote the beginning of this whole thread:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
My loyalty to my faith goes deeper than my loyalty to my country, my family, or even my life. Christianity is the light and hope for the world - that’s what I believe to be true, and I’ll never stop saying it. I’ll never stop trying to tell people the good news that their sins can be forgiven. If you want to try, you can. It’s been tried before. To quote Gamaliel, “And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)
To all of you who hate Christianity so much (or seem to, anyway) - thank you. Thanks to people like you, who won’t even realize what they’re doing, I and my children will have the priviledge of inheriting Christ’s promise:
Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persectued the prophets who were before you.Matthew 5:11-12
I know that most of the opprobrium of Christiany is deserved, so we do not automatically inherit this verse. But the day you persecute me because of some mistaken idea of what you think I believe, or because of hatred for what I believe, or because of the sins of my ancestors, I will inherit this verse. I just hope I’ll realize and remember to receive it as a blessing … and to pray that you, too, may be saved.
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 06:51 PMThe opinion has been repeatedly voiced that Christians who disagree with contraception shouldn’t become pharmacists. Let’s extend that, shall we?
I’m surprised we haven’t yet had an argument that a doctor shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to perform an abortion, so Christians shouldn’t be doctors.
I’m waiting for someone to say that if Christians can’t keep their religious opinions out of politics, then Christians shouldn’t become politicians.
And how long until we say that if Christians can’t keep their religious opinions out of education, they shouldn’t become teachers?
Or professors. Or diplomats. Or … anyone the government regulates. Which, seeing the creeping regulation of government on the private sector that many of you call for, is a steadily increasing sector of society.
Please just come to the point and say that Christians should keep their beliefs from influencing their public interactions. Which is the same as saying “That’s very nice that you have such antiquated beliefs. Shut up.” Which is exactly what you accuse us of saying to you … additionally, you seem to desire to enshrine this position in law … “a pharmacist can’t not dispense a perscription.”
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 07:36 PMV. Edward Martin,
You just made my day. Wonderful article!
I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and I am also concerned that Neocon Republicans are attempting to rewrite our government both politically and religiously to suit themselves.
You know, this stuff about the pharmacist being such a good Christian that he can’t abide dispensing birth control is outrageous.
What some of you advocating for the “religious rights” of the pharmacist don’t seem to realize is that birth control pills must be viewed like any other drugs out there. Indeed, there are many health reasons why women are prescribed birth control pills by their doctors — and some women could actually die if they became pregnant when they have other overriding health issues.
Since this pharmacist doesn’t know if there are other reasons why, besides contraception, that these woman would be taking birth control pills, what this actually boils down to is prejudice.
How about if a Devil Worshipper decided it was against his religion to keep Christians healthy and started switching out their prescribed medications with placebos?
That would be prejudice, right? That would be immoral, yes?
Well, I see no difference between these Christian and Devil Worshipping pharmacists, because how would either know anything about the background of the person standing on the other side of their counters? It is highly illogical and based entirely on personal speculation, and is therefore, pure prejudice.
It’s so laughable how some of the same folks who rail against abortion are now turning their attention to the denial of birth control.
To me it seems perfectly transparent what they are doing here. The topic of religious prejudice against birth control (as well as abortion, IMO) is often purely a case of men trying to take away a woman’s power over her own body. This latest pseudo-pious reason to dictate to women is just yet another way in an ages-old plan to discriminate against us.
Well, here’s a newsflash, it just isn’t going to work.
Bomb Planned Parenthoods, we’ll set up trailers. Enact laws based on religion, we’ll get what we need and procure these things in secret, (even go to jail, if need be) for the right to have autonomy over our lives and our futures.
To speak to the larger issue of religion, it seems obvious that so called “religious men” have always tried to take away ANY power women might have. And personally, I think this has always been based on FEAR.
After all, why else would men dream up for themselves a Creator, referred to as though he was male, who didn’t need a female to help him create the entire world and everything in it?
Even when I was a wide-eyed little girl, it made no bloody sense to me at all that in the bible it was only the men who ever did anything of true importance.
Where are the Gospels according to “the Virgin” Mary and/or Mary Magdalen? Were their thoughts not important, or were they Erased? Every where you look the role that has been imposed on females is to be the “weaker vessel” in our human drama, but what is truly weak is the reasoning that went into the very notion.
