liberty medical school <facepalm>

[Cinclus]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

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...

Importantly, the atheists named (as well as the religious folks named) were not exactly the most rational people. Irrationality, whether due to the influence of an irrational religion or due to someone just being whacked for any various reason, can lead to bad choices and actions. Being too rational doesn't tend to hurt anyone.

 

[gdfernan]

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.

Stalin murdered in the name of communism which is the epitome of atheist philosophy.

Whenever did Hitler become Christian?

 

[eccentric jet]

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

If it makes you feel better, maybe I can be baptized after I die such that my opinion regarding Mormonism* will be changed for me, although I'm pretty sure the worms won't care either way.

*see episode 108 of South Park

 

[scotchtapetest]

Stalin murdered in the name of communism which is the epitome of atheist philosophy.

Whenever did Hitler become Christian?

See, again you seem to fail to understand atheism (or Communism). Communism has nothing to do with atheism or murdering people for that matter. Communism is an economic/political system/ideology while atheism is the lack of belief in a deity... Not a whole lot of correlation there... you see...

 

[gdfernan]

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...

The supreme atheist philosophy of communism is responsible for around 100 million murders in this century.

When did hitler become Christian?

 

[gdfernan]

See, again you seem to fail to understand atheism (or Communism). Communism has nothing to do with atheism or murdering people for that matter. Communism is an economic/political system/ideology while atheism is the lack of belief in a deity... Not a whole lot of correlation there... you see...

It is you who do not understand or is sticking your head in the sand to NOT understand. Communism was an economic/political and supremely atheistic philosophy, which expressly denied existence of spirituality and stopped people from practicing any form of religion. Sounds like what many on this board are attempting to do.

 

[eccentric jet]

Stalin murdered in the name of communism which is the epitome of atheist philosophy.

Again, cherry-picking wackos from history does nothing to support either side's case, as some of the above posters explained. But if you insist on tallying a meaningless body-count, there is little doubt that those killed in the name of god and religion will outnumber those killed to promote atheism.

 

[gdfernan]

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.

Sorry, wont wash.....
Stalin murdered in the name of comminism, and a central plank of that philosophy was atheism. A lot of the purges/murders were explicitly directed against religous people.

 

[gdfernan]

Again, cherry-picking wackos from history does nothing to support either side's case, as some of the above posters explained. But if you insist on tallying a meaningless body-count, there is little doubt that those killed in the name of god and religion will outnumber those killed to promote atheism.

I was responding to the post that militant atheists only write books and give lectures. Glad you seem to agree that they are brutal genocidists as well.

PS> Picking any Tom or Jones or Segei or Singh would be cherry picking. Choosing Stalin is not....

 

[eccentric jet]

and stopped people from practicing any form of religion. Sounds like what many on this board are attempting to do.

No. You seem to have missed the entire point of nearly every post besides what you inappropriately interjected and the direct responses to your inappropriate interjections.

Do you actually have something to say about the compatibility of the rejection of evolution with scientific education, or are you just trolling for arguments against atheism, which has nothing to do with this thread?

 

[scotchtapetest]

It is you who do not understand or is sticking your head in the sand to NOT understand. Communism was an economic/political and supremely atheistic philosophy, which expressly denied existence of spirituality and stopped people from practicing any form of religion. Sounds like what many on this board are attempting to do.

Again, atheism has nothing to do with forcing people to do anything (quite the opposite actually). Atheism has a defined and simple meaning which I've said it multiple times now but I will repeat in case you missed it: It means not believing in a deity; Absolutely nothing else can be attributed to it.

On a sperate but related note, atheism also has nothing to do with spirituality. I refer you to the definition above for more information.

Also, nobody is telling you how to live your life. If you want to believe in crazy s*** go right ahead; People on this thread are saying that science and religion shouldn't be mixed or one replaced for the other in education in the scientific fields, especially in medicine.

 

[eccentric jet]

Glad you seem to agree that they are brutal genocidists as well.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

On a somewhat unrelated note, as a "non-student" in this osteopathic thread, do you mind if I ask what you are? I mean, besides the obvious stuff I can infer from your posts.

 

[AntsMarching44]

If it makes you feel better, maybe I can be baptized after I die such that my opinion regarding Mormonism* will be changed for me, although I'm pretty sure the worms won't care either way.

*see episode 108 of South Park

I might try to baptize you after you die if I thought you wouldn't get on some heavenly online message board and cry about it for the rest of eternity.

Awesome SP episode.

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

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.

I hope that isn't directed at me, because I never said anything like that...

 

[Kevin Baker]

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."

First, I'd argue it is the Catholic leader(s) and not the beliefs of Catholics as a whole, that determines the interpretation of the religion. A religion isn't a democracy. Regardless, even if Catholicism has gotten much more progressive than it was in the 60's, there are still a lot of these less progressive Catholics still in the ranks, following the old school. If we're arguing Catholicism has split into two parts, one progressive and supporting BC, and one not supporting BC, I still feel we need to protect the freedom of religious expression of both groups. Tyranny of the majority is not okay in my book, even when the majority is right.

