"Religious Liberty" ?

[morphesium]

The issue of religious liberty is about all religious denominations and religious individuals having the right not to violate their own belief systems. If a particular denomination owns and operates a hospital, they have the right not to have to perform abortions if that is against their belief system.

How about this situation :- suppose that particular hospital has a surgeon who is not of their religion and a patient comes there (perhaps in emergency and again not of their religion) and necessitates a treatment that violate their (the hospital management's) belief system, do you think it is justifiable in denying a proper treatment?

(Hospital:-an institution providing medical and surgical treatment and nursing care for sick or injured people). The medical staff working there would have taken some version of Hippocratic Oath which is concerned with the well being of the patient alone and is not concerned with the belief system of the hospital management. Even if the doctor is of the same religion as those running the hospital, he is supposed to respect the belief system of the patient alone ( not of his or their managements).

Small Pox has been eliminated and Polio is hopefully soon to be eradicated from the face of earth and it was mass vaccination that made it possible. However, I am quite sure that there would have been (/are) religions out there who stood against vaccinations saying it is against their beliefs. Do you think such a feat would have been possible if people stood with their religious doctrines?

Now, talking about religious liberty- religion and religious liberty never goes together. Religion actually propagates itself by brainwashing its (futuristic/ or would be) followers and is thereby effectively denying religious liberty of its followers. It is brainwashing at the extreme that made ISIS people to be deeply religious, violent and unethical - they are so much trapped in their belief system that they can't think out of the box. And all religions are doing the same ( to a lesser extent) in order to keep their religion propelling forward.

 

[morphesium]

Additionally, there are religions that strictly forbids someone from changing their religion - even with death sentence. Should such religions which does not tolerate religious liberty be given any liberty?

 

[ether-ore]

Thanks. We presently have 2 indoor only, one indoor/outdoor who was feral, one feral, who we feed but cannot get to trust us, and one we lost to a fischer about 3 months ago. This kitten was rescued by the Pixel Fund from Florida and transported to me a week ago. I had a rescued Maine Coon that traveled with me all over the country until she got brain cancer and I had to have her put down. This one, two years later, is my new travel buddy. Except that now, she will be immobile for about a month. I feel like an absolute **** over this. Excuse the language please.

I had two cats. My wife and I were sitting a the front porch and this stray orange cat came up and started rubbing on my leg. I went in the house and opened a can of fish for her and she adopted us... or we adopted her... I'm not sure which. We discovered that Peaches (that's what we named her) had been de-clawed by someone. Later, I was helping a friend do some clean up in his yard and we found three feral kittens from a female cat in the yard that we couldn't catch. We put the kittens in a box with some milk and went to get something to eat ourselves. When we came back, two of the kittens were gone and I kept the third and we became best friends. This cat who I named after my friend 'Jerry' would curl up in my arms and take a nap. Both my cats remained indoor/outdoor.

My wife who was a breeder of Dalmatians and had been involved in the rescue of dogs when we met, passed away. Then my health failed as well and I had to give my kitties up. I did find them a good home though.

 

[ether-ore]

How about this situation :- suppose that particular hospital has a surgeon who is not of their religion and a patient comes there (perhaps in emergency and again not of their religion) and necessitates a treatment that violate their (the hospital management's) belief system, do you think it is justifiable in denying a proper treatment?

(Hospital:-an institution providing medical and surgical treatment and nursing care for sick or injured people). The medical staff working there would have taken some version of Hippocratic Oath which is concerned with the well being of the patient alone and is not concerned with the belief system of the hospital management. Even if the doctor is of the same religion as those running the hospital, he is supposed to respect the belief system of the patient alone ( not of his or their managements).

Small Pox has been eliminated and Polio is hopefully soon to be eradicated from the face of earth and it was mass vaccination that made it possible. However, I am quite sure that there would have been (/are) religions out there who stood against vaccinations saying it is against their beliefs. Do you think such a feat would have been possible if people stood with their religious doctrines?

Now, talking about religious liberty- religion and religious liberty never goes together. Religion actually propagates itself by brainwashing its (futuristic/ or would be) followers and is thereby effectively denying religious liberty of its followers. It is brainwashing at the extreme that made ISIS people to be deeply religious, violent and unethical - they are so much trapped in their belief system that they can't think out of the box. And all religions are doing the same ( to a lesser extent) in order to keep their religion propelling forward.

