Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A very bigoted statement! Attack the arguments, not the person.
No one here is expressing religious intolerance. It is more about the separation of religion-from-state
Honestly, you sure do know how to jump to conclusions. You think that where and how we grow up doesn't affect the ideas that we come with? Then you must be very sheltered. You think that people from areas that have been impacted by racial and ethnic tensions come to N. America and those issues just go????
I don't know where Botticelli came from and he doesn't have to say either. Jeez. But that is certainly one possibility. The idea some westerners come across with, like everyone shares their views and comes from the same place.
Do you know what you are saying or just typing the first thing that comes into your mind? You cant think of any example? Think stem cell research. Abortion is nearly outlawed in many US states. Think what Bush said before going into the Iraq .....
No one cares what you think. Did you read a word about what I said about the Canadian Medical Association's "conscience clause"?
I think you should go to sleep and try again in the morning.
Who is a true professional? In Canada, Ob/Gyn's are trained to perform abortions (complicated ones), but abortions can be performed by any physician, even general practitioners. However, only about 20% of physicians in Canada perform abortions. In fact, there is a shortage of such services for women in places like the PEI.
The Canadian Medical Association has a "conscience clause" so that physicians are not forced to act in any way that goes against their personal beliefs.Even in pro-choice Canada, doctors use this clause to refuse prescriptions for birth control, abortion, and pap smears.
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's report states:
Even though most physicians choose not to perform abortions, all
primary care physicians have the opportunity to provide women with effective contraceptive
options, thus reducing the need for women to seek abortions. Unfortunately, some physicians
restrict women’s access to both contraception and abortion under the guise of a “moral
imperative”, often rooted in their religious beliefs. Such doctors not only refuse to perform
abortions, they may even refuse to refer women for abortion. Furthermore, an increasing number
of medical students are organizing to assert their right to refuse reproductive health care to their
patients on the basis of personal beliefs.
You hear worse stories coming from the US. But even in Canada, there are more than a few cases of religion impacting healthcare. While abortion is commonly discussed, medical issues related to dementia and life-ending diseases are also affected.
You bring up scientists. But that is a very poor example. You have very few religious scientists anyway. How could you really believe that the earth is 5000 years old and also be an evolutionary biologist? And how does it directly affect anyone if a particle physicist thinks that all abortion should be outlawed?
On the other hand, what happens if politicians are religious? Are they true professionals who keep religion out of politics and legislation? I am sure you can answer this yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit
JFK was religious. Harper is. Hasn't done a thing about abortion though. Obama is. I think pretty much every American politician has claimed to be religious. Whether their religion has affected their policies, that I don't know about. I can't think of any examples at the moment.
Religious doesn't equal belief in a 5000 year old earth.
And I think he was using scientists more liberally than biologists.
But without quizzing every professional you deal with, how would you ever know what their faith is?
I think, if in a professional position, someone discusses their personal faith, they should be fired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249
Do you know what you are saying or just typing the first thing that comes into your mind? You cant think of any example? Think stem cell research. Abortion is nearly outlawed in many US states. Think what Bush said before going into the Iraq .....
No one cares what you think. Did you read a word about what I said about the Canadian Medical Association's "conscience clause"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249
Hah! How do you know where I live? Maybe I am in a country with a lot of ethnic violence and tension and in a time zone where the time is 8 am
Maybe you are. Have a cup of coffee. Or a smoke.
Put me on ignore if you don't care what I think. (Did I say somewhere I thought someone cared what I think?)
Perhaps you prefer to wallow in your prejudices. That's your right. Free country and all that.
Now go back up and read the part where I said I was terribly tired because I don't live in a time zone where it is 8 am and that I couldn't think of any examples at the moment. If you wanted to make a reasonable presentation, then why not provide some examples that I could not think of at the moment
because I did not feel like doing a google search at this time of night and could not possibly anticipate that there was you waiting in the wings to cherry pick words and take them out of context.
Yes, I read your links. I have no problem with a conscience clause. I didn't find that earth-shattering news and it wasn't even presented as such. I've never found the concept of following one's conscience to be repugnant.
And Acajack, you probably remember the brouhaha there was in the US when a Catholic president was elected - JFK - the idea that because he was Catholic he would take his marching orders from the Pope.
.
I wasn't even born when he was assassinated and my parents were still in high school! But yes I am aware of the controversy. It was also a big deal to Catholics (in much of the world even, I assume) that a Catholic had been elected President of the United States. I know it was to my grandmother and even as a child in the 1970s I remember her having a picture of JFK in her living room.
I wasn't even born when he was assassinated and my parents were still in high school! But yes I am aware of the controversy. It was also a big deal to Catholics (in much of the world even, I assume) that a Catholic had been elected President of the United States. I know it was to my grandmother and even as a child in the 1970s I remember her having a picture of JFK in her living room.
Whoa! I was tasked to go over to Esquimalt dockyard and assist emergency boiler flashes of the DDE's DDH's in harbour at the time of his assassination and remember vividly when he was elected the gnashing of teeth in the U.S. for a couple of reasons. The Catholic issue was very prominent in the minds of many down there as was the segregation vs integration issue that many saw coming like a whirlwind from hades.
American newspapers of the day were full of columnists predicting all sorts of breakdown of traditional society with just as many others predicting that would be a good thing.
Much like today, American politics was characterized as being polarized 180 degrees on two fronts and going nowhere. It took all ones patience to try and understand how there could be two such disparate positions held within such a progressive country of the day.