Second, whether it is vaccines or BC or whatever, we''ve got this wall between Church and State and it goes both ways... for better or worse. I'd personally argue that children and those unable to consent to their religion should receive vaccines and standard care regardless of religion. But I, nor you, nor anyone, have no right to force an adult to go against their religion. There may be some scenarios where public health is involved where I can see forcing someone to do something against their religion, but that's only because religious people have no right to harm me by cultivating infectious diseases, just as I have no right to harm them.

Third, taking federal money should be irrelevant. The gov't shall make no law infringing on the free expression of religion. By forcing a religious group into not accepting money, by making a law that is anathema to that religion, the gov't is infringing on the free expression of that religion by basically subsidizing everyone else that isn't of that religion. When these subsidies are small, nobody makes a big fuss but these healthcare subsidies are huge and would likely put every Catholic hospital out of business. That's not fair.

 

[Kevin Baker]

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)....

Don't get me started on the FDA 🙂

Is it better to infringe on the religious expression of Catholics if it allows these Muslim, Lutheran, and Atheists nurses, aides etc. to get BC? Seems to me, some group is going to get the raw end of the deal regardless. The non Catholics at least knew going in that BC was anathema to their parent employer's world view. Seems silly to punish the Catholics imo.

 

[eccentric jet]

I hope that isn't directed at me, because I never said anything like that...

I was referring to my previous post regarding naming off individuals of ______ religion who did bad things as being a weak argument either way.

The rest of that post was not in reference to you.

 

[eccentric jet]

Awesome SP episode.

I knew we'd agree on something.

(Anne) Frankly, I don't have particularly strong opinion regarding the baptism thing. I didn't even bring it up. I think it's funny, mostly, and if that's what you are accusing me of "crying" about, I'd have to say you're the one getting defensive about one of your faith's more laughable traditions.

If you were referring to my objections on creationism in scientific education, then carry on, by all means.

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

Okay then 🙂

 

[eccentric jet]

Okay then 🙂

And although they're not readily visible on my iPhone, I appreciate your Dumbledore/Gandalf quotes. My brother actually thinks they are the same character (i.e. Dumbledore was merely Gandalf in present times). Nerdy, huh?

 

[AntsMarching44]

I knew we'd agree on something.

(Anne) Frankly, I don't have particularly strong opinion regarding the baptism thing. I didn't even bring it up. I think it's funny, mostly, and if that's what you are accusing me of "crying" about, I'd have to say you're the one getting defensive about one of your faith's more laughable traditions.

If you were referring to my objections on creationism in scientific education, then carry on, by all means.

Try not to confuse delineating my religious beliefs with being "defensive" and I'll try not to confuse you're overt disrespect toward my religion with "crying".

Nice pun.

 

[scotchtapetest]

Don't get me started on the FDA 🙂

Is it better to infringe on the religious expression of Catholics if it allows these Muslim, Lutheran, and Atheists nurses, aides etc. to get BC? Seems to me, some group is going to get the raw end of the deal regardless. The non Catholics at least knew going in that BC was anathema to their parent employer's world view. Seems silly to punish the Catholics imo.

Regardless of your personal opinions regarding the FDA, this is the organization, that as a society we decided is the legitimate body to make certain decisions regarding drugs/medical equipment in this country. Are they always right? No; But that's the best we can do as a society! Unfortunately, we can't look for guidance to the [insert your favorite religious book] for drug safety issues.

Nobody is punishing anyone or infringing on anyone's right... This goes both ways... If you as a (insert whatever religion) work at an islamic institution and they have a ridiculous belief saying you can't get some valid medical care (e.g. approved by the FDA) we would protect/stand up for your right as well.

As I've said previously, the religious card can not be used in some circumstances. We have labor laws in this country which trump anything else IMO. This is not about any specific religion. Lets say I started a hypothetical religion where the central dogma of my religion was that safety equipment was for p***ies and would be sinful to use them. We would have all the bells and whistles of the Catholic church just with different beliefs (remember, this is a hypothetical case). Now, OSHA says you have to provide reasonable safety equipment for your employees. That is the government forcing me to purchase/pay for things that violates my religious beliefs. I think we all would agree that OSHA has the right to infringe on my religious beliefs in this case even though employees who sign up for the job do so willingly, knowing full well that if it wasn't for OSHA they wouldn't be getting safety equipments. If you think Catholics should get an exemption, then every religion including my newly minted religion should get exemptions which then equates to loss of labor protection laws (i.e. going back to the 1920s).

Also, many states already have this law and also at what point does the employer loses the right to make medical decisions for its employees. For instance, lets say a pregnant woman goes in the hospital and the doctors have to make the decision of saving the mother at the expense of the fetus or attempting to save the fetus at the expense of possibly losing the mother. Also let's assume that the mother is a non-christian secretary at the Bishop's office and the Catholic church is paying for medical care in this case. The non-christian mother/family want the mother to be saved at any cost which is fully in-line with ethical practice of medicine. Following Catholic teachings, however, that's not kosher! what should be done in this case? Ethically and legally, the church has to pay for it.... BC is (or should be) no different.... (remember we are arguing principles, not the life saving value of a given therapy).

Furthermore, the are many other valid medical reasons for taking BC other than contraception but that's besides the point (again we are arguing principles)!

 

[eccentric jet]

Try not to confuse delineating my religious beliefs with being "defensive" and I'll try not to confuse you're overt disrespect toward my religion with "crying".