Good question. My guess is that would be a judgment call for the doctor, though I'm not certain under what circumstances an abortion would be an emergency. I personally do not think any hospital administration would turn away an emergency, especially if the doctor making the call was ok with it.

Your concept of believing that all religions brainwash is not only ridiculous, it's absurd. My religion certainly does not. From what I have seen in videos of chants by small children shouting "death to Israel", I think I would agree that Islam is involved in brainwashing.

Additionally, there are religions that strictly forbids someone from changing their religion - even with death sentence. Should such religions which does not tolerate religious liberty be given any liberty?

I've no doubt you are referring to Islam, but within the boundaries of their own nation, they can establish whatever laws they like. I believe however that religious liberty should be allowed everywhere. There are many Muslims that live in the US and they should have the same liberty as all other religions. If any one of them violates the rights of others however, that individual should be punished accordingly, just as any other individual should.

 

[JoStories]

How about this situation :- suppose that particular hospital has a surgeon who is not of their religion and a patient comes there (perhaps in emergency and again not of their religion) and necessitates a treatment that violate their (the hospital management's) belief system, do you think it is justifiable in denying a proper treatment?

(Hospital:-an institution providing medical and surgical treatment and nursing care for sick or injured people). The medical staff working there would have taken some version of Hippocratic Oath which is concerned with the well being of the patient alone and is not concerned with the belief system of the hospital management. Even if the doctor is of the same religion as those running the hospital, he is supposed to respect the belief system of the patient alone ( not of his or their managements).

Small Pox has been eliminated and Polio is hopefully soon to be eradicated from the face of earth and it was mass vaccination that made it possible. However, I am quite sure that there would have been (/are) religions out there who stood against vaccinations saying it is against their beliefs. Do you think such a feat would have been possible if people stood with their religious doctrines?

Now, talking about religious liberty- religion and religious liberty never goes together. Religion actually propagates itself by brainwashing its (futuristic/ or would be) followers and is thereby effectively denying religious liberty of its followers. It is brainwashing at the extreme that made ISIS people to be deeply religious, violent and unethical - they are so much trapped in their belief system that they can't think out of the box. And all religions are doing the same ( to a lesser extent) in order to keep their religion propelling forward.

Just a couple things here about your post. First, small pox has not been eliminated and in fact, has resurfaced in several countries, mostly seen in Africa but also seen here in the US. It had been considered eradicated but is now a threat again. Second, doctors and nurses have to take the Hippocratic oath before getting their license. It is required of all of us. As for vaccinations, I am one of those who strongly believes that those parents who refuse to vaccinate should be forced to. Whooping cough has also resurfaced in a big way and that is because of those who believe they don't need those vaccinations. To not do such places every single child and worse, pregnant mothers who get exposed to measles at extreme risk and unnecessarily, IMO. Whether for philosophical reasons or religious, I care not. It is reckless and almost intentionally stupid not to vaccinate. And lastly, I do agree that some religions seem to brainwash. I don't think all do however.

 

[JoStories]

I had two cats. My wife and I were sitting a the front porch and this stray orange cat came up and started rubbing on my leg. I went in the house and opened a can of fish for her and she adopted us... or we adopted her... I'm not sure which. We discovered that Peaches (that's what we named her) had been de-clawed by someone. Later, I was helping a friend do some clean up in his yard and we found three feral kittens from a female cat in the yard that we couldn't catch. We put the kittens in a box with some milk and went to get something to eat ourselves. When we came back, two of the kittens were gone and I kept the third and we became best friends. This cat who I named after my friend 'Jerry' would curl up in my arms and take a nap. Both my cats remained indoor/outdoor.

My wife who was a breeder of Dalmatians and had been involved in the rescue of dogs when we met, passed away. Then my health failed as well and I had to give my kitties up. I did find them a good home though.

First, I am terribly sorry to hear of the loss of your wife. I lost my partner about 17 years ago and have felt her loss every day. Please accept my condolences for your loss. I know how difficult it was.
And as for your cats, you sound like someone just like me. We lost one just recently to that Fischer cat that had been dumped here at my house who had been declawed as well. I absolutely hate people who do that stuff. I want to find them and smack them senseless.

 

[JoStories]

Good question. My guess is that would be a judgment call for the doctor, though I'm not certain under what circumstances an abortion would be an emergency. I personally do not think any hospital administration would turn away an emergency, especially if the doctor making the call was ok with it.

