liberty medical school <facepalm>

[normtheniner]

It's not disgust for creationism per se. As people keep reiterating, this is not about beliefs, and it seems to me that most posters feel that everyone is entitled to subscribe to the faith (or lack thereof) of their choosing.

The point is that creationism should never be mentioned in the same sentence with words like science or biology. Things only get scary when fairy tales get proposed as viable alternatives to evidenced based theories. This is not a religious forum, and the proposed institution is not going to be handing out degrees in religious philosophy. Medicine is a biological science, and creationism is not a biological concept.

But I highly doubt they'll integrate any conflicting information with the medical curriculum at this school. They have to adhere to what the accrediting body says has to be taught, and they'll teach it how it should be taught for the students to pass boards. And if these students don't regurgitate the information necessary to pass the COMLEX or USMLE they won't pass... its as simple as that.

While I'm sure the antibiotic comment above was a joke, what would you do if you did hear something along these lines? We talked about stuff like this all the time in my first semester of medical ethics, and everything is centered around patient autonomy, if they said something crazy like this and they weren't psychotic, they could walk out of your office and you'd have to deal with it....everything is about patient autonomy.

Frankly I'm not worried about it from their religious affiliation as much as I'm worried about how this is more seats that will compete for a supply of residencies that isn't growing equally as much.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[eccentric jet]

I suspect you're right regarding having to meet various accreditation standards, and I admit I know very little about Liberty University and the true content of their science curriculum. Forgive me my presumptions, but I guess my telomeres just shrivel any time that creationism or intelligent design are presented alongside the theory of evolution as comparable entities. It just seems that any life science degree obtained via an institution that openly denounces such a basic, integral concept is somehow suspect.

As far as the patient example, you don't have to get far into clinical rotations to realize that people believe what they want to believe, and it often influences their healthcare decisions and outcomes. All you can do is offer them their options and your best evidence-based recommendations, while respecting their beliefs and values.

 

[TriagePreMed]

I'm sorry to say that you have a lot of growing up to do before anyone is going to take your side of things seriously. If you're to succeed in the medical field you have to understand you are going to cross the path of many people with different beliefs. The most sacred of those, for most, is their religious beliefs.

If someone at Liberty believes in young earth creationism then that is their own decision to make. Who are you to belittle their religion by calling them a loon? Further, to blanket an entire campus with a statement like that is ridiculous.

I don't believe in young earth creationism. However, I have enough respect for individuals who do to realize that's their own personal choice and I have no grounds upon which to call them out on it.

Sorry for calling you out. However, it needed to be said.

There's a difference between what I would say to a patient or a colleague and what's said on the internet. Since I don't seek approval here, it doesn't matter at all who is on my side.

I don't care if these are your "religious beliefs." It's like the mormons that posthumously baptized Ann Frank. It's crazy to believe that. The overwhelming amount of evidence from all fields of science is against the young earth creationism, and I don't believe I need to be apologetic to anyone with ignorant beliefs only because they want to believe it and label it "religion" and they think it's "sacred." So the answer to "who am I?" is the one on the side of the truth. You're on the side of being an apologist for ignorance.

Don't say sorry for "calling me out." Say whatever you want to say. That's what I'm doing.

Alright buddy. I think you're being pretty ridiculous.

You can call me ridiculous, but seriously, how can you even say that evolution is not "practically important" if you haven't received a proper education on it? How can you expect anyone to take your university seriously when you have factually dishonest and unscientific classes such as creation studies? Look, calling you a "loon" is more of a joke than what I actually believe about you, but you have to understand that this is how you guys come off to the rational majority in the sciences. Just because you've grown up to see it "normal," doesn't mean it is for everyone else. Seriously, your state was pretty much calling for state-sponsored rape of women that wanted abortions, so saying you wouldn't be accredited if you weren't a normal school is meaningless.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Also... some of the disgust for creationism people are showing is a little scary. Not because they reject it, but because they can't accept that some people hold this view. You're going to have patients who hold this opinion, and it may affect the decisions they make about their healthcare...

Let me make it clear I would NEVER, ever give any substandard care or even bother to even try to get into a discussion on this with a patient in my entire life. People are allowed to hold and believe whatever crazy thing they want. My job will simply be their health care, and if they don't want to have a medical procedure due to their religion, totally their right and could care less. My job is very specific, and 0% of it has to do with their belief system. So even if I'm abrasive here with anonymous medical students, there's a difference with patient interaction.