Deal.

Not only that, I apologize for being disrespectful. Like most people, I tend unwittingly to turn up the @$$hole factor online.

I hope you can at least appreciate some humor in the situation. I mean, she is easily the most famously and thoroughly Jewish person most people know about. However, although it is particularly odd to baptize her, this particular instance was obviously highlighted by the media to put a sensationalist spin on the tradition.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Sorry, wont wash.....
Stalin murdered in the name of comminism, and a central plank of that philosophy was atheism. A lot of the purges/murders were explicitly directed against religous people.

Not really, atheism is not a tenant of communism, however it is a tenant of general Marx-Leninism. Of which neither Stalin nor Mao adhered to really. They killed in the name of power, just as Caesar and Caligula, and many other paranoid power hungry men in history.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

The supreme atheist philosophy of communism is responsible for around 100 million murders in this century.

When did hitler become Christian?

Hitler was a Christian, a big part of his hatred of the Jews and desire to exterminate them came directly from the philosophy of Martin Luther who hated the Jews strongly for not converting. He pretty much is the biggest contributing factor likely to the holocaust, more so than the commonly attributed Neitzsche.

 

[AntsMarching44]

Deal.

Not only that, I apologize for being disrespectful. Like most people, I tend unwittingly to turn up the @$$hole factor online.

I hope you can at least appreciate some humor in the situation. I mean, she is easily the most famously and thoroughly Jewish person most people know about. However, although it is particularly odd to baptize her, this particular instance was obviously highlighted by the media to put a sensationalist spin on the tradition.

No problem. Of course I can appreciate the irony of the situation...after all, I do love me some South Park

 

[FrkyBgStok]

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.

Liberal/athiest? So that means liberals are athiest? And you say they push dogma? Please. Christians have missionaries, witnessing, etc.with the sole purpose of saving people. Athiests don't do this. And insinuating that conservatives don't shove dogma down someones throat is comical. Conservatives are far worse. Liberals stand a certain way on a given issue because it is backed by science and statistics (some exceptions). The conservative rebuttal is almost entirely based on either religion or liberals being jealous. that is ridiculous. But this thread isn't based on politics so I am not going to go there.

I also echo what others have said about atheist leaders. Unfortunately, I am sure that you are using the same arguments that you use with your friends that probably don't follow politics are have the same beliefs as you. This isn't going to work here. If you want people to take you seriously you have to use an actual argument, not "whatever liberal/atheist scum."

 

[scarshapedstar]

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.

1) The Selfish Gene has very little to do with gods or the lack thereof. You're thinking of a different book. I think the way evolution is presented, not just in popular culture but in most science classes, is flawed. For example, when I hear a creationist claim that homosexuality is a choice because they don't "pass on their genes" I can be reasonably certain this person has a fatally flawed understanding of selection. If they read the book, their minds might be changed. I'm aware that there are other formulations of kin selection but I think Dawkins's makes the most sense.

2) There are many books that I think would better humanity if everyone read them. But I don't make any supernatural claims about their origin, nor would I attempt to actually force this upon anyone. False equivalency is false.

 

[NurWollen]

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

The Church's official policy is that members of the LDS Church (I am one as well) should only posthumously baptize those who are our direct ancestors (hence our emphasis on genealogy.) Cases like Anne Frank's have appeared often enough that the Church has worked actively to prevent it from happening. We understand that it is offensive to some, and that is why we have worked with the Jewish community and other groups to put such measures in place. What has recently been highlighted in the media (Anne Frank, Simon Wiesenthal's parents, etc) has been probably been due to some overzealous members somewhere who don't understand or choose to ignore their own Church's position.

Deal.

Not only that, I apologize for being disrespectful. Like most people, I tend unwittingly to turn up the @$$hole factor online.

I hope you can at least appreciate some humor in the situation. I mean, she is easily the most famously and thoroughly Jewish person most people know about. However, although it is particularly odd to baptize her, this particular instance was obviously highlighted by the media to put a sensationalist spin on the tradition.

I know what you mean... my first instinct when I read your post was to lash out with some snide reply, but I'm glad I didn't, since you and Ants have already come to a truce. I do agree that it is particularly odd to baptize Ann Frank (see my comments above.) Of course, I don't expect you to agree with my beliefs, or even find them reasonable. Apart from that we probably agree on a great many things.

Also, don't assume that because I or anyone else is LDS that we hate science or are all young earth creationists. I believe in a ~4 billion year old earth, that the human species evolved from earlier hominids, etc. Also, I believe faith, prayer, etc. as a tool in to be used addition to modern medical science, never as substitute for it. Some Mormons disagree with me. It's hard to paint us all with one brush.

 

[verynice]

Woo!!! Go liberty! 😀

 

[NurWollen]

Woo!!! Go liberty! 😀

Lol.

 

[scarshapedstar]

The Church's official policy is that members of the LDS Church (I am one as well) should only posthumously baptize those who are our direct ancestors (hence our emphasis on genealogy.) Cases like Anne Frank's have appeared often enough that the Church has worked actively to prevent it from happening. We understand that it is offensive to some, and that is why we have worked with the Jewish community and other groups to put such measures in place. What has recently been highlighted in the media (Anne Frank, Simon Wiesenthal's parents, etc) has been probably been due to some overzealous members somewhere who don't understand or choose to ignore their own Church's position.