Your concept of believing that all religions brainwash is not only ridiculous, it's absurd. My religion certainly does not. From what I have seen in videos of chants by small children shouting "death to Israel", I think I would agree that Islam is involved in brainwashing.



I've no doubt you are referring to Islam, but within the boundaries of their own nation, they can establish whatever laws they like. I believe however that religious liberty should be allowed everywhere. There are many Muslims that live in the US and they should have the same liberty as all other religions. If any one of them violates the rights of others however, that individual should be punished accordingly, just as any other individual should.

No hospital can refuse to treat a patient in the ER. There is a federal law called EMTALA that requires that a patient be stabilized but once that has happened, the hospital can transfer a patient to a county facility for reasons of money or whatever else they deem necessary. And there are many reasons for an emergency abortion. If the woman is bleeding uncontrollably, or the fetus has expired, or a host of other reasons, such as ectopic, Rh incompatiability, etc. Sometimes the need for a D&C, or abortion is medically necessary for the life of the woman.

 

[ether-ore]

No hospital can refuse to treat a patient in the ER. There is a federal law called EMTALA that requires that a patient be stabilized but once that has happened, the hospital can transfer a patient to a county facility for reasons of money or whatever else they deem necessary. And there are many reasons for an emergency abortion. If the woman is bleeding uncontrollably, or the fetus has expired, or a host of other reasons, such as ectopic, Rh incompatiability, etc. Sometimes the need for a D&C, or abortion is medically necessary for the life of the woman.

I bow to your expert knowledge on what constitutes an emergency for an abortion. The life of the mother should certainly be protected.

 

[JoStories]

I bow to your expert knowledge on what constitutes an emergency for an abortion. The life of the mother should certainly be protected.

Thanks. It is, in fact, my expertise as a critical care nurse for 40+ years. Nurses and doctors can ask to not treat a patient, if and only if there is someone else to assume that care. If there is not, it would constitute abandonment of patients and the doctor/nurse would risk losing their license.

 

[morphesium]

Good question. My guess is that would be a judgment call for the doctor, though I'm not certain under what circumstances an abortion would be an emergency. I personally do not think any hospital administration would turn away an emergency, especially if the doctor making the call was ok with it.

Religion does impair people's thought and judgment. A case in Ireland where a woman died because she wasn't given abortion because of religious reasons .

The Way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.—Benjamin Franklin

Your concept of believing that all religions brainwash is not only ridiculous, it's absurd. My religion certainly does not. From what I have seen in videos of chants by small children shouting "death to Israel", I think I would agree that Islam is involved in brainwashing.

The truth is people may not be aware that they are being brainwashed or hypnotized. Consider the situation - You happened to wake up in the early morning and you happened to drink coffee which you liked. the next day you sleep well and after some day you wake up again early in the morning, have cup of coffee. Everything continues as normal and you probably won't even bother if you didn't wake up and have a cup of coffee. However, if you happened to wake up and drink coffee for 21 days continuously, then you have formed a new habit. On the 22nd day you will deliberately wake up and have a cup of coffee - other wise you will have a sensation of an un-fulfilling day. Religion works quite similarly. When you go to a religious place for worship, when you pray to your god, when you perform various religious practices, even from your friends and relatives circle, holy texts etc - if for 21 days your circumstances forced you directly/indirectly to be more religious (you may not be aware of this though) - you will end up being more religious. The lesser you will find fault with your religion. This is brainwashing in a passive and subtle way. It need not be always be forceful.

All religion tries to brainwash its followers, to pull more towards their religion- but the followers are not aware of this. It is for this reason why you keep your religion as "your own" religion- otherwise you would be treating it as someone else's religion. Have you ever questioned the scientific fallacies in your religion? Are you afraid of questioning your god's acts? It is the reason what keeps Muslims from eating pork.

I've no doubt you are referring to Islam, but within the boundaries of their own nation, they can establish whatever laws they like.

I agree - They will even though I don't like that.

I believe however that religious liberty should be allowed everywhere. There are many Muslims that live in the US and they should have the same liberty as all other religions. If any one of them violates the rights of others however, that individual should be punished accordingly, just as any other individual should.

The problem is they will enjoy the liberty and they will multiply like rats (not all muslims though- but that doesn't count). Once they have a population upper hand, they "within the boundaries of their own nation (this time it will be our nation), they can establish whatever laws they like". Would our grand childrens enjoy the religious liberty that we enjoy? I don't think so.

