Why Religion Fails
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
- Status
Richard Dawkins banned from speaking at a Michigan country club after they find out he's an atheist
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 8:58 PM on 12th October 2011
A Michigan country club has nixed an appearance by outspoken religion critic Richard Dawkins after catching wind of the fact that he’s an atheist.
Mr Dawkins was to speak at the Wyndgate Country Club tonight in an event sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting a secular society through education, advocacy and research, according to the group’s website.
But when top brass at the club saw Mr Dawkins’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor last week and learned that he was an atheist, the event was rejected.
Scroll down for video
Mr Dawkins told the Detroit Free Press that the country club’s actions are 'sheer bigotry.'
The event, a $95-a-plate affair, was moved to the Royal Park Hotel, several miles away.
He said: 'If the country club had said, "I'm not having Dawkins speak because he's a Jew, or because he's black, or because he's gay," they would never get away with it.'
Jeff Seaver, executive director of CFI–Michigan said in a statement: 'It’s important to understand that discrimination based on a person's religion - or lack thereof - is legally equivalent to discriminating against a person because of his or her race.
'This action by The Wyndgate illustrates the kind of bias and bigotry that nonbelievers encounter all the time.'
A call to the Wyndgate Country Club was not returned Wednesday.
Mr Dawkins is a former Oxford professor who found fame as an evolutionary biologist before becoming a vocal opponent of religion.
Mr Dawkins appeared on The O’Reilly Factor to promote his new book, The Magic of Reality, which is intended to make children enthusiastic about the wonders of science.
He told the Free Press that host Bill O’Reilly distorted the message of his book and made it seem like an atheism campaign targeting youngsters.
Mr Dawkins said: 'He made it seem like it was atheistic propaganda aimed at children. It's nothing of the sort.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Michigan-country-club.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 8:58 PM on 12th October 2011
A Michigan country club has nixed an appearance by outspoken religion critic Richard Dawkins after catching wind of the fact that he’s an atheist.
Mr Dawkins was to speak at the Wyndgate Country Club tonight in an event sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting a secular society through education, advocacy and research, according to the group’s website.
But when top brass at the club saw Mr Dawkins’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor last week and learned that he was an atheist, the event was rejected.
Scroll down for video
Mr Dawkins told the Detroit Free Press that the country club’s actions are 'sheer bigotry.'
The event, a $95-a-plate affair, was moved to the Royal Park Hotel, several miles away.
He said: 'If the country club had said, "I'm not having Dawkins speak because he's a Jew, or because he's black, or because he's gay," they would never get away with it.'
Jeff Seaver, executive director of CFI–Michigan said in a statement: 'It’s important to understand that discrimination based on a person's religion - or lack thereof - is legally equivalent to discriminating against a person because of his or her race.
'This action by The Wyndgate illustrates the kind of bias and bigotry that nonbelievers encounter all the time.'
A call to the Wyndgate Country Club was not returned Wednesday.
Mr Dawkins is a former Oxford professor who found fame as an evolutionary biologist before becoming a vocal opponent of religion.
Mr Dawkins appeared on The O’Reilly Factor to promote his new book, The Magic of Reality, which is intended to make children enthusiastic about the wonders of science.
He told the Free Press that host Bill O’Reilly distorted the message of his book and made it seem like an atheism campaign targeting youngsters.
Mr Dawkins said: 'He made it seem like it was atheistic propaganda aimed at children. It's nothing of the sort.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Michigan-country-club.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
"Mr Dawkins was to speak at the Wyndgate Country Club tonight in an event sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting a secular society through education, advocacy and research, according to the group’s website."
Something Fishy here , why would they initially allow a non-profit ogranization which is dedicated to a a secular society , have suddenly have a problem with Mr. Dawkins.
Oh Btw Canada Man, you have just shown more evidence atheism is a religion, if they are actively trying to change society.
Something Fishy here , why would they initially allow a non-profit ogranization which is dedicated to a a secular society , have suddenly have a problem with Mr. Dawkins.