You seem like a nice enough person but I think you're missing the point. People find it creepy.

Mormon apostle, Quentin Cook had this further explanation of this for me a couple of years ago.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED AUDIO)

QUENTIN COOK: The savior said that everybody had to be baptized to enter into kingdom of heaven and so, by proxy, there is a baptism for all of those who are deceased. Now, we concentrate, first of all, on our ancestors and then for the people in the world at large.

This baptism is not binding on them unless they accept it, so we consider this a great effort of love and accomplish our Father in heaven's plan for his children that are deceased.

SIEGEL: And just to clarify, Howard, he's speaking of the deceased accepting the baptism?

BERKES: That's right. These baptisms involve people who have died and have been dead for some time and what happens is that, inside Mormon temples are these baptismal fonts. They're pools of water. They're about the size of a hot tub and they each have 12 carved oxen that are holding them up and there's a line of volunteers who read a long list of names as other volunteers are immersed into the water. They're stand-ins for the deceased.

This is work that is among the most important and sacred tasks for Mormons. They spend enormous amounts of time gathering what has become billions of names and then going to Mormon temples around the world to conduct these proxy baptisms, as they're called.

I'm sure you could write equally off-putting descriptions of any religious ritual; nevertheless, it's not so much the presumption to speak for the wrong dead people, including militant atheists -- and no, despite what this Mormon Apostle is saying, the dead can't exactly decline the offer and so it's mighty presumptuous -- it's that to mainstream Christianity it sounds kinda like voodoo or something along those lines. There might also be an element of "that's right, your gay uncle went to hell, but my gay uncle didn't, because we gots more rituals!" that might rub people the wrong way. I'll leave it at that since I don't believe in any of that stuff anyway. 👍

 

[karate134]

Tolerance

Disclaimers: I intend to remain general as it doesn’t necessarily apply to every individual. I will also consider atheism as a belief system. Also, no pre-meds were harmed in the making of this.

Enough with the absurdities…

Let’s get straight to it: we’re family in this world. You gotta love your family but that doesn’t mean you got to like them. We wildly disagree with each other’s belief systems. Heck we might actually even hate someone’s belief system. But where’s the tolerance or the coexistence?

It’s obvious it breaks down. We (in the general term: see disclaimer for details) tend to point fingers and find extremist in every belief system and say “ha your [insert here] is foolish and stupid because an insanely small subset of that [insert here]’s population did something outrageous!” We see that an athetist/Christian/whatever kills or orders the death of someone/population and condemn that entire belief system based off that.

If a postal worker goes postal and shoots someone, does that make all postal workers nuts? If a strong union advocate goes on a shooting spree, does that mean that all union workers are evil? Why is it that way with belief systems? Because they are “killing in the name of”? Again small subset dealie from above. Some say that Islamic people are a horrible group because they seek to kill everyone. ::sigh:: really? And those Christians… the Crusades… I’m sure that it was religious reasons not that it was a political excuse to gain land and resources… And don’t get me started on those brain-washing athetists…

I hate the line “if you don’t believe in [something], then you better give me an exact and perfect theory of what is happening, or you aren’t a scientist”. That’s just as bad as the “book says so”. For instance, I am doubtful of global warming due to human causes. I must not be a scientist because all scientist must, without questioning, agree with the current theory: that is unless I can provide a perfect explanation (that is published). That’s akin to “if you don’t believe in God then you must explain who caused the big bang”.

See in that one paragraph above, I just got your blood boiling with either of those statements. Get over it, because “tolerance” right? Time to practice what we all preach.

For the original topic, should a school that denies evolution be allowed to exist? {Ask the allopathic forum what they think about the illegitimate osteopathic stuff: same answer.} Be honest, does believing in evolution really matter as a physician? Yes, bacteria changed (or evolve). But would a physician be any less effective whether he believes if the bacteria evolve or change or adapt or has magical powers? Ok, I’m going a little overboard there.

Is this really about the school and physicians, or is this about a lack of tolerance of belief systems? Personally I believe so. If they wish to choose not to accept that standard theory then that’s fine; as long as it doesn’t put their patients in direct danger. Let’s make sure our blood isn’t boiling about this school because of disagreeing with their beliefs, but rather that there’s a true harm in their beliefs.

Last disclaimer: if grammar is bad or spelling is wrong, then it was Bush/Obama’s fault.

Btw, everyone is crazy. 99% of the time, if an atheist/Christian/whatever does something like Hitler, Stalin, then it’s not because they are an atheist/Christian/whatever… it’s about power.

Btw, again, we should stop saying “you are crazy if you believe [this]” or “your soul is lost to [a place] if you don’t believe this]”. That’s really not being respectful or tolerant.

 

[dntke1518]

Liberal/athiest? So that means liberals are athiest? And you say they push dogma? Please. Christians have missionaries, witnessing, etc.with the sole purpose of saving people. Athiests don't do this. And insinuating that conservatives don't shove dogma down someones throat is comical. Conservatives are far worse. Liberals stand a certain way on a given issue because it is backed by science and statistics (some exceptions). The conservative rebuttal is almost entirely based on either religion or liberals being jealous. that is ridiculous. But this thread isn't based on politics so I am not going to go there.