Right from the beginning God didn’t even create us for our own fabulous selves, but for Adam — and out of his spare parts? Yeah, sure.
Then of course, we went on to cause all the trouble starting with “original sin”, for letting “the serpent” whisper in our ears — getting all of mankind kicked out of the garden simply because we took a bite from the “tree of knowledge”. Now, there’s an interesting metaphor, one which supposedly gave them a reason to keep us uneducated, barefoot and pregnant, forever and ever, “Amen”.
Its all nothing but a misogynists fantasy - and the deepest tragedy of all is that so many women have bought into what is really a lesser definition of what it means to be a female human being.
Thankfully! though, there are also other kinds of men in the world. Real Men, who are able to respect an equal partner in life, and who can admire a woman who, with a bit of confidence and the ability to write her own script in our human drama, be just as strong as they themselves are capable of being — in mind and in heart, if not quite equally in muscles.
Okay, agnostic feminist rant complete. Carry on, gents.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 6, 2005 07:39 PMI’m talking about christianity. It’s history is one big long scar of death, killing, intolerance and persecution.Don’t you understand how much words like that hurt?
I had specifically in mind — the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, slavery, abortion clinic bombings and catholic priest pedophiles. Namely, the highlights of atrocities and crimes against humanity committed in the name of spreading christianity. I’m sorry if it hurts, but one cannot wholy evaluate it without mention of these. It’s the reality of the history of the faith with which you’ve aligned yourself. I’m sorry if you take my remarks at a personal level, as you seem to, but they are directed at the institution, not an individual.
The history you refer to is the history of humanity
No, I was referring specificially to christianity. On the same note, I never said humanity or any specific organization or religion was better. This wasn’t a comparison study. Humanity and other religions have some doosies too…. but that wasn’t the discussion point here.
The entire reason I brought the matter up was because of the statement from Chops:
Why fear Christians, who vote their consciences, and not fear runaway judges who impose their own beliefs on all Americans, instead of the constitution?
This statement assumes that:
1. Christians are morally superior.
2. Non-christians lack conscience.
3. Judges are not christian or not holding christian conscience.
4. Judges are passing unconstitutional judgementments.
I can’t say I agree with the implications made in that remark, and christianity certainly doesn’t smell like a rose, nor deserve to come out smelling like a rose just because people believe it to be.
But the day you persecute me because of some mistaken idea of what you think I believe, …… or because of the sins of my ancestors, I will inherit this verse.
I don’t believe I’m persecuting you, I’m talking about christianity, not you, as assaulting you would be in clear violation of the critic the message not the messenger policy on WB. You personally are not responsible for the sins of your ancestors, but the entity known as christianity is. In my perception there is a clear distinction between you, individually, and that entity.
…or because of hatred for what I believe …
It’s not my cup of tea, make no doubt about that. Hatred, that might be going a bit far, and I’d appreiate if if you’d retract that.
But the point of the matter, getting back to the message, is really about a small hardcore sector of the electorate yielding disproportionate power under the guise of a religious calling. They’ve gone too far. I don’t care what individual people believe, hell, you can worship your god, your dog or your pillowcase for all I care. When I started caring was when the religious zealots started pushing their ideas down the throat of my and my friends lives with all the events outlined in this thread.
They aren’t practicing religious freedom anymore, they are practicing religious DOMINANCE. And THAT is what this thread is about. Freedom does not equal Dominance over all in this country.
Oh Adrienne, why must you wait 60 some posts to join a discussion? =) Thank GOODNESS you’ve finally arrived.
Indeed, there are many health reasons why women are prescribed birth control pills by their doctors — and some women could actually die if they became pregnant when they have other overriding health issues.
GOOD POINT. Ummm, I’m not a woman and not up to par on all this, but isn’t birth control also prescribed for conditions that aren’t directly sexually related at all? Aren’t there some women who take it just to regulate menstrual or hormonal issues, even if they are celibate?
After all, why else would men dream up for themselves a Creator, referred to as though he was male, who didn’t need a female to help him create the entire world and everything in it?
Actually, I spoke to God last week. She told me to tell you keep being strong and to keep holding your chin high. =) /hugs
Adrienne, way to go!