Oh Btw Canada Man, you have just shown more evidence atheism is a religion, if they are actively trying to change society.
World English Dictionary
religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
Oxford English Dictionary
[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion
Bishop Indicted; Charge Is Failing to Report Abuse
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A bishop in the Roman Catholic Church has been indicted for failure to report suspected child abuse, the first time in the 25-year history of the church’s sex abuse scandals that the leader of an American diocese has been held criminally liable for the behavior of a priest he supervised.
The indictment of the bishop, Robert W. Finn, and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph by a county grand jury was announced on Friday. Each was charged with one misdemeanor count involving a priest accused of taking pornographic photographs of girls as recently as this year. They pleaded not guilty.
The case caused an uproar among Catholics in Kansas City this year when Bishop Finn acknowledged that he knew of the photographs last December but did not turn them over to the police until May. During that time, the priest, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, is said to have continued to attend church events with children, and took lewd photographs of another young girl.
A decade ago the American bishops pledged to report suspected abusers to law enforcement authorities — a policy also recommended last year by the Vatican. Bishop Finn himself had made such a promise three years ago as part of a $10 million legal settlement with abuse victims in Kansas City.
Though the charge is only a misdemeanor, victims’ advocates immediately hailed the indictment as a breakthrough, saying that until now American bishops have avoided prosecution despite documents showing that in some cases they were aware of abuse.
“This is huge for us,” said Michael Hunter, director of the Kansas City chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and a victim of sexual abuse by a priest. “It’s something that I personally have been waiting for years to see, some real accountability. We’re very pleased with the prosecuting attorney here to have the guts to do it.” The bishop signaled he would fight the charges with all his strength. He said in a statement: “We will meet these announcements with a steady resolve and a vigorous defense.”
The indictment announced on Friday by the Jackson County prosecutor, Jean Peters Baker, had been under seal since Oct. 6 because the bishop was out of the country. He returned on Thursday night.
In a news conference, Ms. Baker said the case was not religiously motivated, but was about the obligation under state law to report child abuse.
“This is about protecting children,” she said.
If convicted Bishop Finn would face a possible fine of up to $1,000 and a jail sentence of up to a year. The diocese faces a possible fine of up to $5,000.
Ms. Baker said that secrecy rules for grand jury proceedings prohibited her from discussing whether other charges were considered, such as child endangerment, a felony. But she said the fact that the bishop faces a single misdemeanor count should not diminish the seriousness.
“To my knowledge a charge like this has not been leveled before,” she said.
It also may not mark the end of the legal troubles facing the diocese in the case, which includes civil and criminal cases in federal court. Last month Bishop Finn and Msgr. Robert Murphy testified before another grand jury in neighboring Clay County. A spokesman for the prosecutor’s office there declined to comment.
The priest accused of taking the lewd photos, Father Ratigan, was a frequent presence in a Catholic elementary school next to his parish. The principal there sent a letter to the diocese in May 2010 complaining about Father Ratigan’s behavior with children. Then, last December, a computer technician discovered the photos on the priest’s laptop and turned the computer in to the diocese. A day later Father Ratigan tried to kill himself. The diocese said that Monsignor Murphy described — but did not share — a single photo of a young girl, nude from the waist down, to a police officer who served on an independent sexual abuse review board for the diocese. The officer said that based on the description it might meet the definition of child pornography, but he did not think it would, the diocese said.
Bishop Finn sent Father Ratigan to live in a convent and told him to avoid contact with minors. But until May the priest attended children’s parties, spent weekends in the homes of parish families, hosted an Easter egg hunt and presided, with the bishop’s permission, at a girl’s First Communion, according to interviews with parishioners and a civil lawsuit filed by a victim’s family.
Parents in the school and parishioners — told only that Father Ratigan had fallen sick from carbon monoxide poisoning — were stunned when he was arrested in May after the diocese called the police. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of taking indecent photographs of young girls.
The new indictment released on Friday said that Bishop Finn and the diocese had reason to suspect that Father Ratigan might subject a child to abuse.