 

[scotchtapetest]

Just to summarize the debate:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PDZTveY4uQ[/YOUTUBE]

"The problem is when you try too hard to apply science to religion, both come off looking ridiculous." Lewis Black

 

[SpecterGT260]

I agree with that. the embryology in the quran thread shows the irrelevance of trying to take interpretation and push it as fact.

 

[toxicwombat]

I suspect you're right regarding having to meet various accreditation standards, and I admit I know very little about Liberty University and the true content of their science curriculum. Forgive me my presumptions, but I guess my telomeres just shrivel any time that creationism or intelligent design are presented alongside the theory of evolution as comparable entities. It just seems that any life science degree obtained via an institution that openly denounces such a basic, integral concept is somehow suspect.

As far as the patient example, you don't have to get far into clinical rotations to realize that people believe what they want to believe, and it often influences their healthcare decisions and outcomes. All you can do is offer them their options and your best evidence-based recommendations, while respecting their beliefs and values.

Well said.

 

[impact2d]

Ok, I just have to throw in here...we are acting like D.O. schools are the first to every think of affiliating a medical school with a faith based undergrad. Also, there is a difference between strict creationism and intelligent design. Evolution only brings us back to the first single celled organism-even among evolutionists where that cell came from is heavily debated.

A quick google search revealed that many/most private MD schools are affiliated with christian undergrads that also have seminaries attached:
Baylor-heavily christian texas MD school (US News Top 25 for research, and baptist just like Liberty)
Loyola and Creighton- another great University,Jesuit tradition, still have seminaries attached.

Now the academic reputation is another story, Liberty is not very reputable. If SMU (a school owned by the southern methodist commission and is ranked #62 on US News ahead of Vtech, Syracuse, and Baylor etc) wanted to reopen their medical school as a DO school its secretarian background would not be an issue. I would be happy to finally have a top University affiliated with DO school-It's better than can be said for most of the new MD or DO programs.

Also, not all those that believe in intelligent design, believe it in the nonsensical way as others-even Einstein believed in some semblance of a God who's existence basically could be defined as the unifying theory of science. For example gap theorist don't believe in the whole 10,000 year timeline. The christian school I went to taught this theory as well as evolution and theistic evolution.

That said, D.O.'s aren't the only ones popping up left and right, Look at some of the non ranked or poorly ranked universities who have been granted some form of applicant, candidate, or provisional accreditation from LCME

FIU (not ranked US NEWS),
FAU (not ranked US news)
Central MIchigan ( not ranked US NEWS)
The even have a FOR PROFIT (like RVU) with applicant status, it's a joke: http://www.palmbeachmedicalcollege.com/
Hofstra (tier 2 university) started an MD school,
Riverside CA is starting one,
Quinnipiac-again what hospital are they going to rotate through. The area is already loaded with MD and DO programs
Scranton (commonwealth). I mean look at commonwealth, all community rotation, no affiliation with anything closely resembling a University Hosptial, no chance for away rotations, pretty much all primary care clinicals or clinicals (not that primary care is bad-I just mean lack of clinical exposure to make them good PC docs) at extremely small community hospitals with no PG programs.

I am just tired of seeing all the whining about D.O.'s are degree mills popping up left and right, with unreputable schools supporting them. I mean just look at all of the MD schools doing the same. Here is the exhaustive list: http://www.lcme.org/newschoolprocess.htm


The government said to expand, so they are expanding...both DO and MD.

 

[scotchtapetest]

_

The last half of your post has nothing to do with this thread.... The only person who has said anything about MD vs. DO or has talked about the opening of new schools in this thread is you.... If that's something you want to discuss start a new thread... Otherwise stick to the topic at hand which is specifically about Liberty starting a medical school...

Also, future readers please do not turn this into another MD vs. DO thread as it has nothing to do with the thread and just ignore the second half of the above post

 

[impact2d]

See below, quoted to show sources

 

[impact2d]

This can't be allowed to happen. If D.O.s expect to be treated as equals to M.D.s we can't allow a school supported by the tobacco commission to open. On top of that to be affiliated with a university that is famous for its stance against evolution is a double embarrassment. It makes a mockery of our profession and makes all D.O.s and D.O. students look bad. Who ever is in charge of deciding what schools are allowed to open must squash this idea ASAP!

