Monday, September 22, 2008

American Taliban

... at first it sounded a little over the top, but after reading this, I'm not so sure.
Posted by at

7 comments:

Vita said...

"American Taliban" was over-the-top. It's hateful, extremist rhetoric.

All this requirement does is ensure that those who have moral objections to certain things are not required to do those things.

Conscientious objectors are allowed to opt out of all kinds of things. Why shouldn't they be allowed to avoid morally questionable actions in health care?

What ever happened to tolerance and diversity of opinion or belief? I guess it's not so important after all.

And what does this have to do with crime in Baltimore? Stick to what you guys are good at.

Mon Sep 22, 06:10:00 PM EDT
I am so wise said...

Vita,

If you have objections to doing your job, find a new line of work. I object to people being jailed for paying for sex or buying weed for use at home. Should I force the police department to accommodate my beliefs and give a job that pays the same salary but involves less work

Also why are religious feelings worthy of being pandered too? If I objected to monitoring the selling of Oxycontin because I thought the DEA was bad, I wouldn't get any special treatment. What if I decided that only homeopathic treatments should be used and refused to sell you your prescription? Would you tolerate it?

Also why should people get paid full salary when they are unwilling to do their jobs. Look if the pharmacists at Wal-Mart or Save-On object to their jobs they are free to transfer back to the film counter.

"What ever happened to tolerance and diversity of opinion or belief? I guess it's not so important after all."

Ask the pharmacists, they're the ones not respecting other people's views on birth control.

Mon Sep 22, 10:36:00 PM EDT
ppatin said...

"Conscientious objectors are allowed to opt out of all kinds of things. Why shouldn't they be allowed to avoid morally questionable actions in health care?

What ever happened to tolerance and diversity of opinion or belief? I guess it's not so important after all."

Should a gun store be forced to hire pacifists who refuse to sell firearms?

People have the right to object to whatever they want, just like employers have a right to fire employees who won't do their job. If you're a pharmacist who doesn't want to sell birth control (or a Muslim supermarket cashier who doesn't want to sell bacon) then you need to either suck it up, or leave your job and find a different line of work. No business should be forced to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees.

Mon Sep 22, 11:34:00 PM EDT
ppatin said...

vita:

I'm an atheist, and I find the Catholic Church's teachings on condom use to be morally objectionable. If I get a job at a Catholic book store should they be forced to keep me as an employee if I refuse to sell books that oppose any form of birth control other than the rhythm method? Of course not!

Mon Sep 22, 11:36:00 PM EDT
Vita said...

Someone please explain what Christians have in common with the Taliban and why using the term "American Taliban" shouldn't qualify as hate speech.

It seems that you're suggesting that people who have moral objections to certain things should form their own stores and institutions and hire employees who know about their beliefs.

So what if a Catholic pharmacy was opened? Or even better, a Catholic hospital? Should they be forced to administer care that the founders and operators find morally objectionable?

According to the State of Maryland, they should. A famous case involving St. Agnes Hospital resulted in a ruling that even when an institution is formed and operated with known religious beliefs, the state can still force it to do things that the institution finds morally objectionable.

I'm sure that you'd say that people with moral objections should then completely avoid that line of work. Let's kick all of the Catholics out of health care and see what kind of crisis that lead us to.

Heck, Wal-Mart may not want to sell RU-486 because the corporation's board disagrees with the use of the drug. Should we force stores to sell things that they don't want to sell? Libertarians should say "yes". Why should any store be forced to sell things that it doesn't want to sell.

And once again, what does this have to do with crime in Baltimore?

Tue Sep 23, 09:55:00 AM EDT
ppatin said...

"Heck, Wal-Mart may not want to sell RU-486 because the corporation's board disagrees with the use of the drug. Should we force stores to sell things that they don't want to sell? Libertarians should say "yes"."

You obviously have absolutely no clue what libertarians stand for. No libertarian would ever advocate forcing a store to sell a product that they didn't want to. There's a huge difference between that and forcing a business to hire an employee who won't do his or her job.

"Someone please explain what Christians have in common with the Taliban and why using the term "American Taliban" shouldn't qualify as hate speech."

Most Christians have nothing in common with the Taliban. A small, scary minority of Christians have a strong desire to force their beliefs down the throats of others though. As for hate speech, this is America. We have the right to say hateful things.

Tue Sep 23, 10:15:00 AM EDT
Meghan said...

UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE!

This country is going to crap!

Tue Sep 23, 11:00:00 AM EDT

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)