It cited “previous knowledge of concerns regarding Father Ratigan and children; the discovery of hundreds of photographs of children on Father Ratigan’s laptop, including a child’s naked vagina, upskirt images and images focused on the crotch; and violations of restrictions placed on Father Ratigan.”
Bishop Finn said in his statement on Friday that he and the diocese had given “complete cooperation” to law enforcement. He also pointed to steps he had taken since the scandal first became public, including commissioning a report to look into the case, and reinforcing procedures for handling allegations of abuse.
That report found that the diocese did not follow its own procedures. It also found that Bishop Finn was “too willing to trust” Father Ratigan.
The case has generated fury at the bishop, a staunch theological conservative who was already a polarizing figure in his diocese. Since the Ratigan case came to light, there have been widespread calls for him to resign.
Contributing to the sense of betrayal is the fact that only three years ago, Bishop Finn settled lawsuits with 47 plaintiffs in sexual abuse cases for $10 million and agreed to a list of 19 preventive measures, among them to immediately report anyone suspected of being a pedophile to the law enforcement authorities.
France may be the only country where a bishop has been convicted for his failure to supervise a priest accused of abuse, said Terrence McKiernan, president of BishopAccountability.org, a victims’ advocacy group that tracks abuse cases.
A grand jury in Philadelphia indicted a top official in the archdiocese there, Msgr. William Lynn, for mishandling cases of abuse. The former archbishop, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, was not indicted, but he has been called to testify.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/u...ted-in-reporting-of-abuse-by-priest.html?_r=1
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A bishop in the Roman Catholic Church has been indicted for failure to report suspected child abuse, the first time in the 25-year history of the church’s sex abuse scandals that the leader of an American diocese has been held criminally liable for the behavior of a priest he supervised.
The indictment of the bishop, Robert W. Finn, and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph by a county grand jury was announced on Friday. Each was charged with one misdemeanor count involving a priest accused of taking pornographic photographs of girls as recently as this year. They pleaded not guilty.
The case caused an uproar among Catholics in Kansas City this year when Bishop Finn acknowledged that he knew of the photographs last December but did not turn them over to the police until May. During that time, the priest, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, is said to have continued to attend church events with children, and took lewd photographs of another young girl.
A decade ago the American bishops pledged to report suspected abusers to law enforcement authorities — a policy also recommended last year by the Vatican. Bishop Finn himself had made such a promise three years ago as part of a $10 million legal settlement with abuse victims in Kansas City.
Though the charge is only a misdemeanor, victims’ advocates immediately hailed the indictment as a breakthrough, saying that until now American bishops have avoided prosecution despite documents showing that in some cases they were aware of abuse.
“This is huge for us,” said Michael Hunter, director of the Kansas City chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and a victim of sexual abuse by a priest. “It’s something that I personally have been waiting for years to see, some real accountability. We’re very pleased with the prosecuting attorney here to have the guts to do it.” The bishop signaled he would fight the charges with all his strength. He said in a statement: “We will meet these announcements with a steady resolve and a vigorous defense.”
The indictment announced on Friday by the Jackson County prosecutor, Jean Peters Baker, had been under seal since Oct. 6 because the bishop was out of the country. He returned on Thursday night.
In a news conference, Ms. Baker said the case was not religiously motivated, but was about the obligation under state law to report child abuse.
“This is about protecting children,” she said.
If convicted Bishop Finn would face a possible fine of up to $1,000 and a jail sentence of up to a year. The diocese faces a possible fine of up to $5,000.
Ms. Baker said that secrecy rules for grand jury proceedings prohibited her from discussing whether other charges were considered, such as child endangerment, a felony. But she said the fact that the bishop faces a single misdemeanor count should not diminish the seriousness.
“To my knowledge a charge like this has not been leveled before,” she said.
It also may not mark the end of the legal troubles facing the diocese in the case, which includes civil and criminal cases in federal court. Last month Bishop Finn and Msgr. Robert Murphy testified before another grand jury in neighboring Clay County. A spokesman for the prosecutor’s office there declined to comment.