I'd rather the profession maintain some sort of integrity than have to explain my degree...

Is William Carey University as extreme as Liberty?

That train left the station a long time ago. It is only a matter of time before the US Dept of Education turns over accreditation of DO schools to the LCME, since COCA is a joke. Maybe that will bring about the final merger of the two degrees and force the diploma mills to close, go chiropractic, whatever.

We are well on our way to ending up in the same dilemma that law students are currently in: Churning out far too many graduates for the number of jobs available, leaving people with a lot of student loan debt they can't pay off.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/...long_will_it_last_if_law_grads_cant_pay_bills

I have worked with doctors who didn't believe in evolution or that denied global warming. That doesn't mean that someone is clinically incompetent of course, but it does make you wonder if they really are scientifically literate. I think it does tarnish the academic reputation of our profession when we affiliate ourselves with scientifically dubious viewpoints.
(But then again I am someone who wishes that Cranial OMM was no longer taught).
When you already are fighting a stigma against the perception that DOs are the intellectual inferiors of MDs, this kind of stuff is just asking for people to have negative perceptions of our profession and it would be very irresponsible for the DO leadership to give approval to this project.

Maybe they should make DO's pass the USMLE. That would be a nice wake up call for some of these new start up schools who's goal is to get their students to eek out a 400 comlex score in order to graduate. I think osteopathic students should be held to the same standards as our MD colleagues, else we are going to make fools of our profession with this mass influx of semi-qualified students entering new glass house medical schools. I don't want to be associated with graduates like this. Maybe I'm being selfish, but the future of our profession looks to be in for some embarrassment unless COCA can get their act together and start having some control about what it should take to open up a new school.

Taking these posts into account, how was my above post irrelevant to the thread? I was simply providing an answer to the idea that the fact that COCA is accrediting many new schools and potentially one affiliated to a christian school is in fact, not very different than what the LCME is allowing. It seems bala, that perhaps you did not read or remember the whole thread. However, you are right that the last sentence of my thread was irrelevant, and should be stricken from the record lol.

So please continue your evolution vs. intelligent design debate as if that is not beating a dead horse.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Ok, I just have to throw in here...we are acting like D.O. schools are the first to every think of affiliating a medical school with a faith based undergrad. Also, there is a difference between strict creationism and intelligent design. Evolution only brings us back to the first single celled organism-even among evolutionists where that cell came from is heavily debated.

"Intelligent designed" is just re-packaged creationism. The courts have even commented on this, so it's not the opinion of just some random internet people.

The problem is not religious affiliation. Marian University, a very catholic school, is opening its doors next year. Nobody is protesting the religious affiliation. The problem with Liberty is that they deny aspects of proven science if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. How can we safely say that they won't instruct their students on false information about abortion or another number of medical topics that the religious right hates? You can't be associated with crazy fanatics. It's simply counter-productive.

 

[Cinclus]

A quick google search revealed that many/most private MD schools are affiliated with christian undergrads that also have seminaries attached:
Baylor-heavily christian texas MD school (US News Top 25 for research, and baptist just like Liberty)
Loyola and Creighton- another great University,Jesuit tradition, still have seminaries attached.

Nope. Baylor College of Medicine has no religious affiliation. It separated from Baylor University and became an independent institution in 1969. Also, I heart BCM.

 

[gdfernan]

It is the anti-religious bigotry by the militant atheists that is producing so much hate on this topic.

 

[eccentric jet]

It is the anti-religious bigotry by the militant atheists that is producing so much hate on this topic.

Evolution is not an anti-religious nor atheist concept. Being religious/spiritual does not preclude one from acknowledging that evolution is a legitimate scientific theory while creationism is a bedtime story without any logical or rational basis.

I really don't think anyone here is attacking religion outright (well, except maybe the posthumous baptism of Anne Frank, which, let's face it, is just absurd), but objecting to the denouncement of evolution by an institution that might be teaching future doctors medical science.

 

[eccentric jet]

militant atheists

In my experience it's the people trying to legitimize and promote their particular ingrained religious bents that tend to be the most fervent.

I subscribe to the keep your religion to yourself (and thereby out of government, public schools, and science textbooks) policy. Why do people have such a hard time with this?