 

[icehorse]

I would reframe this a bit...

It strikes me that these days Islam is the religion that most apt to play a role in creating theocracies. It seems clear to me that theocracies are a REALLY BAD idea - especially true in these modern times with high population levels and WMDs.

However, when religious folks want to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, they are chipping away at secular principles, at that's a frightening path we must avoid.

 

[sassysam29]

The issue of religious liberty is about all religious denominations and religious individuals having the right not to violate their own belief systems. If a particular denomination owns and operates a hospital, they have the right not to have to perform abortions if that is against their belief system. The woman wanting an abortion can go some place else. There are plenty of other places available. If a particular individual believes that homosexuality is contrary to their set of beliefs, then they have a right not to associate with or do business with a homosexual for any reason if that is their choice. Again, there are plenty of other places a homosexual can go. There is no need for any religion or person to be forced to go contrary to their will in these matters.

Faith is a personal matter and I think liberties within local churches should be protected, however, IF that church decides to venture into the for profit business world, then that business should not have any special privileges. It should operate as any other business.

And as far as private businesses......It's a BUSINESS.........do you shop at Walmart? If you do, then maybe you should hold yourself to the same standards as you expect from others and stop because I'm certain that Walmart is not in alignment with your personal faith.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree. They could have gone in there, got a plain cake without even mentioning what it was for, and added whatever figurines and writing they wanted themselves. The stuff to do that with is readily available in lots of places.

Right, but it is ridiculously unreasonable to assume that they would know this walking into the store ... that they would have to do this, I mean. The question really is, would the bakers still have baked them the cake if the couple said, "just leave it blank if it bothers you so much". I mean, it wouldn't discount the fact that the baker would know that the cake was going to be used for their wedding. Once that secret is out, it's out.

 

[leibowde84]

So now you are going to pull out the race card? I have not been talking about race at all, much less racial purity. Eugenics is not something I would ever endorse. I'll leave that to the socialists... like the National Socialist Party (NAZIS). To my mind, that kind of thinking goes against my belief in freedom as was supposed to have been protected by the original Constitution. Progressive socialism is trying to destroy that constitution. I have been talking about freedom and morality. I believe (as did the founding fathers) that the republic that they established can only exist with a moral society. The constitution is indeed hanging by a thread. And so is the continuance of this nation.

I have never read a more rampantly historically ignorant comment on this forum thus far. It is extremely offensive as well. Like many Germans during the 1930s, you have been fooled by the Nazi's inclusion of the word "socialist" in their name. Remember, they could have chosen any word, and if they named it the "National Fascism Party", they might have not been so popular (obviously enough). The Nazis were a "fascist" organization, not a "socialist" one. To claim otherwise shows an immense misunderstanding/ignorance of the term "socialism", or, at the very least, with the history of the Third Reich. Here's a brief explanation of the terms:

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole (If you think this represents the Nazis, you need to pick up a History book).

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization which includes dictatorships. (Hitler was a dictator, or a supreme leader)

Now, with the meanings of these terms provided, how can you reconcile your erroneous claim that the Nazis were "socialist"? I am going to assume that your only reasoning was not the name they chose for themselves ...

 

[leibowde84]

You want me to look up a sterile dictionary term when what is practiced in reality is entirely something else? Socialism in practice has everything to do with the loss of freedom because it is about gaining power through the establishment of a welfare state. People see some short term benefit passed off as charity when it has absolutely nothing to do charity because true charity is voluntary. So they let those who lust for power introduce socialism because they perceive it as helping the poor. Yet the condition of the poor never really changes. It is all smoke and mirrors.

This is the very definition of a straw man. You are changing the meaning of the term "socialism" to better suit your argument. That is extremely dishonest.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

[ether-ore]

Right, but it is ridiculously unreasonable to assume that they would know this walking into the store ... that they would have to do this, I mean. The question really is, would the bakers still have baked them the cake if the couple said, "just leave it blank if it bothers you so much". I mean, it wouldn't discount the fact that the baker would know that the cake was going to be used for their wedding. Once that secret is out, it's out.

I don't believe it unlikely that they scouted the store before going in there. The baker may have figured out what the cake would be for, but since he isn't putting the identifying makers on it, it doesn't matter. It is after all about not violating one's conscience. He can truthfully say he did not endorse homosexuality.