The priest accused of taking the lewd photos, Father Ratigan, was a frequent presence in a Catholic elementary school next to his parish. The principal there sent a letter to the diocese in May 2010 complaining about Father Ratigan’s behavior with children. Then, last December, a computer technician discovered the photos on the priest’s laptop and turned the computer in to the diocese. A day later Father Ratigan tried to kill himself. The diocese said that Monsignor Murphy described — but did not share — a single photo of a young girl, nude from the waist down, to a police officer who served on an independent sexual abuse review board for the diocese. The officer said that based on the description it might meet the definition of child pornography, but he did not think it would, the diocese said.
Bishop Finn sent Father Ratigan to live in a convent and told him to avoid contact with minors. But until May the priest attended children’s parties, spent weekends in the homes of parish families, hosted an Easter egg hunt and presided, with the bishop’s permission, at a girl’s First Communion, according to interviews with parishioners and a civil lawsuit filed by a victim’s family.
Parents in the school and parishioners — told only that Father Ratigan had fallen sick from carbon monoxide poisoning — were stunned when he was arrested in May after the diocese called the police. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of taking indecent photographs of young girls.
The new indictment released on Friday said that Bishop Finn and the diocese had reason to suspect that Father Ratigan might subject a child to abuse.
It cited “previous knowledge of concerns regarding Father Ratigan and children; the discovery of hundreds of photographs of children on Father Ratigan’s laptop, including a child’s naked vagina, upskirt images and images focused on the crotch; and violations of restrictions placed on Father Ratigan.”
Bishop Finn said in his statement on Friday that he and the diocese had given “complete cooperation” to law enforcement. He also pointed to steps he had taken since the scandal first became public, including commissioning a report to look into the case, and reinforcing procedures for handling allegations of abuse.
That report found that the diocese did not follow its own procedures. It also found that Bishop Finn was “too willing to trust” Father Ratigan.
The case has generated fury at the bishop, a staunch theological conservative who was already a polarizing figure in his diocese. Since the Ratigan case came to light, there have been widespread calls for him to resign.
Contributing to the sense of betrayal is the fact that only three years ago, Bishop Finn settled lawsuits with 47 plaintiffs in sexual abuse cases for $10 million and agreed to a list of 19 preventive measures, among them to immediately report anyone suspected of being a pedophile to the law enforcement authorities.
France may be the only country where a bishop has been convicted for his failure to supervise a priest accused of abuse, said Terrence McKiernan, president of BishopAccountability.org, a victims’ advocacy group that tracks abuse cases.
A grand jury in Philadelphia indicted a top official in the archdiocese there, Msgr. William Lynn, for mishandling cases of abuse. The former archbishop, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, was not indicted, but he has been called to testify.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/u...ted-in-reporting-of-abuse-by-priest.html?_r=1
Stories like this always make me happy. It shows that the individuals in the church who committ crimes are being well handled by the civil authorities. It is a great example of how church and state can work well together.
so you're saying that religious people don't get cancer?Yeah, in the end atheism worked out real well for him, didnt it??!
I guess when they do, it just means the lord works in mysterious ways.
World's population hits 7 billion
This has a lot to do with why people turn to religion, when you're faced with circumstances that you feel are beyond your control and hopeless , you'll believe anything that someone tells you that will give you hope and an explanation for your situation.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/worlds-population-hits-7-billion-challenges-abound-notably-192557040.html
This has a lot to do with why people turn to religion, when you're faced with circumstances that you feel are beyond your control and hopeless , you'll believe anything that someone tells you that will give you hope and an explanation for your situation.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/worlds-population-hits-7-billion-challenges-abound-notably-192557040.html
THIS morning we salute a 20-year-old soldier who yesterday refused to bow his head during a benediction given at a graduation ceremony at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
But we deplore the fact that the soldier, for fear of repercussions, has felt the need to keep his identity hidden.
Said Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation:
When you stand up like this, you make yourself a tarantula on a wedding cake.