Yes, I read your links. I have no problem with a conscience clause. I didn't find that earth-shattering news and it wasn't even presented as such. I've never found the concept of following one's conscience to be repugnant.
Well, you started off by saying that if a professional uses his or her faith outside of personal life ... they should be fired. Here, I gave you multiple examples of doctors using the conscience clause to refrain from providing women birth-control or abortion services. Maybe this is not 100% religious based. But there is clearly some link with religion.
Well, let's assume that all non-religion/secular rocket scientists and neuro-surgeons oppose limitless abortion and stem cell research. So what?
How does that change the fact that religion was the main driving force behind the blockage of stem cell research? And how does that change the fact that some doctors refuse to consult with cases that may be going against their moral beliefs?
You are simply doging the issues I raised by bringing up other (mostly) un-related issues.
Same response as above. While there might be a secular case against abortion, it is in no way as vocal and as active as the religious case. Doctors have been shot for performing abortions.
And just because there is a secular case against something, does not some how negate the religious case against it. While it is hard to deny that there are no doctors refusing services due to secular reasons, the evidence for doctors refusing services for religious reasons is overwhelming.
True professionals do it all the time. Take religious scientists. You would have to be an idiot to become an abortion doctor if you are against abortion. Even those who are adamantly against abortion, are not against it when the mother's life is in danger.
There is also a huge assumption being made here. Just because someone is wearing a religious symbol in no way indicates how deep their faith is. Is that Jesus tattoo an indication? Maybe yes, maybe no.
Even muslims in headscarves has a huge curve on what they practice.
Should I assume that a man with shellacked hair, a cheesy grin and bad suit, is an evangelical hardcore right wing fire and brimstone kind of guy or beer guzzling used car salesman.
Appearance can be deceptive and I know myself, the topic of a person religion does't come up when I'm receiving services.
^^Not my post, as you can see but a good one since this all started off with people equating religious garments to the level of faith. Natnasci broke his point into two. First sentence is about professionals. Second point is about religious scientists as a part of the professionals and the variations within beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit
Okay, let me explain myself then. People used all kinds of convoluted reasoning to deny others who were perceived as different rights. Based on religion, which is as integral and unchangeable to many people as the colour of their skin, he assumes that they will be prejudiced against him, when he is showing prejudice against them by his assumptions. "Anywhere but in public" = back of the bus.
Sure sounds like a version of the black kids wearing hoodies equals criminals scenario to me.
And Acajack, you probably remember the brouhaha there was in the US when a Catholic president was elected - JFK - the idea that because he was Catholic he would take his marching orders from the Pope.
We really should be a bit further along than then both racial prejudice and religious bigotry. Unfortunately, I think that where racial prejudice is now seen as unacceptable, religious bigotry is thriving.
exactly.
Now it has occurred to me that perhaps Botticelli immigrated from a country where religious and ethnic tensions run high and hence his views.
And sorry if I'm not explaining myself better. I am terribly tired and not doing my best thinking.
And then this is when you decided to go off your proverbial rocker because apparently you think it is an insult to take into consideration where a person comes from. And let me tell you, that it matters. I deal with a lot of immigrants from eastern European countries who didn't know any different than to point at my black nephews and actually burst out laughing. And make comments about Jews.
Because they did not know any different, I TOLD them different.
And one of the things Canada has blessed immigrants with, is religious freedom, which does not mean freedom from religion, but that old country issues like the religious tensions that have divided many other corners of the world don't belong here.
It would be quite hypocritical of me having come from a people who historically experienced religious discrimination not to speak up for the current recipients of it. I would not be doing my job as a human being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit
JFK was religious. Harper is. Hasn't done a thing about abortion though. Obama is. I think pretty much every American politician has claimed to be religious. Whether their religion has affected their policies, that I don't know about. I can't think of any examples at the moment.
Religious doesn't equal belief in a 5000 year old earth.
And I think he was using scientists more liberally than biologists.
But without quizzing every professional you deal with, how would you ever know what their faith is?
I think, if in a professional position, someone discusses their personal faith, they should be fired.
And this was my response to your response to Natnasci. You turned it into abortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249
A very bigoted statement! Attack the arguments, not the person.
No one here is expressing religious intolerance. It is more about the separation of religion-from-state
Oh, yes, indeed. There was a lot of religious intolerance being expressed in this thread. And then you decided to attack me instead of actually addressing the issues of religion, and then turn it again into something else.
But if you now want to discuss religion and abortion, I have no doubt that religion plays a role in some doctors' decisions not to do them but I highly doubt that 80% of doctors are religious in any which way. So there is some other issue at play there. Perhaps 20% of doctors performing abortions are enough doctors for the abortions that need to be performed. Perhaps not. We have a shortage of doctors in other specialty areas.
And you think that this somehow negates my belief that professionals (and I didn't specify doctors, by the way. I was talking about all professionals in any profession whatsoever - Natnasci's point number 1) who are asked to do something against their religious beliefs should be fired? And I'm still waiting for someone to give an example of being religiously harassed by someone in religious garb.
And finally, I like Botticelli. I even like you, sandman.
I wasn't even born when he was assassinated and my parents were still in high school! But yes I am aware of the controversy. It was also a big deal to Catholics (in much of the world even, I assume) that a Catholic had been elected President of the United States. I know it was to my grandmother and even as a child in the 1970s I remember her having a picture of JFK in her living room.
By 'remember' I didn't mean actually being alive at the time. I was barely born myself. Poor choice of words.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or a smoke.