Taylor,
Try not to generalize Christians here. I agree with most of your post. But I am a Catholic liberal, and I can tell you that there are many more where I come from, as I am sure than you know. While the Christians on the right may be trying to impose their views upon you as you write, don’t forget about the real Christians (those on the left) who care more about people than profit and more about peace than power. Those who while they might be pro-life, don’t go to the violent extremes of which you speak and don’t follow only their views on morality when voting.
Daniel:
“And you know what? I have a reason for that - it’s called the doctrine of original sin. What’s your explanation?”
Meh, you weren’t talking to me but I’ll respond. I call it human nature.
Adrienne:
“The topic of religious prejudice against birth control (as well as abortion, IMO) is often purely a case of men trying to take away a woman’s power over her own body.”
Perhaps this is true. However, whenever I hear all the “women’s body, women’s choice” chanting, I wonder what choices were made to come to such a decision. If you were raped or something, that’s a different story, but a majority of women made choices that lead to conception. So I see abortions etc. as more of a convenient way out of irresponsibility than a matter of “my body-my choice.”
“Even when I was a wide-eyed little girl, it made no bloody sense to me at all that in the bible it was only the men who ever did anything of true importance.”
Well, Mary gave birth to Jesus. That has to count for something doesn’t it? But seriously, Christianity is not alone in giving women inferior rights in society. Any ancient culture or religion has discriminated against women. It’s really more of a guy thing than a Christianity thing. (Damn those men!)
Taylor:
“Namely, the highlights of atrocities and crimes against humanity committed in the name of spreading christianity.”
You forgot the Holocaust.
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 08:10 PM3.1 million down-staters. Chicago is the only reason Illinois is blue. Redraw the state line and put chicago in Indiana and Illinois goes red, Indiana goes blue =).
For the most part Taylor, this is still true. However, if you compare the last four Presidential vote tallies in formerly Republican County strongholds across the state, you’ll see major inroads made by the Dems.
More good news, is that Obama carried all but 10 counties. Can you imagine the scenario of a Republican voting for Bush and Obama? (This was also the first time the Chicago Tribune did not endorse the GOP candidate for Senate.)
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 6, 2005 08:18 PMRyan:
don’t forget about the real Christians
Yes I know. It’s why I don’t hate the religion, there are good parts that go in there too.
Zeke:
If you were raped or something, that’s a different story, but a majority of women made choices that lead to conception.
Careful, you’re treading into delicate territory here. I’m not going to presume to speak for women, but I will say this much, I KNOW for a fact that we men, have no right to presume what it’s like to be a woman, unless we’ve had a sex change, lived in thier world and the whole gambit. There’s a LOT going on there. Society in general has put some shitty balls in their court from the dawn of time. Life is different on the other side of the 8 ball. (who the hell ever coined that expression anyhow?) Why the hell did Terri Schiavo feel she had to puke her way into a vegatative state anyhow?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m uncomfortable with people using abortion as birth control. But the world certainly isn’t black and white enough for ME to make THAT decision for anyone else. Be careful about pulling Adrienne down off her woman chant, she just might bite your head off for it =)
You forgot the Holocaust.
Article below this one has a Hitler thing going. Didn’t wanna go there twice, read up (or down).
More good news, is that Obama carried all but 10 counties. Can you imagine the scenario of a Republican voting for Bush and Obama? (This was also the first time the Chicago Tribune did not endorse the GOP candidate for Senate.)
Keyes is a nutjob
Nuff said.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 08:33 PMTaylor:
“I’m not going to presume to speak for women, but I will say this much, I KNOW for a fact that we men, have no right to presume what it’s like to be a woman, unless we’ve had a sex change, lived in thier world and the whole gambit.”
True, very true. Still, I believe that there is just as much irresponsibility going on over on the women’s side of the fence as with the men’s. As such, it is still a result of irresponsible choices that leads to a lot of unwanted pregnancies. I would like to get Adrienne’s opinion on this before going further with this train of thought.
“Why the hell did Terri Schiavo feel she had to puke her way into a vegatative state anyhow?”
I suppose it’s because our society fuels an image of women that almost requires them to be bulimic. So, I agree that it’s horrible that females in the US should be constantly bombarded with standards that no one can live up to without killing themselves. Still, we as society need to demand a change in that rather than in how we handle abortions.