The soldier contacted the foundation on Wednesday after taking part in a rehearsal for the graduation.
He told the watchdog group that during the rehearsal, officials ordered the soldiers to bow their heads and clasp their hands during the chaplain’s benediction. As an atheist, he refused to do so.
He said in an email to the foundation:
I immediately pointed out that not only is a prayer at a public ceremony unconstitutional, but to force someone to give the illusion of religion when the individual does not believe in any religion is blatantly wrong and very illegal.
According to this report, the rest of the platoon “groaned” at the soldier’s stance, but he stood his ground.
Officials at Fort Jackson threatened to pull the soldier from the ceremony but backed downafter hearing that he had contacted the foundation.
Weinstein, describing the soldier’s action as “brave, said:
This is an absolute perfect example of the separation of church and state, and it takes a 20-year-old to stand up and say no.
Fort Jackson claims the soldier’s participation in the graduation ceremony was never in question but is still looking into whether orders were given to bow one’s hands and lower one’s head during the benediction.
Said Patrick Jones, Fort Jackson Public Affairs Officer:
It is not the command’s policy to force anyone to bow their heads and clasp their hands to pray. The Army fully recognizes all faiths or lack thereof.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/10/21/standing-up-for-atheism/
But we deplore the fact that the soldier, for fear of repercussions, has felt the need to keep his identity hidden.
Said Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation:
When you stand up like this, you make yourself a tarantula on a wedding cake.
The soldier contacted the foundation on Wednesday after taking part in a rehearsal for the graduation.
He told the watchdog group that during the rehearsal, officials ordered the soldiers to bow their heads and clasp their hands during the chaplain’s benediction. As an atheist, he refused to do so.
He said in an email to the foundation:
I immediately pointed out that not only is a prayer at a public ceremony unconstitutional, but to force someone to give the illusion of religion when the individual does not believe in any religion is blatantly wrong and very illegal.
According to this report, the rest of the platoon “groaned” at the soldier’s stance, but he stood his ground.
Officials at Fort Jackson threatened to pull the soldier from the ceremony but backed downafter hearing that he had contacted the foundation.
Weinstein, describing the soldier’s action as “brave, said:
This is an absolute perfect example of the separation of church and state, and it takes a 20-year-old to stand up and say no.
Fort Jackson claims the soldier’s participation in the graduation ceremony was never in question but is still looking into whether orders were given to bow one’s hands and lower one’s head during the benediction.
Said Patrick Jones, Fort Jackson Public Affairs Officer:
It is not the command’s policy to force anyone to bow their heads and clasp their hands to pray. The Army fully recognizes all faiths or lack thereof.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/10/21/standing-up-for-atheism/
Catholics Stole 300K Babies From Mothers
(Newser) – A secret network of priests, nuns, and doctors have stolen up to 300,000 babies from mothers in Spain and sold them to other parents, a BBC documentary shows. Their scheme: Tell the mother her baby died in childbirth, and sell the newborn to a more devout and wealthy couple. The practice started in General Franco's dictatorship as an effort to rob politically "dangerous" families of their children, but continued into the 1990s, the Daily Mail reports.
Hundreds of families who lost babies in Spanish hospitals are demanding investigations, but no coordinated probe is underway—so regional prosecutors are plowing through 900 cases. "The situation is incredibly sad for thousands of people," one journalist says. "There is very little political will to get to the bottom of the situation." Among the horrors revealed so far: exhumed baby graves that contain animal bones, and an ice-cold baby corpse—kept by Catholic nurses to show grieving mothers after childbirth.
http://www.newser.com/story/131135/...babies-from-mothers-in-spain-documentary.html
(Newser) – A secret network of priests, nuns, and doctors have stolen up to 300,000 babies from mothers in Spain and sold them to other parents, a BBC documentary shows. Their scheme: Tell the mother her baby died in childbirth, and sell the newborn to a more devout and wealthy couple. The practice started in General Franco's dictatorship as an effort to rob politically "dangerous" families of their children, but continued into the 1990s, the Daily Mail reports.
