Posted on 06/22/2009 5:45:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It seems one man’s religious freedom is another man’s “ridiculous prejudice.”
One government official fumed that Catholic doctors were refusing to perform abortions-abortions that were perfectly legal. He wrote in a memo: “After all, these scruples are in most cases nothing but ridiculous prejudices . . . One is tempted to ask: where does state authority come in these cases, or else, is the state, perhaps, not anxious to assert its authority in this particular instance?”
Well, Nazi Germany was seldom hesitant to assert its authority, even over religion and individual conscience. As described in the June/July issue of First Things, the government official I just quoted was a Nazi bureaucrat who was none-too-happy that doctors in Italy’s Lake District-a heavily Catholic region-wouldn’t perform abortions. The Nazis, you see, had legalized abortions “in countries occupied by the Germany army.” Refusal to participate in government-sanctioned procedures drew his ire.
Fast forward to today, where there is heavy debate over whether medical professionals can be exempted from performing services that violate their religious beliefs.
The comparison is fair. And disturbing. But the problem isn’t restricted to medical practice.
Just last month, the New Hampshire legislature voted down a gay “marriage” bill because the governor had the audacity to insert language that would protect clergy and religious organizations from being forced to participate in gay “marriage” ceremonies or from providing marriage-related services.
As reported in the Concord Monitor, one New Hampshire legislator opposed what he called the “totally unnecessary and harmful amendment” because it “entrenches homophobia in statute.”
So, one man’s religious freedom, it seems, is another man’s homophobia-or silly prejudice, as the Nazi official called it.
Another legislator was quoted as saying, "It is puzzling to me, why we would allow some to discriminate and others not."
Maybe he is wondering, as the Nazi official did, “where state authority comes in this case.”
As I write in the upcoming June issue of Christianity Today-which I urge you to read-totalitarianism thrives when the state succeeds in what Hannah Arendt called the “atomization of society.” Arendt, a political theorist who fled Nazi Germany, described how totalitarian states seek to create a mass of individuals isolated from the very structures that have held civilized societies together for eons. Once individuals are alienated from families or from their faith communities or civic groups, they stand alone before the power of the state.
Is the United States teetering on the edge of totalitarianism? No.
But, should we Christians be concerned when the government seeks to strip health care workers of their right of conscience? Should we sniff out danger when a state fails to protect the religious rights of clergy, or wedding planners, or photographers who choose not to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies? Or when a new administration considers whether or not to force faith-based groups to cease what it considers “discriminatory” hiring practices?
Should we be concerned? Yes, we should.
ping!
Yes that is true.
Try posting liberal threads on DailyKos. This is not a liberal forum. Liberals are welcome to debate as well as liberaltarians which we have a good number of that lurk around.
Excellent and true. You have an absolute right of conscience.
Controllers just don’t believe you should use it against them.
They hate individual rights, they like collective ones. Individuals are so messy.
When you have no conscience who needs a clause?
You should control your property and as properly read you have a right to discriminate - free association.
For government only, individuals may freely associate.
I disagree. We have the right to live where we want but that doesn't mean we have a right to force others to provide us with a place to live. My right to live where I want means only that no third person can get between me and the seller/landlord who agrees to provide me with a place to live. In the same way, I have the right to marry any woman I choose so long as we aren't genetically related, etc. But that doesn't give me the right to force any woman on eHarmony.com to become my wife if she doesn't like me, regardless of her reasons.
Or think of it this way. Suppose I'm a landlord and you want to rent out my property, but I decide to turn it into a daycare instead. By exercising my property rights, I have prevented you from living where you want. But have I violated your rights by doing so?
The real issue, unspoken but loud and clear is:
Should health care workers have ...... conscience? not,
“Should health care workers have “the right” of conscience?”
When in heaven’s name was man’s conscience something that he did or did not have a RIGHT TO? This is strange...
a different meaning of the word, I fear, which obamakins’ athiest minions are forcing on us in subtle ways by changing our meaning of words.
and, conversely, should people have consciences? this is a serious thing... if obamakins can throw out the reality of a conscience because it can’t be seen... the rest of our humanity will come under assault.
Why on earth would I do that? I have never posted or even visited the daily Kos, nor have I ever posted to a liberal thread on FR, except to debunk the premise. Libertarians and RINO's are not conservative socially and will always be losers.
Good. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.