 

[FrkyBgStok]

I subscribe to the keep your religion to yourself (and thereby out of government, public schools, and science textbooks) policy. Why do people have such a hard time with this?

+1

 

[gdfernan]

I subscribe to the keep your religion to yourself (and thereby out of government, public schools, and science textbooks) policy. Why do people have such a hard time with this?

If only people like Richard Dawkins etc followed the same rule. But in the true militant atheist fashion, it is one rule for us and a different rule for others...

 

[scarshapedstar]

If only people like Richard Dawkins etc followed the same rule. But in the true militant atheist fashion, it is one rule for us and a different rule for others...

How exactly does Richard Dawkins exert influence over government, public schools, or science textbooks?

I mean, I think The Selfish Gene should be required reading for basically everyone, but it isn't. You do see the difference between writing books that anyone can choose to read and writing books that children are forced to read, don't you? Right?

 

[TriagePreMed]

If only people like Richard Dawkins etc followed the same rule. But in the true militant atheist fashion, it is one rule for us and a different rule for others...

What exactly is "militant" atheists? All I see Richard Dawkins doing is expressing his opinions. It's as easy as ignoring him, whereas militant religions are changing governments, dictating moral rules, spreading disease by misinformation on condoms, murdering newspaper comics artists, suicide bombing, killing abortion doctors, etc. I could go on a million years. Bringing the topic of religion to the table and questioning it isn't militant.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

If only people like Richard Dawkins etc followed the same rule. But in the true militant atheist fashion, it is one rule for us and a different rule for others...

Atheist are generally the most tolerant people on the planet. A militant atheist (I would guess) would be trying to overthrow churches or to destroy the vatican. This is ridiculous. Science doesn't fight to be in religion, but religion does fight to be in science. There is no militancy at all. If fundamentalist took the catholic stance, as in "this is science, this is religion, they don't cross over" then no one would be bitching. And the religious have this umbrella statement saying evolution is false, but this "evolution" they speak of covers cosmology, astronomy, biology, chemistry, archeology, etc. Basically, anything that is against the literal interpretation of the bible is fought to be dis proven.

And this is all because people can't say the "the bible may not 100% true." but it isn't. In addition, you can't expect science to stop pushing forward when people say "don't do that because it isn't right. we have absolutely nothing to disprove you and no science of our own, but this 2000 year old book says no to." science needs more.

but all of that rambling is moot. the important take home from this is: if fundamentalists would stop trying to put unproven, untestable ideas within the science curriculum and call it science, people wouldn't bitch about it. and even though triage is at the radical end of the spectrum, I agree with him. If a school supports the idea of putting untestable ideas in science, they don't know science and they shouldn't be teaching it, because it will only breed bad science.

 

[Kevin Baker]

Science doesn't fight to be in religion, but religion does fight to be in science. There is no militancy at all.

Seriously? Atheists are just like every other group of people on the planet. There are countless examples of militancy and trying to get involved with religion. What do you call the recent birth control debacle? Or even the tone of this thread. Scarb just said a few posts ago he/she feels an atheist book should be required reading.

Regardless of who is "right" and who is "wrong", there isn't much of a "live and let live" attitude in either camp. Both sides shove their agenda down the others throat. You'd think atheists might be a bit more tolerant as they've seen the other side of intolerance. I'm reminded of that South Park episode where the different camps of atheists fight against each other over who is more tolerant. I used to proudly call myself an atheist but I try to distance myself because of the smugness on that side. Imo, it's been hijacked by adolescent teen rebels and intolerant adults who simply want to act out on their former oppressors.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I think the birth control thing is an example of religion going places it doesnt need to go.... not atheists...

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Militant Christian: kills abortions
Militant Muslims: blow up buildings
Militant atheist: give lectures and advocate science..... Wait...

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Also atheism in my opinion it is a spectrum, not a group. You have mild theistic agnosticism to strong anti-theism.
I will agree it has been hijacked by rebel teens who believe that atheism will make them look cool or smart. But that means very little, atheism is not a community, not a group, what one atheist does has no relation to another atheist.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

Seriously? Atheists are just like every other group of people on the planet. There are countless examples of militancy and trying to get involved with religion. What do you call the recent birth control debacle? Or even the tone of this thread. Scarb just said a few posts ago he/she feels an atheist book should be required reading.

