Fundamentalists Engage in Religious Persecution
Discriminating against a patient on the basis of his or her religious beliefs is religious persecution.
The problem is not that health care providers practice a religion that interferes with their profession. The problem is that their patients have a different religion, or none, and on that basis choose different health care options.
Persecuting patients because of their religious beliefs is wrong, and those who do it are hiding behind the language of religious freedom to deny that same freedom to others.
As with the debate over evolution, the major papers drop the ball. The Washington Post focuses this article on health workers' choice. The focus is on how to protect the health care workers' religious expression, not the religious (or not) expression of the patients.
Why are the religious freedoms of the health care workers more important than the religious freedoms of the patients?
Oh, that's right. They're not more important. The free exercise of religion applies to everyone, not just those who seek to deny contraception to women or medical treatment to gays and lesbians. And any lawmaker that panders to those seeking special religious privilege at the expense of others should remember that.
Posted by binky at January 30, 2006 09:52 AM
| Posted to Liberty
| The Ever Shrinking Constitution
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.
UPDATE: This story has been picked up elsewhere, but I thought this comment from a thread at Balloon Juice was important to highlight:
They do, but they don’t believe it. They’re actively trying to get the definition of pregnancy changed. Right now, the scientific definition is when the fertlized egg implants in the uterus. They want to change it so that pregnancy commences as soon as the egg is fertilized. Let’s say that happens, just for shits and giggles: That would make ALL hormonal birth control into methods of abortion, because they change the uterine lining so as to be inhospitable to a fertilized egg. The Pill: gone. The IUD: gone. The patch, the ring, Depo-provera – all gone.
Conveniently, of course, those birth control methods are all the most reliable, outside of abstinence or sterlization. So unwanted pregnancies would go up. But of course, abortion would be illegal, in this scenario. So, we now have another boom – of unwanted babies. Charming. These people are so self-absorbed and have their heads planted so far up their own asses, that they can’t conceive (pardon the pun) of not being able to afford and care for a child. “But children are gifts from God, for which we should be thankful!” Yeah, tell that to young married student couple who are barely making ends meet, and for whom a baby would mean the end of their education and future prospects.
This one is good too:
Please, please, everyone. The internal conflicts in the fundamentalists’ program are easy to explain. They are not against killing anything. They are against sex as pleasure.
-Homosexuality is about two loving each other and enjoying sex together without procreation.
-Birth control is an admission of sex without procreation.
-Abortion is about sex without procreation.
-Sex education is about learning how to enjoy sex and how to control fertility, i.e., sex without procreation.
-Pornography. Sex without procreation.
The fundamentalists are a clear example of Wilhelm Reich’s “sex-economy”
theory. That is, the sexual repression we experience as infants and
children within our families becomes the model for greater totalitarian
models such as churches and states as we reach adulthood.
That’s why the administration likes to use child and pornography in the
same sentence, like the latest Google flap, although the law is not
about child pornography, but people under 18 looking at pornography on
the internet, as if all children would have no interest in sex if porn
were outlawed on the internet.
While individuals may come on one side or the other on each of the above
topics religious fundamentalism in the U.S. (and in variations in all
cultures and religions) is essentially anti-sexual pleasure.
Fundamentalists are not for “life.” They, as a group, seem without
concern for healthcare, childcare, or even education unless it is a
means to further their beliefs. They would rather risk people’s lives
(denying AIDS programs) in ignorance than to
educate people because that would be an admission that people have sex
outside of marriage and they have it for pleasure. In wars people die,
especially women and children.
Anti-sexual pleasure. Consider it.
Yeah, tell that to young married student couple who are barely making ends meet, and for whom a baby would mean the end of their education and future prospects.
And they would say something like, "Sex, as God intended it, is for procreation. If you can't deal with the consequences, you shouldn't be having sex."
Actually, no, that's not what I would say. However I do realize that you are most likely right about their response. Of course, my response would likely be "Sex, as your God intented it for you, and has nothing to do with the rest of us...