Richard Dawkins' "Out Campaign"

[fnr]

I recently discovered that Dawkins produced a documentary on religion called “The Root of All Evil?” in which he debates notable religious figures, including the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard, as well as a Muslim scholar in Israel. I’ve not yet seen the movie.

However, I understand that at least one interview he did with a British theologian, Alister McGrath, didn’t make it into the movie. The video’s on Google Video.

I listened to about half an hour of it, and I actually found McGrath to be quite impressive. I don’t know what church he’s from, but he certainly was honest and humble about what he could and couldn’t prove, and it didn’t seem as though Dawkins really had much luck in shooting him down.

Apparently, some have alleged that Dawkins’ documentary excluded footage from the interview since it didn’t support Dawkins’ goal of making religious people look like irrational followers of ideas that there’s no basis for believing.

 

[nichjake]

I fully support Dawkins new campaign. Atheists should not have to be afraid to admit their atheism…just as christians shouldn’t have to be afraid of admitting their beliefs. I go to a public university and I can hardly go a day without some religious group shoving their religion in my face…and all I do to get this is walk through campus on my way to class. Just this morning on my way to class I was damned to hell by the man we all call the “Wells Hall Preacher”…and he didn’t even know I’m an atheist, all I did was walk by with my iPod on.

People generally either support or ignore these Religious people, no one protests or calls them names because they’re religious. The Atheist group the I’m part of on campus once set up a table with the sign “ask an Atheist” we quietly sat there and let people come to us and ask us any question they wanted. We of course had fliers giving info about out group and general info on where they can find more info on atheism. After 70 I lost count of how many people either shouted insults or came up to us and said horrible things to our faces. And these first 70 insults came in a span of about 2 hours.

People claim this country is hostile to theists…well thats nothing compared to what atheists who are open about their non beliefs face. I would be almost afraid to wear a shirt that had even a subtle hint of atheim and yet I see people every day with bible verses on their shirts and other things showing their faith. This double standard is unacceptable and I’m sick of being spurned by people because of my atheism. I came out to my family earlier this summer…my sister refuses to even be in the same room with me and my brother won’t return my phone calls. Its complete **** if you ask me.

 

[fnr]

I go to a public university and I can hardly go a day without some religious group shoving their religion in my face…and all I do to get this is walk through campus on my way to class. Just this morning on my way to class I was damned to hell by the man we all call the “Wells Hall Preacher”…

The Atheist group the I’m part of on campus once set up a table with the sign “ask an Atheist” we quietly sat there and let people come to us and ask us any question they wanted. We of course had fliers giving info about out group and general info on where they can find more info on atheism.

I have to say that I rather prefer the tactics of your group. I too have seen the open-air judgment of “campus preachers” on college campuses, and found them to be – in my eyes – utterly undermining the principles I think best reflect Christianity: humility, empathy, and integrity.

I actually applaud your methods for starting discussions on religious topics. I actually knew a Catholic apologetics group while I was in college that used somewhat similar methods. They were a little more outspoken on matters like Church history, but not condemnatory. Overall, though, I found their willingness to patiently entertain questions to be a better means of getting a message across.

Overall, my concern with Dawkins’ campaign has been some interviews he’s given where he acts as though believers must be brainwashed idiots. I think he often comes across more as the “campus preacher” than as the type of rational willingness to engage that you described above.

I actually enjoy talking with “skeptics” and atheists about the limits to both sides’ claims. The intersection of philosophy and science is an endless source of frank and objective discussion of issues that inform both world views. I think we all come out more honest, with a better understanding that it’s people just like us that we’re talking to.

As I often quote, the Police’s song Russians says, “We share the same biology, regardless of ideology.” Again playing on the song, I can say for certain that the atheists “love their children too,” just as I’d expect atheists to say the same of theists.

I apologize if I or any of my co-religionists have treated you disrespectfully.