I also echo what others have said about atheist leaders. Unfortunately, I am sure that you are using the same arguments that you use with your friends that probably don't follow politics are have the same beliefs as you. This isn't going to work here. If you want people to take you seriously you have to use an actual argument, not "whatever liberal/atheist scum."

<facepalm> you did go there lol, and not only did you go there but you based the view of conservatives on some Rick Santorum-esuqe ideals and put all liberals in a more-academic-than-thou-so-what-liberals-say-must-be-right pedestal. This religion/politics banter that this thread has turned into is silly. We have people talking about neo-nazis, hitler, stalin, and the holocaust. I am sure the opening of this school would result in an army of purist nazi physicians who are anti liberal and will never prescribe any type of contraception. Anyways, very good post karate 👍

 

[TriagePreMed]

First, I'd argue it is the Catholic leader(s) and not the beliefs of Catholics as a whole, that determines the interpretation of the religion. A religion isn't a democracy. Regardless, even if Catholicism has gotten much more progressive than it was in the 60's, there are still a lot of these less progressive Catholics still in the ranks, following the old school. If we're arguing Catholicism has split into two parts, one progressive and supporting BC, and one not supporting BC, I still feel we need to protect the freedom of religious expression of both groups. Tyranny of the majority is not okay in my book, even when the majority is right.

Second, whether it is vaccines or BC or whatever, we''ve got this wall between Church and State and it goes both ways... for better or worse. I'd personally argue that children and those unable to consent to their religion should receive vaccines and standard care regardless of religion. But I, nor you, nor anyone, have no right to force an adult to go against their religion. There may be some scenarios where public health is involved where I can see forcing someone to do something against their religion, but that's only because religious people have no right to harm me by cultivating infectious diseases, just as I have no right to harm them.

Third, taking federal money should be irrelevant. The gov't shall make no law infringing on the free expression of religion. By forcing a religious group into not accepting money, by making a law that is anathema to that religion, the gov't is infringing on the free expression of that religion by basically subsidizing everyone else that isn't of that religion. When these subsidies are small, nobody makes a big fuss but these healthcare subsidies are huge and would likely put every Catholic hospital out of business. That's not fair.

But which religious leaders? A foreign leader called the pope? Different churches have different interpretations of their religion, so it's not even 10 vs 90.

Point 2: Nobody is being forced to use BC or vaccines as an adult. This issue is not about individual choice. It's about places of business that happen to be owned by religious institutions.

Point 3: Then no federal money should go to any religious institution at all. It's not about practicing your religion. This is an economic issue based on the ability of an employer to use religion as an excuse to deny parts of health care that they don't see fit. A place of business has to play under secular rules. And this idea that hospitals will go out of business because they foot the bill of contraceptives is simply naive, and even if it did put them out of business, so what? Would you be okay with a restaurant cutting corners just to stay business? Like it or not, our legal system is based on precedent. You can't just make up rules as you go without interpreting the consequences it would have on other decisions.

Stalin murdered in the name of communism which is the epitome of atheist philosophy.

Whenever did Hitler become Christian?

There is no such this as "atheist philosophy." That's simply ignorant. Being an atheist is just not believing in a deity or multiple deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views#Positive_Christianity

 

[scarshapedstar]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster says that if I build a restaurant with wheelchair access, he will torture me for an eternity.

Demonstrate to me that the fire marshal is not oppressing my faith.

 

[AntsMarching44]

Also, don't assume that because I or anyone else is LDS that we hate science or are all young earth creationists. I believe in a ~4 billion year old earth, that the human species evolved from earlier hominids, etc. Also, I believe faith, prayer, etc. as a tool in to be used addition to modern medical science, never as substitute for it. Some Mormons disagree with me. It's hard to paint us all with one brush.

Agreed.

 

[scotchtapetest]

Tolerance

Disclaimers: I intend to remain general as it doesn't necessarily apply to every individual. I will also consider atheism as a belief system. Also, no pre-meds were harmed in the making of this.

See that's your first mistake! Atheism is not a belief system and in fact is the LACK of a belief system. Maybe the following video can help clear things up for you!

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc[/YOUTUBE]

"Atheism is a religion, like abstinence is a sex position" Bill Maher


You can't name two things and because they fall under the same category then claim that they are equally acceptable (btw this is the favorite tactic of Fox News). Creationism is not the equal opposite of evolution. One is based on hard scientific data/knowledge while the other is based on 😕 who knows (try to figure out which is which)....

 

[FrkyBgStok]

<facepalm> you did go there lol, and not only did you go there but you based the view of conservatives on some Rick Santorum-esuqe ideals and put all liberals in a more-academic-than-thou-so-what-liberals-say-must-be-right pedestal. This religion/politics banter that this thread has turned into is silly. We have people talking about neo-nazis, hitler, stalin, and the holocaust. I am sure the opening of this school would result in an army of purist nazi physicians who are anti liberal and will never prescribe any type of contraception. Anyways, very good post karate 👍

you are right. i am sorry i lumped all conservatives with those like glen beck, sean hannity, almost every conservative that i personally know, and everyone on fox news. 😀 anyway you are right, this thread is out of hand.

and liberals are always right. except when they lie of course.