Regardless of who is "right" and who is "wrong", there isn't much of a "live and let live" attitude in either camp. Both sides shove their agenda down the others throat. You'd think atheists might be a bit more tolerant as they've seen the other side of intolerance. I'm reminded of that South Park episode where the different camps of atheists fight against each other over who is more tolerant. I used to proudly call myself an atheist but I try to distance myself because of the smugness on that side. Imo, it's been hijacked by adolescent teen rebels and intolerant adults who simply want to act out on their former oppressors.

i was going to argue this post, but serenade and specter summed it up well, but I will agree with the last point. I am not an atheist (but I am adamantly against religion forced on others in any way) but I do think there are two camps of atheists. 1) the science ones that fight against religion encroaching on science and let others be as long as they don't cross the first part, and 2) the people that are only atheists because it is "cool." I have a lot of respect for 1 but not much for 2.

Also atheism in my opinion it is a spectrum, not a group. You have mild theistic agnosticism to strong anti-theism.
I will agree it has been hijacked by rebel teens who believe that atheism will make them look cool or smart. But that means very little, atheism is not a community, not a group, what one atheist does has no relation to another atheist.

Agreed. Same with christians, muslims, hindus, etc. There are some who are radicals that make everyone else look like fools, and there are some that are religious enough to not be atheist.

 

[Cinclus]

Seriously? Atheists are just like every other group of people on the planet. There are countless examples of militancy and trying to get involved with religion. What do you call the recent birth control debacle? Or even the tone of this thread. Scarb just said a few posts ago he/she feels an atheist book should be required reading.

What, The Selfish Gene? That's not an atheist book; it's a science book that happens to be written by an atheist.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Seriously? Atheists are just like every other group of people on the planet. There are countless examples of militancy and trying to get involved with religion. What do you call the recent birth control debacle? Or even the tone of this thread. Scarb just said a few posts ago he/she feels an atheist book should be required reading.

Regardless of who is "right" and who is "wrong", there isn't much of a "live and let live" attitude in either camp. Both sides shove their agenda down the others throat. You'd think atheists might be a bit more tolerant as they've seen the other side of intolerance. I'm reminded of that South Park episode where the different camps of atheists fight against each other over who is more tolerant. I used to proudly call myself an atheist but I try to distance myself because of the smugness on that side. Imo, it's been hijacked by adolescent teen rebels and intolerant adults who simply want to act out on their former oppressors.

What recent birth control debacle? The thing with Catholics? That was supported by more Catholics and religious people than opposed, and how does birth control have to do with atheism? Sorry, but it seems that you're confused about what atheism and what secularism means. Lets not forget that the founding fathers, largely deistic and some protestant, were those that promoted and established a secular government.

 

[Kevin Baker]

What recent birth control debacle? The thing with Catholics? That was supported by more Catholics and religious people than opposed, and how does birth control have to do with atheism? Sorry, but it seems that you're confused about what atheism and what secularism means. Lets not forget that the founding fathers, largely deistic and some protestant, were those that promoted and established a secular government.

I don't care if 99.999% of self described catholics believe in BC (I think the number is closer to 90%) . To mandate a religion individually pay for something that is anathema to that religion goes against the spirit, if not the text as currently interpreted, of the 1st amendment. You're right that this is a secularism versus religion debate though. My issue is with the plethora of atheists who argue "hurr durr Catholics refuse to do something obviously good, let's force them to supply BC even if it's anathema to their teachings. Religion is super lame". Rarely in that debate did I hear someone mention 1st amendment issues, or even respecting religion. It was all about telling them what to do and was yet another example of religious intolerance by atheists (and others).

Live and let live. There are a lot of complex issues involved in the BC debate but the lack of mutual respect, or even tolerance, from one camp to another really annoys me.

 

[TriagePreMed]

I don't care if 99.999% of self described catholics believe in BC (I think the number is closer to 90%) . To mandate a religion individually pay for something that is anathema to that religion goes against the spirit, if not the text as currently interpreted, of the 1st amendment. You're right that this is a secularism versus religion debate though. My issue is with the plethora of atheists who argue "hurr durr Catholics refuse to do something obviously good, let's force them to supply BC even if it's anathema to their teachings. Religion is super lame". Rarely in that debate did I hear someone mention 1st amendment issues, or even respecting religion. It was all about telling them what to do and was yet another example of religious intolerance by atheists (and others).