 

[nichjake]

I actually applaud your methods for starting discussions on religious topics. I actually knew a Catholic apologetics group while I was in college that used somewhat similar methods. They were a little more outspoken on matters like Church history, but not condemnatory. Overall, though, I found their willingness to patiently entertain questions to be a better means of getting a message across.

I feel I should mention that theres a Catholic rep group from the local student parrish that comes once or twice a week and does pretty much the same thing as my group. Theres usually a preist and they sit there calmly and let people come to them. I’ve stopped to ask them questions once or twice, they’re actually quite pleasant to talk to. Thankfully they don’t come the same day as the “Wells hall preacher”, I’d hate to hear what hatred he’d spout at them.

 

[theAuthor]

I recently discovered that Dawkins produced a documentary on religion called “The Root of All Evil?” in which he debates notable religious figures, including the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard, as well as a Muslim scholar in Israel. I’ve not yet seen the movie.

However, I understand that at least one interview he did with a British theologian, Alister McGrath, didn’t make it into the movie. The video’s on Google Video.

I listened to about half an hour of it, and I actually found McGrath to be quite impressive. I don’t know what church he’s from, but he certainly was honest and humble about what he could and couldn’t prove, and it didn’t seem as though Dawkins really had much luck in shooting him down.

Apparently, some have alleged that Dawkins’ documentary excluded footage from the interview since it didn’t support Dawkins’ goal of making religious people look like irrational followers of ideas that there’s no basis for believing.

If it is the same one I saw, I loved how Alister had the same posh silver-spoon Oxford accent as Dawkins and matched him on that snooty intellectual manner. What’s more it was cut because Alister bested him I reckon.

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

Richard Dawkins might be a brilliant scientist, but, like all atheists, he is a theological hack. His entire argument against religion, especially against Christianity, is a giant mess of strawmen, falsehoods, sloppy thinking, and utter silliness.

– Mark L. Chance.

Although I haven’t read Dawkins’ works yet, most atheists base their arguments against Christianity on “straw”. That is, most, rather, nearly all atheists (from what I have heard, even Dawkins himself bases his book, “God Delusion” from a terrible misunderstanding of what our faith truly teaches and bases his premises on false teachings or unexact half truths from dimwitted Christians), I guess would probably flunk a test on say, our Catholic faith. What value is an argument if one argues and tries to disprove a premise he doesn’t fully understand? In essence it is nothing, for it is based on a premise which is non substantial. A straw man argument.

I have yet to hear from an atheist who has FULL understanding of the Catholic faith and as yet disagrees with it and presents an argument that isn’t straw.

I am rather curious of Mr. Dawkins’ teachings however. He seems to be the “Messiah” of atheism.

 

[williamric]

Why should atheists be allowed to admit their beliefs publicly?

Are you being serious? Thats not really very fair is it?

 

[servus]

Richard Dawkins, noted scientist and author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, has tried to turn his own personal brand of atheism into a movement. The web site is outcampaign.org/

Has anyone faced an “evangelical atheist” of the type Dawkins seems to be promoting? Not infrequently, I face people whose supposedly “scientific” worldview has made them feel more confident about their atheism.

Has there been a rise in one-on-one atheist evangelization?

I had a class at a University this past summer in which several of the students identified themselves as “militant atheists”, and disciples of Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris.

One thing seemed common to them, they claimed to “hate God” and think religion was bad for society. It was a religious studies class, and everytime we would discuss something in the Bible, one of these students (who were bright nonetheless), would as if on que bash what the Bible was saying, and unfortunatly, misrepresent it. It has been said that “the god who does not exist must appreciate ahteists the most, because they are the ones most willing to talk about him”.

I feel sorry for these people. Most of them were at one point in thier life Chrisitans, and had some earth shattering reason they left. I think it is a failure on the part of the Church. We don’t equip our young people with answers before they go off to College, where they will be exposed to a naturalistic, humanistic bias.