 

[dntke1518]

you are right. i am sorry i lumped all conservatives with those like glen beck, sean hannity, almost every conservative that i personally know, and everyone on fox news. 😀 anyway you are right, this thread is out of hand.

and liberals are always right. except when they lie of course.

If I ever decide to turn into a troll my first thread topic shall read "Liberal vs Conservative/ MD vs DO/ Creationism vs Evolution/ Hitler vs Obama + Buttsecks"

Thoughts?

 

[deleted432032]

If I ever decide to turn into a troll my first thread topic shall read "Liberal vs Conservative/ MD vs DO/ Creationism vs Evolution/ Hitler vs Obama + Buttsecks"

Thoughts?

I'd probably feed just to see where it goes. Would probably be a funny thread 👍

 

[Kevin Baker]

Regardless of your personal opinions regarding the FDA, this is the organization, that as a society we decided is the legitimate body to make certain decisions regarding drugs/medical equipment in this country. Are they always right? No; But that's the best we can do as a society! Unfortunately, we can't look for guidance to the [insert your favorite religious book] for drug safety issues.

Nobody is punishing anyone or infringing on anyone's right... This goes both ways... If you as a (insert whatever religion) work at an islamic institution and they have a ridiculous belief saying you can't get some valid medical care (e.g. approved by the FDA) we would protect/stand up for your right as well.

As I've said previously, the religious card can not be used in some circumstances. We have labor laws in this country which trump anything else IMO. This is not about any specific religion. Lets say I started a hypothetical religion where the central dogma of my religion was that safety equipment was for p***ies and would be sinful to use them. We would have all the bells and whistles of the Catholic church just with different beliefs (remember, this is a hypothetical case). Now, OSHA says you have to provide reasonable safety equipment for your employees. That is the government forcing me to purchase/pay for things that violates my religious beliefs. I think we all would agree that OSHA has the right to infringe on my religious beliefs in this case even though employees who sign up for the job do so willingly, knowing full well that if it wasn't for OSHA they wouldn't be getting safety equipments. If you think Catholics should get an exemption, then every religion including my newly minted religion should get exemptions which then equates to loss of labor protection laws (i.e. going back to the 1920s).

Also, many states already have this law and also at what point does the employer loses the right to make medical decisions for its employees. For instance, lets say a pregnant woman goes in the hospital and the doctors have to make the decision of saving the mother at the expense of the fetus or attempting to save the fetus at the expense of possibly losing the mother. Also let's assume that the mother is a non-christian secretary at the Bishop's office and the Catholic church is paying for medical care in this case. The non-christian mother/family want the mother to be saved at any cost which is fully in-line with ethical practice of medicine. Following Catholic teachings, however, that's not kosher! what should be done in this case? Ethically and legally, the church has to pay for it.... BC is (or should be) no different.... (remember we are arguing principles, not the life saving value of a given therapy).

Furthermore, the are many other valid medical reasons for taking BC other than contraception but that's besides the point (again we are arguing principles)!

In regards to the FDA, sure, society has decided they are to be the regulators for drug and device safety, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of us working to change this view. My argument against the FDA is based on trampling of a patient's right to autonomy and the typical crony capitalism, big business supports legislation that forces out smaller competitor, type arguments. I'm not religious and don't feel religion should ever dictate law (unless it is ensuring law doesn't infringe upon religion). But this is a different debate for a different thread and I don't want to go too off topic here.

As for infringing on people's rights, I have to disagree. The original proposal forced a religion to cover something anathema to it. If that isn't infringing on religious expression, I don't know what is. I don't care if someone would stand up for one's rights regardless of whether the law infringed on Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Jedis. I care that the free expression of religion is not compromised in the first place.

As for the hypothetical religion argument, we are not talking about some crazy hypothetical religion made only to protect itself from government regulation or taxes. We do have methods to weed out those religions and tests to see what is a legit religious organization (see Scientology worldwide). But we are talking about Catholicism, a religion spanning millenia with tons of subscribers. I'm assuming we're all clear that Catholicism is a legit religion, regardless of what we think of their beliefs.

Also, the following line is completely off.

"The non-christian mother/family want the mother to be saved at any cost which is fully in-line with ethical practice of medicine". Cost does play a role in medicine. Not everything is covered, even under insurance. Docs are providing a service. We aren't slaves to healthcare. Certain procedures may be given as charity or at cheaper rates, but there is no obligation in medicine to save someone at any cost. At most, the obligation is to stabilize the patient.

As for other reasons to take BC, I'm unsure as to the Catholic view on non contraceptive uses of BC. Regardless, if the Church is against it, I am not for forcing a religious organization to cover it.

 

[Kevin Baker]

But which religious leaders? A foreign leader called the pope? Different churches have different interpretations of their religion, so it's not even 10 vs 90.

Point 2: Nobody is being forced to use BC or vaccines as an adult. This issue is not about individual choice. It's about places of business that happen to be owned by religious institutions.