Live and let live. There are a lot of complex issues involved in the BC debate but the lack of mutual respect, or even tolerance, from one camp to another really annoys me.

So you're saying that the interpretation of 10% in the Catholic religion should go against the 90% interpretation of the religion? Also, you have to realize this is for employees at hospitals and schools, so you're denying health care to people who may not even be of your religion. But the issue gets larger. What about when it's not contraception? What about when they oppose vaccines or other things because they might deem them demonic? Either places of business play by the rules of the secular government, or they should simply close their doors, especially if they receive federal and state funding like these places through medicare/medicaid. If they truly don't want to give contraceptives, then they shouldn't take any government money and make it clear from the moment of employment that they may deny any time of health care that they may deem "unreligious."

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

If it is FDA approved, the insurance plan should have to cover it. That's the bottom line on the BC thing. Catholic hospitals hire Muslim, Lutheran, and Atheist nurses, aides, etc, those people should not have to be pushed into the Catholic belief system because of their employer (read religious discrimination)....

As for the rest, bacteria evolve every minute of every day, so do many things. Last time I checked, militant religious people don't evolve at all. They are exactly the same as they have been for the last 2000yrs... Evolution isn't a theory, it is a scientifically provable concept. Dogs/coyotes (dogs=wolves, so that is moot), horses/zebra/donkeys, lynx/bobcats, lions/tigers, ALL can interbreed, that is how similar they are, we accept they are all related and similar, but yet, these people cannot accept humans and apes are? Get real! If this school isn't willing to teach real science, they shouldn't be allowed to form, much less be accredited....

Oh, and Loma Linda, very religious school/med school!

 

[AntsMarching44]

(well, except maybe the posthumous baptism of Anne Frank, which, let's face it, is just absurd)

As an LDS member I'd just like to say that the religious doctrine of baptism for the dead is not nearly as random or whacky as a lot of the media coverage has painted it. Living family members of deceased individuals perform the ordinance by proxy. It's not as if we believe that automatically makes the deceased person Mormon, just that if they choose to accept the ordinance in the hereafter, the individual can make that choice. Furthermore, pretty much all of the famous historical figures have probably had their baptisms done by some living LDS member somewhere in the world....we don't believe that it automatically makes anyone Mormon, just gives the deceased individual the opportunity in the hereafter if they choose. It's a documented Christian practice from the New Testament that we continue to believe in today.

 

[AntsMarching44]

Additionally, and as a faithful Mormon, I believe in empirical science, I listen to rap music, I like caffeinated soda, and I wear pants when its cold and shorts when its hot.

 

[rad0nc]

I wear pants when its cold and shorts when its hot.

. . . and magic underwear all day long

 

[AntsMarching44]

. . . and magic underwear all day long

My underwear is only magic when I wash them in potion from Diagon Ally...

 

[deleted432032]

My underwear is only magic when I wash them in potion from Diagon Ally...

I guess it was only a matter time before a reference of this nature was brough into the discussion

 

[SpecterGT260]

As an LDS member I'd just like to say that the religious doctrine of baptism for the dead is not nearly as random or whacky as a lot of the media coverage has painted it. Living family members of deceased individuals perform the ordinance by proxy. It's not as if we believe that automatically makes the deceased person Mormon, just that if they choose to accept the ordinance in the hereafter, the individual can make that choice. Furthermore, pretty much all of the famous historical figures have probably had their baptisms done by some living LDS member somewhere in the world....we don't believe that it automatically makes anyone Mormon, just gives the deceased individual the opportunity in the hereafter if they choose. It's a documented Christian practice from the New Testament that we continue to believe in today.

ive got an honest question then..... why did the mormon church decide to do this for Anne Frank over..... anyone... anyone at all who has died since the inception of the church?

I could potentially see jewish people getting fairly offended by another religion or culture claiming ownership (at least by a given perspective...)

