Catholic Hospital says Fetus is not a person

[carlfense]

There are certain people in this country that are starting to believe that they have the right to not have to see any religious symbol or act while in public.

Do you have examples?

[sd'sker]

i respectfully disagree. first, religious freedom is more a freedom from religion.

 

WHAT????

 

Do you rewrite the constitution much?

 

no. i just read it.

[carlfense]

Yes it does.

 

There are certain people in this country that are starting to believe that they have the right to not have to see any religious symbol or act while in public. They believe that the constitution gives them the right FROM religion.

 

Now, if sd really means from his comment that the constitution limits the government from forcing a religion on you...then that is correct. But, that still is freedom OF religion and not FROM religion.

 

Freedom OF religion also protects atheists to believe as they so choose and the government doesn't have the right to force a religion on you.

 

People believe they should not see religious symbols on public buildings/spaces. Such things are a tacit endorsement of a particular religion. There is a difference between this and people "believe that they have the right to not have to see any religious symbol or act while in public." You are free to go to the park and drop to your knees and pray to Jesus. People might look at you funny, but no one is going to stop you.

 

Exactly. And some people tend to confuse the two and argue that because the government cannot promote a religion that public prayer is banned. That is not correct.

[sd'sker]

Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

 

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

this better explains exactly what i was saying earlier.

[T_O_Bull]

This was on Gawker a week or two ago. I was surprised I didn't see more about it.

 

I'm surprised the Dioceses allowed their legal team to use that defense. Money talks, I guess.

Money always talks. Donate enough to a politation and you have a "friend" in a high place. Initiate a lawsuit against the church and out come the big guns that will steam roll you. An incredible shame, this man looses his wife and children and even though the twins could have been saved all he hears is, "Oh well, too bad. They weren't really people anyway." Crap, crap and CRAP!

T_O_B

[sd'sker]

This was on Gawker a week or two ago. I was surprised I didn't see more about it.

 

I'm surprised the Dioceses allowed their legal team to use that defense. Money talks, I guess.

Money always talks. Donate enough to a politation and you have a "friend" in a high place. Initiate a lawsuit against the church and out come the big guns that will steam roll you. An incredible shame, this man looses his wife and children and even though the twins could have been saved all he hears is, "Oh well, too bad. They weren't really people anyway." Crap, crap and CRAP!

T_O_B

this pretty much says everything that needs to be said about the original post. well said.

[Undone]

Agreed, T_O_B and sd'sker.

 

Preface - I'm not Catholic. I tend to feel like there isn't any kind of a problem just admitting that the Catholic faith and the legal department of this hospital can be two different things. And most likely are. That's why I was a little surprised to see a discussion break out over hypocrisy.

 

I am Christian. And I'll just go ahead and admit it - the church (at large) needs to learn how to admit when it's wrong. But I don't see any contradiction there - human beings get it wrong. A lot. That's a whole different discussion altogether, probably.

 

If the administration of this hospital truly engendered charity of the Christian ideal, let's be honest: They'd deal generously with this poor man and the devastating circumstance he finds himself in. Is that judgmental of me? Probably. But it seems obvious.

[BigRedBuster]

Undone,

 

Can't disagree with you on that.

 

To everyone else on the "freedom from religion" issue.

 

Maybe we are saying the same thing but using different terminology. Can we agree on:

 

a) The constitution limits the government on picking one religion and promoting that religion.

b) The general public has the freedom to practice what ever religion they so choose.

 

If that is what we agree on, then we are agreeing that the general public has the freedom OF religion. They have the freedom to practice what ever religion they so choose and the government doesn't have the right to tell them they can't. That also holds true with belief systems like atheism.

 

Now, That DOES NOT prohibit someone like a politician falling back on his religious beliefs when doing his job of running the government. If that religion does not believe in something, I would suspect that that politician would vote in the manner that is in accordance with his religious belief. That isn't "forcing his religion on anyone". It is simply using his values and morals to vote in the manner he sees fit.

[carlfense]

I tend to feel like there isn't any kind of a problem just admitting that the Catholic faith and the legal department of this hospital can be two different things. And most likely are.

That would raise more issues of hypocrisy . . .

[Undone]

That was actually my point. It is hypocritical.

[carlfense]

That was actually my point. It is hypocritical.

My point was that the argument would be:

1. The Catholic affiliated hospital and the Catholic legal defense team acting on their behalf are both separate and distinct from the Catholic Church when arguing what is or isn't a human life.

 

but . . .

 

2. The Catholic affiliated hospital is essentially claiming to be part of the Catholic Church when talking about the contraceptives mandate.

[Undone]

Absolutely, agreed.

 

I didn't follow much of this thread after the health insurance mandate stuff got brought up.

[sd'sker]

Undone,

 

Can't disagree with you on that.

 

To everyone else on the "freedom from religion" issue.

 

Maybe we are saying the same thing but using different terminology. Can we agree on:

 

a) The constitution limits the government on picking one religion and promoting that religion.

b) The general public has the freedom to practice what ever religion they so choose.

 

If that is what we agree on, then we are agreeing that the general public has the freedom OF religion. They have the freedom to practice what ever religion they so choose and the government doesn't have the right to tell them they can't. That also holds true with belief systems like atheism.

 

Now, That DOES NOT prohibit someone like a politician falling back on his religious beliefs when doing his job of running the government. If that religion does not believe in something, I would suspect that that politician would vote in the manner that is in accordance with his religious belief. That isn't "forcing his religion on anyone". It is simply using his values and morals to vote in the manner he sees fit.

yes, i agree. and it does get dicey. there is also a difference in morals (which can be secular or motivated by religion) and religious beliefs, even though they can come to the same conclusions (e.g., you can be secular and against abortion).

[JJ Husker]

 

yes, i agree. and it does get dicey. there is also a difference in morals (which can be secular or motivated by religion) and religious beliefs, even though they can come to the same conclusions (e.g., you can be secular and against abortion).

I would agree with all that except I don't think it matters what motivates a persons morals. No difference if they come from religion or if you're secular, it is still that persons belief structure. Using your example, I am against most abortions by both ways of reckoning. The religious basis for that doesn't need an explanation but the secular reason is definitely why I am most opposed to it. I simply believe that life begins at conception. That is based on science, that is when the cells start to divide and will become a human being if not interferred with and if not naturally miscarried. I just don't see a difference whether that life is in the womb or in a stroller. I'm not real big on doing or accepting anything just because somebody in an Ivory tower in Vatican City, or whereever, deems that is the way it should be. And I don't agree that there shouldn't be any exceptions to the rule. I guess that is part of what is most frustrating when discussing abortion with pro-choicers. They assume my position must be religion based and it really isn't. I see no substantial difference between me killing my annoying neighbor (don't worry-this is hypothetical only) simply because he is a nuisance or some woman who did not exercise enough personal responsibility to prevent becoming pregnant and subsequently solves that inconvenience by killing her baby. Sorry-rambling way off the thread subject here.

[sd'sker]

 

yes, i agree. and it does get dicey. there is also a difference in morals (which can be secular or motivated by religion) and religious beliefs, even though they can come to the same conclusions (e.g., you can be secular and against abortion).

I would agree with all that except I don't think it matters what motivates a persons morals. No difference if they come from religion or if you're secular, it is still that persons belief structure.

i must have misrepresented my point, but i agree with what you said. but you can not legislate morals without justification beyond religion. it is a sin to kill someone, but i do not think that is why it is illegal. that was my point.