- Dec 1, 2011
- 24,111
- 19,928
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Task Force Publishes Report on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias and Restoring Religious Liberty
- Thread starter Valletta
- Start date
- Status
Foamhead
I like water
- Aug 27, 2005
- 866
- 809
- 48
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Others
The only thing I agree with in that report is a nurse or doctor should not be forced to perform an abortion if it violates thier sincere religious beliefs. The doctor should only be required to refer the patient to someone who does. It's not as if there aren't plenty of others who can perform the procedure.
The attack on transgender people will continue until it's no longer firing up the evangelical base, then it will go away like the gay marriage issue did.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Reconstruction 3 will come
- Mar 11, 2017
- 26,238
- 18,864
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Well, if Bill Donahue thinks this is a problem, then...For those who don't want to do all of that reading there are some great examples in the linked article:
When dossiers are prepared on pro-life Christians, and information is collected on their children, that is nefarious.
When a Christian nurse is forced to participate in an abortion, that is malicious.
When a Christian family is told it cannot be foster parents because they disagree with gender ideology, that is wicked.
When Catholics are restricted from going to Mass because of unproven, and unevenly applied, restrictions due to a health scare, that is indefensible. . .
I guess it really isn't.
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 42,982
- 23,419
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Think of Christians throughout the Middle East in places such as Iraq, Syria, or other places such as Nigeria or India. They face real persecution. Thankfully no Christian here is being slaughtered for their faith. We have the right to practice our religion, thankfully.
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 42,982
- 23,419
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 42,982
- 23,419
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 42,982
- 23,419
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
I actually like Bill Donahue because he's very blunt and speaks his mind. I find those traits admirable....
anyway...
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,147
- 17,752
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
What, exactly, is the punishment they perceive to be happening to them that they claim to need protection from?
That's an honest question...
Are there some concrete examples?
Most of the time, when I see these sorts of claims, it's a case of some of the more staunch Christians conflating "I'm not allowed to use my religion as a basis for ignoring or violating laws" with "this is an attack against me".
I've touched on this in other threads... the concept of negative vs. positive rights.
Negative rights are ones that oblige inaction from others, and the exercising of said rights don't require anything or restrict others from doing anything. -- or, as some of worded it, rights that are non-rivalrous. For example, the right to assemble, me having that right doesn't require you to give up your right, as there's not some finite number of assemblies allowed.
Positive rights are ones that oblige action from others, or require them to give something up in order for you to have it. For example, if someone asserted "I have a right to be able to send my kid to school without having them hear about evolution", that's requiring other parents to give up their ability to have their child learn about it.
Most of these types of complaints I've seen for this in the past in the past fall into the latter.
While you and I have had points of agreement on some of those matters (despite me not being religious) from a pure policy perspective - one example would be the debates about some of the books finding their way in Jr. High Schools -- I believe we've been in more than one thread together where we've both agreed that Flamer and Genderqueer don't belong in school libraries for 12 years olds -- but the presence of those books doesn't stop you from practicing your faith on a personal level.
Readers Digest version:
Religious Freedom means "here's the things I'm allowed to believe and espouse", not "here's the things everyone else isn't allowed to do as to not offend my religious sensibilities"
I've yet to see a substantial concrete example of Christian religious freedom in a pure sense (meaning: negative rights and the government trying to stop someone from being Christian) be violated in the US during my adult life.
Religious freedom doesn't mean "I get to pick and choose the laws I want to follow, and I get to dictate to other people what they can and can't do"
That's an honest question...
Are there some concrete examples?
Most of the time, when I see these sorts of claims, it's a case of some of the more staunch Christians conflating "I'm not allowed to use my religion as a basis for ignoring or violating laws" with "this is an attack against me".
I've touched on this in other threads... the concept of negative vs. positive rights.
Negative rights are ones that oblige inaction from others, and the exercising of said rights don't require anything or restrict others from doing anything. -- or, as some of worded it, rights that are non-rivalrous. For example, the right to assemble, me having that right doesn't require you to give up your right, as there's not some finite number of assemblies allowed.
Positive rights are ones that oblige action from others, or require them to give something up in order for you to have it. For example, if someone asserted "I have a right to be able to send my kid to school without having them hear about evolution", that's requiring other parents to give up their ability to have their child learn about it.
Most of these types of complaints I've seen for this in the past in the past fall into the latter.