I don't know if this commutes, but lets say you have a daughter who dies and a prominent chinese cultural group holds a public ghost marriage for her. Would you find this offensive? It is a pretty direct parallel IMO to the anne frank deal

 

[gdfernan]

So you're saying that the interpretation of 10% in the Catholic religion should go against the 90% interpretation of the religion? Also, you have to realize this is for employees at hospitals and schools, so you're denying health care to people who may not even be of your religion. But the issue gets larger. What about when it's not contraception? What about when they oppose vaccines or other things because they might deem them demonic? Either places of business play by the rules of the secular government, or they should simply close their doors, especially if they receive federal and state funding like these places through medicare/medicaid. If they truly don't want to give contraceptives, then they shouldn't take any government money and make it clear from the moment of employment that they may deny any time of health care that they may deem "unreligious."

If the employees really really want healthcare with contraception, what is to prevent them from going to a place where they will get it. Liberals/atheist always seem very keen to push their dogma down peoples throats, all the while claiming to be tolerant.

 

[gdfernan]

Militant Christian: kills abortions
Militant Muslims: blow up buildings
Militant atheist: give lectures and advocate science..... Wait...

How nice. Maybe you have been to the nice lectures of the following atheists
Stalin - Militant atheist kills millions
Pol pot - Ditto
Mao - Ditto
In the US, the Columbine murderers and the environmental terrorists.

 

[FutureDoctorrrr]

It's not disgust for creationism per se. As people keep reiterating, this is not about beliefs, and it seems to me that most posters feel that everyone is entitled to subscribe to the faith (or lack thereof) of their choosing.

The point is that creationism should never be mentioned in the same sentence with words like science or biology. Things only get scary when fairy tales get proposed as viable alternatives to evidenced based theories. This is not a religious forum, and the proposed institution is not going to be handing out degrees in religious philosophy. Medicine is a biological science, and creationism is not a biological concept.

 

[AntsMarching44]

ive got an honest question then..... why did the mormon church decide to do this for Anne Frank over..... anyone... anyone at all who has died since the inception of the church?

I could potentially see jewish people getting fairly offended by another religion or culture claiming ownership (at least by a given perspective...)

I don't know if this commutes, but lets say you have a daughter who dies and a prominent chinese cultural group holds a public ghost marriage for her. Would you find this offensive? It is a pretty direct parallel IMO to the anne frank deal

Well lets separate the two questions. First, the LDS Church leadership didn't decided to baptize Anne Frank...what happens in the church with regards to baptisms for the dead is that some individual living church member decides to perform the ordinance by proxy. So, it's not as if the leaders of our church got together and decided to baptize anyone in particular. I truly hope the majority of Jewish people isn't offended by our religion's beliefs regarding baptism for the dead.

Second, I can honestly say if the situation was reversed, I wouldn't care if another religious group performed an ordinance I didn't believe in; however, I don't speak for everyone. If I pray for all the starving people in Africa, I wouldn't expect the large Muslim population there to become offended at my Christian prayer.

What I think needs to be made clear is that we don't believe that anyone who is posthumously baptized by our church automatically becomes a Mormon.

 

[eccentric jet]

How nice. Maybe you have been to the nice lectures of the following atheists
Stalin - Militant atheist kills millions
Pol pot - Ditto
Mao - Ditto
In the US, the Columbine murderers and the environmental terrorists.

Anyone can pick out nutjobs from history who happened to be one religion or another. But I don't think anyone would argue about the ridiculous number of people killed IN THE NAME of organized religion.

And Ants, your explanation of Anne Frank's baptism did nothing to temper its absurdity.

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

Hitler=Christian
KKK=Christian
Neo-Nazi=Christian
How many people have they killed, maimed, tortured, beaten in the name of Christianity? Hitler, I think he takes the cake for killing a massive amount of people... All the atheists mentioned I don't think add up to the number he killed...

 

[scotchtapetest]

How nice. Maybe you have been to the nice lectures of the following atheists
Stalin - Militant atheist kills millions
Pol pot - Ditto
Mao - Ditto
In the US, the Columbine murderers and the environmental terrorists.

Atheism by definition only means the rejection of the existence of god/gods/deities. There are no other requirements/teachings/beliefs/books/etc. Therefore, you can not blame what atheists do on atheism. That's like saying Stalin, Pol and Mao had black hair and a penis, therefore, people with black hair and a penis are militants/murders.

The people you mentioned didn't kill people because of their "atheist beliefs" or "atheist teachings" but they were killers who happened to not believe in God(s). For every murderer you name who happens to be an atheist, one can name at least a 1,000 who were not atheists. They killed people to advance their self-interest. On the other hand the religious extremists use the teachings of their faith to justify their acts. The abortion clinic bomber's only reason to engage in what s/he does, is his/her religion. Without the teachings (or misinterpretation of such teachings) s/he had no other reason to blow up abortion clinics. Now, one could argue that they are misinterpreting those teachings but nonetheless that's the difference.