“But the world certainly isn’t black and white enough for ME to make THAT decision for anyone else”
The world isn’t black and white enough to do anything these days…
“Be careful about pulling Adrienne down off her woman chant, she just might bite your head off for it =)”
Nah… Adrienne wouldn’t do that to me… would she? 8(
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 08:46 PMAParker,
Donny-
I can’t help but address this:
My quote:
“If you believe in Muhammed, you are the anti-Christ.” “We are in the end times right now.” “All faggots should die because they are an abomdination of God but I don’t hate homosexuals; I just hate the sin.” “Let’s support wars before we might have a rapture.” “Jesus died for you and you should covert people.”
AParker’s quote:
A) These can in no way be seen as majority viewpoints of any sect of Christianity (with the exception of the last one, which is hardly an excuse to ridicule). You see ‘big name evangelicals’ saying things like that in the media because its sensational and the masses eat it up.
My retort:
Are you kidding me Parker? I don’t know what planet you live on but I live in planet North Carolina. I suspect with you that you don’t know how to push a Christians button. That is your problem. I know how to. I invite you to support gay marriage, which you don’t, and tell me that the most hateful ideologue will spew out of their mouths. I guarantee it. You don’t push their buttons. Christians, in general, have this ability with putting on a front. They act like an angel, say hi as if they give a crap about you to begin with, talk about love, ectera. Once you push their buttons, their true nature comes out. They are, in general I emphasize, the most hateful group you will ever see. Tell me I am wrong. I debate Christians all the time. I don’t need to watch TBN to find out about their nature. I go off to colleges, churches, rallies and I will debate them. You’d be surprised but as long as you, Parker, are putting on a front and they are putting on a front; then you two will get along just fine. As a matter of fact, I would beg to differ and say that Christians are the most deceptive of people on the planet.
Your other response:
B) You are giving these as reasons why Christians are laughed at. But aren’t we all supposed to be tolerant? Or is tolerance exclusive to those who will return the tolerance? It seems as though you are attempting to excuse the ridicule of an entire section of society based on what you hear from the few.
My retort:
Obviously you couldn’t counter your ridiculous assertion that Humanism is some sort of powerhouse in society. That is another story. I see now that you don’t have much of a clue on Humanism or Atheism as far as influence goes; and when I informed you, you didn’t retort. That is a whole other story though. During campaign mode and even today, I have spoke with hundreds of Christians. Out of twenty, I might meet one, might now, who are somewhat sane. The people who go to church every Sunday generally are not sane. They are entrenched in this idealogue, groupthink, social conformity, and hate. Those are not just a few people. This speaks for the masses in NC. Do I make that point clear for you or are you just going to shrug it off?
My statement
“When you have nutballs calling Mr. Schiavo and threatening to kill him; people will start to get the impression that Christians will justify God in horrible acts just like Al-Qaeda.”
Your retort
Herein you make your asinine point. Are you incapable of distinguishing Al-Qaeda’s views from Islam? How can you then identify all Christians with the ‘nutballs’ threatening murder?
My response:
Of course, I can distinguish between Al-Qaeda and Islam. You should read my post again.
“people will start to get the IMPRESSION that Christians will justify God in horrible acts just like Al-Qaeda.”
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you overlooked that. If you didn’t and are just saying this, then you are being fairly deceptive yourself.
When I say in general, I mean in general; so all is not applicable in that when you say that I say “All Christians.” Most Christians, even by the masses hate Mr. Schiavo. Christians, in general now, have a tendency to be ignorant to other people’s problems as Mr. Schiavo’s case was complicated. Sure, only a few nutball Christians will threaten to kill him but a whole lot just don’t have the balls to do so; ergo, they talk, but don’t do anything. Actually, that describes to me, Christian behavior in general. “Love your neighbor as yourself” but it is okay to torture a non-convicted terrorist at Guantanamo Bay. Christians apply in brainwashing and groupthink. They tend to be a little bit too similar in views for brainwashed to not be dismissed; even down to their choice for an electoral candidate and complex cases like Schiavo. You just misread my quote or read too much into it. I am sure my tone has more to do with anything else though.