While you and I have had points of agreement on some of those matters (despite me not being religious) from a pure policy perspective - one example would be the debates about some of the books finding their way in Jr. High Schools -- I believe we've been in more than one thread together where we've both agreed that Flamer and Genderqueer don't belong in school libraries for 12 years olds -- but the presence of those books doesn't stop you from practicing your faith on a personal level.
Readers Digest version:
Religious Freedom means "here's the things I'm allowed to believe and espouse", not "here's the things everyone else isn't allowed to do as to not offend my religious sensibilities"
I've yet to see a substantial concrete example of Christian religious freedom in a pure sense (meaning: negative rights and the government trying to stop someone from being Christian) be violated in the US during my adult life.
Religious freedom doesn't mean "I get to pick and choose the laws I want to follow, and I get to dictate to other people what they can and can't do"
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 34,384
- 21,342
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Paul Kahnke, a retired pastor from the Twin Cities, gives his brief opinion on the task force's methods, motives, and conclusions.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Reconstruction 3 will come
- Mar 11, 2017
- 26,238
- 18,864
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I find him despicable. He will defend any depravity if the Church does it.
Upvote
0
Tuur
Well-Known Member
- Oct 12, 2022
- 4,396
- 2,084
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Abortion is basic care? It should be extraordinary care, a procedure of last resort. Even amputations aren't conducted unless a limb cannot be saved. If abortions are "basic care," then what of euthanasia? What of executions? If a nurse isn't willing to assist in executions, should the nurse look for another job, too?
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,147
- 17,752
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
There's a fair bit of at that sentiment floating around in the US ecosystem.
But under the umbrella of US constitutional law, the SCOTUS precedent is that in order to impose a law restricting something, it needs to pass what become referred to as "The Lemon Test". Which dictates that a law of such nature needs to serve a compelling, secular legislative purpose. (even if a person's religion is the inspiration behind such a law)
For instance, it could be a person's religious position on "Thou shalt not steal" could be the motivation behind an anti-theft law, but one can still make a compelling secular case for having laws against theft, so that would pass muster.
However, a law in the name of "because my religion says so" obviously falls off immediately because it's not secular.
And a law in the name of "well, because that hurts my feelings" (albeit secular) is not very compelling.
One big one that seems to trip up the activist types from both political wings... seems to be the operating on the incorrect assumption that an activity (that would otherwise be illegal) magically becomes legal if being done in the name of something that is protected.
For example, grabbing a megaphone and putting it 3 inches from someone's face and yelling through it, or physically blocking/intimidating them from getting to the place they want to be is disorderly conduct, ...and because they happen to be yelling about Jesus, or abortion, or climate, etc. while they do it doesn't make the action protected by proxy.
I would say the most glaring examples of that would be things like the anti-abortion protestors obstructing access to clinics, and the climate protestors blocking public roadways. Expressing opinions about either of those topics is constitutionally protected, but not every type of action used for the expression becomes legal because of it.
In the same way that I'd be well within my rights to express an opinion about tax policy, but I can't go around blocking peoples' access to buildings, and blowing air horns 2 inches from their ear and expect it to be considered "protected expression" simply because I happen to be holding a "taxes suck" sign at the time.
Upvote
0
- Jan 19, 2005
- 8,315
- 5,010
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
What is the medical context in which sh was “forced” to participate? Highly unlikely it was elective because why would this nurse seek employment with a hospital/practice that provides elective abortions? I have my doubts on this particular claim.
And I would add that any abortion that requires the assistance of a nurse has already entered into your classification of “extraordinary care“, though abortion is routine at that point, and should be an expected part of a nurses job in a specialty that would give this care.
Upvote
0
Tropical Wilds
Queen of Cups
- Oct 2, 2009
- 7,978
- 6,152
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Tropical Wilds
Queen of Cups
- Oct 2, 2009
- 7,978
- 6,152
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Yes, abortions are basic care. It’s first line care for a number of issues, from incomplete miscarriages to ectopic pregnancies. I’ve had a like 12 D&Cs. They’re basic care that can be performed in any medical facility that provides basic care.
I’m not sure what euthanasia or treatment executions have to do anything... Since executions are only done in prisons, one would have to ask why somebody who doesn’t want to assist in them works where they’re performed. Kind of like being a vegan and pursuing a career as a butcher, then getting upset they’re handling meat.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