 

[TriagePreMed]

If the employees really really want healthcare with contraception, what is to prevent them from going to a place where they will get it. Liberals/atheist always seem very keen to push their dogma down peoples throats, all the while claiming to be tolerant.

It's about the fact that it isn't monetarily covered by the health plan. It's not about direct access. Please become familiar with the issue first. "My religion is against blood transfusions, so I won't pay for them. What's to stop you from getting blood? Intolerant atheists!"

How nice. Maybe you have been to the nice lectures of the following atheists
Stalin - Militant atheist kills millions
Pol pot - Ditto
Mao - Ditto
In the US, the Columbine murderers and the environmental terrorists.

And not a single one of their atrocities done in the name of atheism, as opposed to say the crusades or Hitler saying Christianity was a driving force for what he did.

 

[eccentric jet]

Hitler=Christian
KKK=Christian
Neo-Nazi=Christian
How many people have they killed, maimed, tortured, beaten in the name of Christianity? Hitler, I think he takes the cake for killing a massive amount of people... All the atheists mentioned I don't think add up to the number he killed...

I refer to my previous post.

And when did evolution become the equivalent of atheism in this thread? If you discount evolution on religious grounds, then you're a douche, not a scientist. If you have an alternative hypothesis that doesn't boil down to "this old book/invisible man/talking bush/my mom told me so" or "I just don't believe in it," then by all means, present your well-substantiated, physically plausible mechanism for the diversity of life on this planet. Otherwise, take off your white coat and take a knee (or two) in the privacy of your own home/church/synagogue/Denver Bronco's sideline.

 

[AntsMarching44]

And Ants, your explanation of Anne Frank's baptism did nothing to temper its absurdity.

I hold no illusions that your opinion will change anytime soon.

 

[TriagePreMed]

As an LDS member I'd just like to say that the religious doctrine of baptism for the dead is not nearly as random or whacky as a lot of the media coverage has painted it. Living family members of deceased individuals perform the ordinance by proxy. It's not as if we believe that automatically makes the deceased person Mormon, just that if they choose to accept the ordinance in the hereafter, the individual can make that choice. Furthermore, pretty much all of the famous historical figures have probably had their baptisms done by some living LDS member somewhere in the world....we don't believe that it automatically makes anyone Mormon, just gives the deceased individual the opportunity in the hereafter if they choose. It's a documented Christian practice from the New Testament that we continue to believe in today.

To you this sounds normal because you grew up with it, just like people that think it's normal for god to be vindictive for 6k years for oblivious children that ate fruit and then he forgave it by sacrificing his son that was himself, but the truth is that even saying what you said it still sounds absurd to anyone that hasn't grown up believing it.

 

[eccentric jet]

I hold no illusions that your opinion will change anytime soon.

Then that is one of the few illusions you do not hold.

I do not really think such a baptism is offensive (but then again I'm not a practicing Jew), and in all honesty it might all be done with good (albeit self-righteous) intentions. I don't think the media did much in the way misrepresenting it, based on your description. To anyone outside of LDS, and hopefully to some within, it seems pretty silly.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

How nice. Maybe you have been to the nice lectures of the following atheists
Stalin - Militant atheist kills millions
Pol pot - Ditto
Mao - Ditto
In the US, the Columbine murderers and the environmental terrorists.

As Bala said, atheism is a lack of belief in a god. It says very little about a persons character to be honest. Stalin killed more because he was a paranoid man who was extremely authoritarian. He believed that everyone was potentially an enemy and could usurp power, which is why he murdered everyone who got close to becoming too popular or powerful. Mao was just a typical Chinese emperor really, he may have consciously rejected the mandate of heaven, but he likely did believe that he was god's gift to China. He likewise like all other Chinese emperors cared more about his vision of paradise than his subjects. Both of these pretty much were more murders because they were Leninists, than because they were communists.
Pol Pot was just an idiot, he was childish and wanted to truly become the god of a new world.

Point: They were not murders because they were atheists, they were murders because they were Leninist, they believed that the ends validated the means.