Hundreds of families who lost babies in Spanish hospitals are demanding investigations, but no coordinated probe is underway—so regional prosecutors are plowing through 900 cases. "The situation is incredibly sad for thousands of people," one journalist says. "There is very little political will to get to the bottom of the situation." Among the horrors revealed so far: exhumed baby graves that contain animal bones, and an ice-cold baby corpse—kept by Catholic nurses to show grieving mothers after childbirth.
http://www.newser.com/story/131135/...babies-from-mothers-in-spain-documentary.html
Forcing your beliefs on others is not religious freedom
First it was doctors who wouldn’t perform abortions and pharmacists who wouldn’t fill prescriptions for contraceptives.
Several years back a Chicago police officer sought an exemption from an assignment to guard an abortion clinic. And most recently, a town clerk in New York state refused to sign the marriage license of a lesbian couple who had every right to marry under the recently passed state law.
In these cases public servants claimed religious exemptions from doing a part of their job under the guise of so-called “conscience clauses”. In each case, “religious freedoms” of public servants have trampled over the rights of the people they took an oath to serve.
Many of the country’s conscience clauses were established after abortion was legalized to allow the religious to abstain from administering the procedure. But the slope has gotten more and more slippery as other public servants have attempted to expand laws that were once confined to health care issues, to all spheres of public life. And the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is one of the biggest proponents of expanding the coverage of “conscience clauses.”
Advocates of the clauses believe they safeguard their religious freedom — that forcing a town clerk to issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple is a violation of the clerk’s rights as a religious person who condemns homosexuality as a sin. It’s a disingenuous interpretation that allows for anyone who wants to force their beliefs on others to call it “religious freedom.” And it’s dangerous.
These conscientious objections—not only in health care, but all spheres of public life—are not a simple matter of individual religious beliefs and rights, because they always affect someone else’s access to care or services.
While these individuals have the right to consider their religious beliefs in determining their own personal medical and social decisions, those personal beliefs cannot be forced on the public, as they pick and choose which services to provide.
As Americans we are guaranteed the right to freedom of religion, but that freedom is limited so that it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. The reality is that the individuals who claim “conscience clause” rights are discriminately denying the patient or individuals to whom they are denying care or services to, the right to practice their own freedom of religion—or non-religion. By denying public access to legally allowed services, they are forcing their beliefs on specific members of the public who don’t share their religious views.
For those who have been denied services, it’s downright insulting and can be humiliating. Such refusals of service may lead to additional costs in time and expenses to the patient or individual who must find a way to obtain the service or care another way. It is simply unacceptable for any one person’s religious view to infringe upon the rights and lives of others, whose choices they may not agree with — especially true in circumstances of public employees or organizations that accept any form of public funding.
New York Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, had it right in his response to the town clerk who refused to issue the marriage license to the lesbian couple. He said, “When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose.”
It’s that simple. If your religious beliefs infringe on your ability to do parts of your work, then it’s time to find another job.
Religious freedom does not mean that you can ignore portions of your job, administer only the portions of the law that you like, deny services to the public based on your personal beliefs or infringe on the rights of another.
What conscience clause advocates need to understand is that freedom of religion is for everyone — not only those who share their religious views.
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/10/20/forcing-your-beliefs-on-others-is-not-religious-freedom/
First it was doctors who wouldn’t perform abortions and pharmacists who wouldn’t fill prescriptions for contraceptives.
Several years back a Chicago police officer sought an exemption from an assignment to guard an abortion clinic. And most recently, a town clerk in New York state refused to sign the marriage license of a lesbian couple who had every right to marry under the recently passed state law.
In these cases public servants claimed religious exemptions from doing a part of their job under the guise of so-called “conscience clauses”. In each case, “religious freedoms” of public servants have trampled over the rights of the people they took an oath to serve.
Many of the country’s conscience clauses were established after abortion was legalized to allow the religious to abstain from administering the procedure. But the slope has gotten more and more slippery as other public servants have attempted to expand laws that were once confined to health care issues, to all spheres of public life. And the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is one of the biggest proponents of expanding the coverage of “conscience clauses.”