Taylor -
It’s somewhat unfair to list all the evil Christians have done without also mentioning Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa, Francis of Assissi, William Wilberforce, Hudson Taylor, the Reformation, to say nothing of all the good things done in this century by Christians. My point was that the things you accuse Christians of doing are human failures, common to all humanity, not distinct to Christians. Christians seem no worse than the average mean … in fact, I will say that cultures impacted by Christianity tend to come out a little better.
If you get to list the Crusades, the Inquisition, abortion clinic bombings, etc, I get to mention the Muslim invasion of Europe in the 700s, the caste system of India, “foot-binding” in China, human sacrifice among the Incas and Aztecs, the mass murder of people by Stalin, etc. Christians have not shown themselves to be worse than the human norm. Christian cultures have been enormously disappointing, not because they were worse than others, but because they should have been better. I honestly think Christianity has been, on the whole, a blessing to this world (it’s in the prophecies, after all), but I certainly acknowledge that Christians have been proud, selfish, arrogant, racist, brutal, cruel, vicious, intolerant … etc … just like everyone else.
As I’ve quoted before, “Christianity as an ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.” (Chesterton).
To insult Christianity as a faith insults me. I am a Christian. Your thought has roughly the same flavor as a racist saying “I dislike your race, but I like you.” Please, understand, I’m glad that you aren’t personally angry at me and that you can separate a faith from its adherents. But you don’t understand how much Christianity means to me. Christianity is not a hateful relgion - some Christians have been hateful people. I’m sorry for that.
Adrienne -
If it insults you to be told that women were made out of man’s spare parts, perhaps its some consolation men were made out of dirt :-).
Zeek -
The doctrine of originial sin states that human nature is warped and corrupted. Saying that your explanation for the evil humans have committed is “human nature” says the same thing.
And don’t bring the Nazis into this - you’ll just attract all the people who say that the Nazis were good Christians and that Nazism is a perfect example of what Christianity does to a nation, and I really don’t like debating those sort of people.
= Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 08:54 PMTo speak to the larger issue of religion, it seems obvious that so called “religious men” have always tried to take away ANY power women might have.
You know the other part of religious men that’s equally entertaining and predictable? They ALWAYS think about sex before most anything else. It must be a side affect of a respressive lifestyle. I put a post on a previous thread about rights that gays don’t get being unmarried, including death tax benefits, hospital visitation, rights to adopt / care for a partners child, and cohabitation in a nursing home room. And you know, the religious person homed right in on the nursing home cohabitation like a heat seeking jesus missile. Sex Slimy Sex Slippery Sex HOT PENETRATION STEAMY HUMPY HUMPY HUMPY HUMPY. Jeeez Louis! They really gotta relax. Like the first thing on people’s mind in a nursing home is SEX! LMFAO!
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 08:55 PMI certainly acknowledge that Christians have been proud, selfish, arrogant, racist, brutal, cruel, vicious, intolerant … etc … just like everyone else.
Thanks, that’s precisely what I wanted to hear. JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! You outta share that with the rest of the the millions of christians out there. Oh, but they might not have you over for ice cream social if you say that, best to keep your little secret between you and me.
=)
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 09:03 PMTaylor -
Heh, heh, heh … that was me. When I was reading your list, I missed the adoption part or I might have objected to that too (though I’m still uncertain of my position on that issue). You’re right - it is an unfortunate part of our “Christian” subculture that we are trained to home in on sexual sin as being “the worst” of all … instead of pride and hypocrisy, which are much subtler and far more deadly.
Even when you see the flaws in your own culture and mindset, you can’t completely escape them, eh?
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 09:03 PMDaniel,
I like you but you conflict me at times. If Christians aren’t any better than anyone else, why is it so important that your clique tries to push idealogical laws into our country? The logic is flawed.
Also, Christianity is not a White msn’s religion. You are right. It is growing in the third world countries. Who cares? That makes Christianity look worse. Who gives a crap about Christianity growing in Kenya or some toilet bowl country like that. Doesn’t the Bible say that nations prosper when with God? I highly doubt Kenya will become the world’s superpower. The ironic thing is that and this is not a statistic, rather it is true but the numbers are probably off: for every Kenyan who becomes a Christian, there are four that become a Mus