Point 3: Then no federal money should go to any religious institution at all. It's not about practicing your religion. This is an economic issue based on the ability of an employer to use religion as an excuse to deny parts of health care that they don't see fit. A place of business has to play under secular rules. And this idea that hospitals will go out of business because they foot the bill of contraceptives is simply naive, and even if it did put them out of business, so what? Would you be okay with a restaurant cutting corners just to stay business? Like it or not, our legal system is based on precedent. You can't just make up rules as you go without interpreting the consequences it would have on other decisions.

1. Don't be daft. If we're looking to see whether a policy goes against a religion, we have to understand that individual religion. For Catholics, I believe it goes God>Pope>Easter Bunny>Santa Clause>some sort of church bureaucracy >individual Catholic.

2. The issue, imo, is forcing a religious organization to cover something anathema to it prevents the free expression of that religion. Whether or not Catholics take BC is irrelevant. Covering it is the relevant issue.

3. I agree that no federal money in principal should be going to these places but...there are plenty of examples of religious organizations providing better services than nearby public options. I'm thinking some religious schools, some after school activities, and some hospitals etc. Rather than funnel money to start new programs or inefficiently fund under performing programs, the argument is sometimes made to subsidize these religious organizations. I disagree with the subsidies in the first place but from a pure cost/benefit stance, I understand why this argument is made.

However, that is not the case in BC scenario. We are subsidizing every employer and telling a specific religious group to either do something anathema or not get substantial subsidies while everyone else does. I stated up above that this is tantamount to subsidizing some religions and not others. The gov't shall make no law against the free expression of religion and if subsidizing some religions while not others isn't preventing the free expression of religion, I don't know what is.

 

[karate134]

See that's your first mistake! Atheism is not a belief system and in fact is the LACK of a belief system. Maybe the following video can help clear things up for you!

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc[/YOUTUBE]

"Atheism is a religion, like abstinence is a sex position" Bill Maher


You can't name two things and because they fall under the same category then claim that they are equally acceptable (btw this is the favorite tactic of Fox News). Creationism is not the equal opposite of evolution. One is based on hard scientific data/knowledge while the other is based on 😕 who knows (try to figure out which is which)....

I'm glad we've gone with an expert to clear it up: Bill Maher

Great, if you want to say that atheism is not a religion, then I agree. However, please notice that I never said it was. I said it was a belief system. Sure, the word belief is perhaps the exact same thing as religion to you, but if you are wanting to play semantics, then at least take the time and argue something I actually said. Your "evidence" in that video refers to atheism not being a religion.

You essentially say I'm discredited because I said atheism is a religion(not the case). So, honestly, who cares if atheism is a religion/belief system/creed/following/cult? Sure, maybe it does matter, but does it have relevance to the topic at hand (or at least my post)?

I love how these conversations also start with "religion (or whatever)... where's your evidence in your arguments" only to be followed by a comic routine. One can't say back your arguments with logic and then fall back to Bill Maher. But I'm sure you'll say he makes all the perfect points and he's schooling us all.

I, according to your post, said that creationism and evolution are equals or should be accepted as equals. The point I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) is that because evolution is scientific, then all should consider it as fact, end of story. Thus a school that denounces, for religious beliefs, it should not be allowed to be opened. So, what if the school wasn't faith based and still denounced evolution? Should they be allowed to be opened? Only if they have evidence I'm sure? How much evidence? What kind? Only the kind that would influence you? As long as it's not faith based?

Also, answer this: many people say that osteopathic medicine isn't based on evidence. Be honest, doesn't that sound like it does more harm than if a physician believes in evolution? Shouldn't we close down all these D.O. schools that can't produce evidence for OMM? (Btw, I am all for DOs and OMM!!!!)

So, I'm willing to have a discussion or whatever, but take the time and address my post properly (it was really about tolerance). If you want to change it, then provide some text other than Bill Maher's quotes (well quotations if I need to be correct). Also, let's be without bias here, how is this different than the above paragraph?

 

[FrkyBgStok]

If I ever decide to turn into a troll my first thread topic shall read "Liberal vs Conservative/ MD vs DO/ Creationism vs Evolution/ Hitler vs Obama + Buttsecks"

Thoughts?

close, but out of fairness you should include abortion. it wouldnt be a SDN troll thread without abortion.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Great, if you want to say that atheism is not a religion, then I agree. However, please notice that I never said it was. I said it was a belief system. Sure, the word belief is perhaps the exact same thing as religion to you, but if you are wanting to play semantics, then at least take the time and argue something I actually said. Your "evidence" in that video refers to atheism not being a religion.

You really don't understand the difference between belief and lack of belief? It takes belief to believe in god. It's the default position to be an atheist. You don't define yourself by not believing in X, Y, Z religion as much as an atheist doesn't define himself or herself by your or all religions. So please understand that when an atheist says "I don't believe in god" he or she is saying it in place of "I don't believe the claims of your or any god(s)."

1. Don't be daft. If we're looking to see whether a policy goes against a religion, we have to understand that individual religion. For Catholics, I believe it goes God>Pope>Easter Bunny>Santa Clause>some sort of church bureaucracy >individual Catholic.

2. The issue, imo, is forcing a religious organization to cover something anathema to it prevents the free expression of that religion. Whether or not Catholics take BC is irrelevant. Covering it is the relevant issue.

