posted
"How chaotic would society be if people just randomly developed religions and refused to do their duties based on arbitrary objections from their religion?"
The REAL possibilities you present are good arguments for your viewpoint. However, this sentence almost lost the argument because it showed way too much bias against religion that would only be accepted by those who already agree with you.
I wish non-religious people would stop with the "made it up randomly" garbage. Clearly you feel that way, but that is NOT the way religious people see it (aside from perhaps secterian bias or dislikes of other faith systems). Religious traditions are a slowly developed (sometimes decades and other times centuries) set of theology and ethics ideas. If such a thing does happen quickly, I would be curious of the historical example.
posted
First, I'm glad you've taken upon the hefty task of both determining whether I have "lost the argument" and who would accept my argument for the entire rest of the audience
Second:
quote: ... that is NOT the way religious people see it (aside from perhaps secterian bias or dislikes of other faith systems).
So religious people do not see their own religion as arbitrary but may very well see the other several hundred or more religions that way?
But seriously, even if you honestly believe that a specific religion is divinely inspired, you can only mix at most a handful of religions before the contradictions become impossible to handle. That means the rest of the religions really were created by man and their restrictions are, well, arbitrary.
As for historical examples, would not every religion founded by one man be an example? KoM mentioned one, Buddhism would probably fit, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Sikhism.
Yea, that one would be an exception. I will still call it a bona fide religion so long as its adherents believe that is the case. In other words, what they do is considered by them to have spiritual and eternal significants and not just in honor of something they just really like. However, it is the most suspect of any religion out there. Not because of its founder, not because of its age, not because of its theology, but because of how quickly it developed without much refinement.
I don't count "would not every religion founded by one man" be an example? No! Although there are usually several people involved, ultimately almost all major and minor religions are founded by one person. To not happen that way is actually an exception. I don't believe Buddhism and Sikhism fit for a religion that sprang up "overnight" fully formed. Although time can be a matter of opinion. Don't even get me started on the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" because it was obviously created to mock religion by those who don't even believe it themselves.
"So religious people do not see their own religion as arbitrary but may very well see the other several hundred or more religions that way?"
Yes, that is often the case, but I don't see other religions that way. I don't believe they are true, but not because I think they are intentionally false or liars or any such bigoted (the way I see it) reason. Rather, because I think they are mistaken. They might very well be created by man and the restrictions arbitrary, but it is not my place to determine that for anyone other than myself. Part of that comes from my religion that teaches all truths are given to people to the degree and form they are able to understand. My religion also teaches we are free to choose what to believe and how to act upon those beliefs, recognizing there will always be consiquences.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you distinguish between a pharmacist that refuses to sell prophylactics because they're pro-life and a restaurant worker that refuses to serve meat because they believe that animals are equal to human? A bank teller that refuses to serve women that are not wearing burkas?
You're off-base. I'm talking about the right of pharmacy OWNERS not to CARRY birth control. If you decide to be an EMPLOYEE of a company, then you follow its rules or quit.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm talking about the right of pharmacy OWNERS not to CARRY birth control. If you decide to be an EMPLOYEE of a company, then you follow its rules or quit.
David, You are. Is anyone else in the thread doing so?
posted
Can doctors refuse to do abortions? If pharmacists must be compelled to distribute drugs they believe enable a wrong, can doctors be compelled to perform abortions? What if it's the only hospital in the county - should doctors not be able to refuse to perform abortions?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neither should be compelled to do anything. Nor should their employers be compelled to hire or continue to employ people who won't or can't fulfill their jobs.
"Reasonable accomodation" makes a lot more sense to me when it comes to people with disabilities. My religion is not a disability.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...hospitals in rural counties should only hire doctors willing to perform abortions? What if its a Catholic hospital?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
1. Employers who do provide a service requiring all employees to be willing to do that service, and
2. A right to obtain a service equaling requiring a possible provider of that service to do it, even if it is against their personal convictions.
I think that: 1. If there is only one pharmacist on duty at a time and the employer has comitted to making it available, then it could (but does not have to be) a requirement of the job to be willing to do it.
2. Just because it is possible for the service to exist, that doesn't mean anyone should be required to give it, especially when the provider would consider it immoral. So, the argument that a patient would have to go somewhere if it isn't available from there is not compelling.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick... perhaps not, but he was addressing specifically something I said.
Point taken. I'm clarifying MY position, people. If it's your business, you don't have to sell the rubbers. If you work FOR the rubber-selling pharmacy, you sell the rubbers or get another job.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't conflating the two. I think that refusing to hire someone because of what he or she believes is bad if it doesn't impair their job performance. I think that, if job performance is impaired, the employer should not be compelled to excuse it on grounds of religion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of the other examples given are as time-sensitive as the morning-after pill. I think it merits special consideration for this reason, regardless of one's overall position.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky, you've said before that you're more willing to have laws that infringe on personal freedoms and individual rights in order to enforce what you see as a greater societal good. I am not.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ever? Or do we just draw the line in different places?
Added: I see the word "more," but I'm not quite sure whether you mean "not more willing" or "not willing."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