 

[ether-ore]

I have never read a more rampantly historically ignorant comment on this forum thus far. It is extremely offensive as well. Like many Germans during the 1930s, you have been fooled by the Nazi's inclusion of the word "socialist" in their name. Remember, they could have chosen any word, and if they named it the "National Fascism Party", they might have not been so popular (obviously enough). The Nazis were a "fascist" organization, not a "socialist" one. To claim otherwise shows an immense misunderstanding/ignorance of the term "socialism", or, at the very least, with the history of the Third Reich. Here's a brief explanation of the terms:

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole (If you think this represents the Nazis, you need to pick up a History book).

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization which includes dictatorships. (Hitler was a dictator, or a supreme leader)

Now, with the meanings of these terms provided, how can you reconcile your erroneous claim that the Nazis were "socialist"? I am going to assume that your only reasoning was not the name they chose for themselves ...

I reconcile it by noting that it was a hybrid, i.e. national socialist. You have decided that they were something other than what they themselves identified themselves as being because it fits with your narrative and your revisionist history perspective. I am able to see socialism in that regime even with the dictator (who was operating under war time conditions). I can certainly see it as they intended and planned for it to be after the war. On the political spectrum, the Nazis were to the right of the communists, but they were no where close to being right wing, if by right wing you mean like people in the US that believe in freedom and the original constitution of the United States

Besides, by your reasoning, neither Stalin or Mao is a communist.

The thing is that all socialist or communist regimes will always ultimately become a dictatorships. There is no other way to keep the masses in line or the economy under control for any appreciable amount of time. Consider the collapse of the Soviet Union and the current state of the EU.

 

[ether-ore]

This is the very definition of a straw man. You are changing the meaning of the term "socialism" to better suit your argument. That is extremely dishonest.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Socialism as advertized in a dictionary will never be a reality because there is no freedom in it. People wanting to be free will always pose a problem for the people in power (the overseers) who will in turn have to become stricter and stricter until freedom is entirely gone and you have a dictatorship. This community control spoken of in a dictionary is a lie. There is always some strong man in control. Socialism has never worked and it never will.

 

[leibowde84]

I reconcile it by noting that it was a hybrid, i.e. national socialist. You have decided that they were something other than what they themselves identified themselves as being because it fits with your narrative and your revisionist history perspective. I am able to see socialism in that regime even with the dictator (who was operating under war time conditions). I can certainly see it as they intended and planned for it to be after the war. On the political spectrum, the Nazis were to the right of the communists, but they were no where close to being right wing, if by right wing you mean like people in the US that believe in freedom and the original constitution of the United States

Besides, by your reasoning, neither Stalin or Mao is a communist.

The thing is that all socialist or communist regimes will always ultimately become a dictatorships. There is no other way to keep the masses in line or the economy under control for any appreciable amount of time. Consider the collapse of the Soviet Union and the current state of the EU.

So, you are going by their self-identification rather than their adherence to the meaning of the terms? That is pretty foolish, as they were some of the most untrustworthy sources in history. And, Hitler was made supreme leader of Germany before WWII started, so I would brush up on your history.

I think it extremely unreasonable to consider any government "socialist" simply because they claim to be so. The terms relate to systems of governments, so they must be assigned using an objective standard.

I provided the definition of the term "socialism". Can you provide specific evidence poiting to the Nazi's being "socialist" according to the meaning of the term?

 

[leibowde84]

Socialism as advertized in a dictionary will never be a reality because there is no freedom in it. People wanting to be free will always pose a problem for the people in power (the overseers) who will in turn have to become stricter and stricter until freedom is entirely gone and you have a dictatorship. This community control spoken of in a dictionary is a lie. There is always some strong man in control. Socialism has never worked and it never will.

I am not arguing for socialism. I am arguing against your obvious straw-man argument. I know the historical outcomes of communist/socialist governments. Lenin saw the danger himself, and warned against Stalin gaining control after his death. Not surprising.

My point is that you are not arguing with "socialism", you are arguing with fascism, which seems to be the end result of socialistic governments in the real world. "Socialism" is a term that describes a certain form of government. Thus, it cannot be a "lie" simply because it doesn't seem to work in the real world. It is a concept. And, you aren't providing any solid reasoning as to why you think that the Nazis were a "socialist" party, beyond their self-naming.