Advocates of the clauses believe they safeguard their religious freedom — that forcing a town clerk to issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple is a violation of the clerk’s rights as a religious person who condemns homosexuality as a sin. It’s a disingenuous interpretation that allows for anyone who wants to force their beliefs on others to call it “religious freedom.” And it’s dangerous.
These conscientious objections—not only in health care, but all spheres of public life—are not a simple matter of individual religious beliefs and rights, because they always affect someone else’s access to care or services.
While these individuals have the right to consider their religious beliefs in determining their own personal medical and social decisions, those personal beliefs cannot be forced on the public, as they pick and choose which services to provide.
As Americans we are guaranteed the right to freedom of religion, but that freedom is limited so that it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. The reality is that the individuals who claim “conscience clause” rights are discriminately denying the patient or individuals to whom they are denying care or services to, the right to practice their own freedom of religion—or non-religion. By denying public access to legally allowed services, they are forcing their beliefs on specific members of the public who don’t share their religious views.
For those who have been denied services, it’s downright insulting and can be humiliating. Such refusals of service may lead to additional costs in time and expenses to the patient or individual who must find a way to obtain the service or care another way. It is simply unacceptable for any one person’s religious view to infringe upon the rights and lives of others, whose choices they may not agree with — especially true in circumstances of public employees or organizations that accept any form of public funding.
New York Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, had it right in his response to the town clerk who refused to issue the marriage license to the lesbian couple. He said, “When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose.”
It’s that simple. If your religious beliefs infringe on your ability to do parts of your work, then it’s time to find another job.
Religious freedom does not mean that you can ignore portions of your job, administer only the portions of the law that you like, deny services to the public based on your personal beliefs or infringe on the rights of another.
What conscience clause advocates need to understand is that freedom of religion is for everyone — not only those who share their religious views.
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/10/20/forcing-your-beliefs-on-others-is-not-religious-freedom/
I know you struggle with the english language, but it appears big brother has got you thinking backward logic as well.
Refusing to do something is not forcing your views upon others, it is acting in accordance with your conscience.
Forcing someone to do something that is against their conscience or their religion, that is coercion.
More and more I am convinced you are a frustrated Stalinist. Thank god the world is rejecting your way of thinking about things.
responding to chronic complainer rdl
[I know you struggle with the english language, but it appears big brother has got you thinking backward logic as well.]
criticizing somebody's English language is sign that you are losing the debate
[Refusing to do something is not forcing your views upon others, it is acting in accordance with your conscience.]
freedom of religion does not include discriminating against somebody who don't practice your religion by refusing a legal service they require. if you don't want to do your job find another one
[Forcing someone to do something that is against their conscience or their religion, that is coercion.]
being refused service also goes against one's human rights. nobody forced the relgionists to take the job. if they don't want to perform their duties get another job.
[More and more I am convinced you are a frustrated Stalinist. Thank god the world is rejecting your way of thinking about things. ]
and more and more i am also convinced that you are a frustrated religionist that hate it when non-believers are fighting against having religion imposed on them
[I know you struggle with the english language, but it appears big brother has got you thinking backward logic as well.]
criticizing somebody's English language is sign that you are losing the debate
[Refusing to do something is not forcing your views upon others, it is acting in accordance with your conscience.]
freedom of religion does not include discriminating against somebody who don't practice your religion by refusing a legal service they require. if you don't want to do your job find another one
[Forcing someone to do something that is against their conscience or their religion, that is coercion.]
being refused service also goes against one's human rights. nobody forced the relgionists to take the job. if they don't want to perform their duties get another job.
[More and more I am convinced you are a frustrated Stalinist. Thank god the world is rejecting your way of thinking about things. ]
and more and more i am also convinced that you are a frustrated religionist that hate it when non-believers are fighting against having religion imposed on them
Not a complainer, just calling you out for what you really are. You do have a problem comprehending that and much more to boot..
- Status