3. I agree that no federal money in principal should be going to these places but...there are plenty of examples of religious organizations providing better services than nearby public options. I'm thinking some religious schools, some after school activities, and some hospitals etc. Rather than funnel money to start new programs or inefficiently fund under performing programs, the argument is sometimes made to subsidize these religious organizations. I disagree with the subsidies in the first place but from a pure cost/benefit stance, I understand why this argument is made.

However, that is not the case in BC scenario. We are subsidizing every employer and telling a specific religious group to either do something anathema or not get substantial subsidies while everyone else does. I stated up above that this is tantamount to subsidizing some religions and not others. The gov't shall make no law against the free expression of religion and if subsidizing some religions while not others isn't preventing the free expression of religion, I don't know what is.

It seems we can't agree, so lets agree to disagree. The last thing I'll say that it seems for you it's okay for religion to trump the secularism of government, but the truth is that, if they want money from a government that must guarantee equal protection and is secular, then it's they who have to play by the rules, not the other way or else our government is endorsing religion (even if it's all of them).

 

[gdfernan]

Liberal/athiest? So that means liberals are athiest? And you say they push dogma? Please. Christians have missionaries, witnessing, etc.with the sole purpose of saving people. Athiests don't do this. And insinuating that conservatives don't shove dogma down someones throat is comical. Conservatives are far worse. Liberals stand a certain way on a given issue because it is backed by science and statistics (some exceptions). The conservative rebuttal is almost entirely based on either religion or liberals being jealous. that is ridiculous. But this thread isn't based on politics so I am not going to go there.

I also echo what others have said about atheist leaders. Unfortunately, I am sure that you are using the same arguments that you use with your friends that probably don't follow politics are have the same beliefs as you. This isn't going to work here. If you want people to take you seriously you have to use an actual argument, not "whatever liberal/atheist scum."

There is a significant correlation with a liberal political philosophy and an atheist religion

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

If this was at a party, how many people would have walked out of the room already???
It takes 20mns just to catch up!

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

There is a significant correlation with a liberal political philosophy and an atheist religion

If you're not going to take the time to cite your info then were not going to take you serious, not that you were being taken serious to begin with.
Though it would make sense, higher educated individuals are more likely to be atheists and higher educated individuals tend to be more liberal.

 

[scotchtapetest]

In regards to the FDA, sure, society has decided they are to be the regulators for drug and device safety, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of us working to change this view. My argument against the FDA is based on trampling of a patient's right to autonomy and the typical crony capitalism, big business supports legislation that forces out smaller competitor, type arguments. I'm not religious and don't feel religion should ever dictate law (unless it is ensuring law doesn't infringe upon religion). But this is a different debate for a different thread and I don't want to go too off topic here.

As for infringing on people's rights, I have to disagree. The original proposal forced a religion to cover something anathema to it. If that isn't infringing on religious expression, I don't know what is. I don't care if someone would stand up for one's rights regardless of whether the law infringed on Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Jedis. I care that the free expression of religion is not compromised in the first place.

As for the hypothetical religion argument, we are not talking about some crazy hypothetical religion made only to protect itself from government regulation or taxes. We do have methods to weed out those religions and tests to see what is a legit religious organization (see Scientology worldwide). But we are talking about Catholicism, a religion spanning millenia with tons of subscribers. I'm assuming we're all clear that Catholicism is a legit religion, regardless of what we think of their beliefs.

Also, the following line is completely off.

"The non-christian mother/family want the mother to be saved at any cost which is fully in-line with ethical practice of medicine". Cost does play a role in medicine. Not everything is covered, even under insurance. Docs are providing a service. We aren't slaves to healthcare. Certain procedures may be given as charity or at cheaper rates, but there is no obligation in medicine to save someone at any cost. At most, the obligation is to stabilize the patient.

As for other reasons to take BC, I'm unsure as to the Catholic view on non contraceptive uses of BC. Regardless, if the Church is against it, I am not for forcing a religious organization to cover it.

I would love to argue with you about FDA, but that has nothing to do with this thread. I still stand by my argument regarding the FDA and its role in healthcare.

Oh, so different standards for different religions.... Interesting... Who's discriminating now.... I didn't realize the 1st amendment had a time requirement before providing protection for your religion.... Maybe we are reading different constitutions. BTW, something that sounds reasonable to you (not providing basic/preventive healthcare for women) may sound just as ridiculous and crazy to others that my hypothetical religion did to you. The Mormon baptism discussion on this very thread is a great example.

Also, nobody is infringing on a catholic's right to practice their religion (nobody is forcing BC down people's throat; it is just giving them the option). However, if the Catholic church wants to be a source of employment, it must follow our labor laws like any other religious/non-religious organization with no exemptions. Nobody is forcing them to be employers but once you become an employer then you can't use the religion card to exempt yourself from employment laws. If catholics get to do it, then any and all religions (regardless of how ridiculous they may sound) should have equal rights.

You missed my whole point regarding the non-christian family example. My point was that the mother could be saved in accordance with the ethical practice of medicine. However, the Catholic church can interpret such treatment (leading to loss of fetus) as against its teachings and refuse to pay which I said they are not allowed to do so. It had NOTHING to do with monetary cost of care (let's say for our argument it would cost $1.00 to save the mother).