 

[Greg27]

Dawkins is pretty good when it comes to science, but less so when it comes to philosophy and theology. He doesn’t really understand Anselm’s ontological argument (he dismisses it as a kind of logical cojuror’s trick when in fact it is a very brilliant and subtle argument which great thinkers like Karl Jaspers and Immanuel Kant took very seriously) and brushes over Aquinas too quickly as well. His knowledge of theology also isn’t that strong either.

His best ground is science, which he has tried to use in the past to disprove the arguments of intelligent design and appeal to teleology in the universe. Here he is more compelling, and quite correct at some points (some formulations of ID are pretty weak and easily demolished) but less so than others.

Any serious theist will know the inherent weaknesses in Dawkins arguments, at least if he or she knows some philosophy and theology.

 

[djrakowski]

Just this morning on my way to class I was damned to hell by the man we all call the “Wells Hall Preacher”…and he didn’t even know I’m an atheist, all I did was walk by with my iPod on.

Oh man, the Wells Hall Preacher - does that ever bring back memories! I was a student at MSU in the early 90’s, and a variety of these fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist preachers would post themselves around campus, haranguing passersby with tales of impending woe for their souls. Don’t feel bad - there’s no way they can knowingly target only atheists. Those of us who were nominal Catholics (including myself), mainstream Protestants and non-Christians were annoyed by such buffoons, as well.

Those of us who are mature and well-formed in our particular belief systems, theist or otherwise, shouldn’t be offended when people merely insult us. Now, if you’re suddenly denied admission to public institutions, barred from seeking employment, or blocked from purchasing a home, then you have a reason to complain of discrimination. Yes, it may be painful to be shunned by family and close friends, but that happens to folks who convert from non-Catholic religions to Catholicism all the time. It isn’t like atheists are particularly singled out for this sort of inhumane treatment.

 

[Nepenthe]

djrakowski:

Now, if you’re suddenly denied admission to public institutions, barred from seeking employment, or blocked from purchasing a home, then you have a reason to complain of discrimination. Yes, it may be painful to be shunned by family and close friends, but that happens to folks who convert from non-Catholic religions to Catholicism all the time. It isn’t like atheists are particularly singled out for this sort of inhumane treatment.

Actually, yes, we are. I was denied lunch at a public primary school for years, since I did not pray, and refused to fake it merely to receive my share of the gruel. Parents would not let me play with their children and called me a ‘witch’ or a ‘satanist’; teachers mistreated me and held me up as an abomination before classrooms - and of course the children took all that as license to attack me, sometimes in packs of more than 20. As an adult, I have been fired from three jobs when my coworkers or bosses found out I was not a theist - and I do not share that knowledge with anyone unless they ask directly, since I consider loudly proclaiming one’s belief or unbelief rather tacky and rude. These were specifically Christians too, not that I care particularly - my Muslim and Hindu bosses and coworkers didn’t mind at all and we had excellent work relations. I do not know why, but that is so. I don’t mind the insults too much, though they hurt. But I assure you it goes beyond insults.

I’m not too big of a fan of Dawkins style as a rhetorician at times, though I do admire him quite a bit. He can come off as rather shrill and impatient. Nevertheless, he is right in saying that enough is enough. Why should we be silenced (or worse) as I have seen advocated many times right here on this forum and right here in this thread, or treated as any less than theists? Indeed, why shouldn’t we have a sense of community and fellowship, even though we nontheists are a pretty diverse lot with not much common agenda except to not be maltreated by the religious, and maybe hanging out and getting a coffee?

 

[freesoulhope]

I never thought of it that way before. Thanks. Of course the next argument is that if the Early Fathers gained their ideas from secular philosophers that God cannot take the credit…

?

People gain wisdom and knowledge from the reality that they exist in, for we reflect upon the real world, which exists, and we draw knowledge from it, regardless of what religion we believe in; therefore God can take credit, for it was he who taught you. God gives the power of reason and creates the object from which reason gains wisdom and knowledge. A Reasoning mind presuposses and is realiant upon an objectively reasonable reality; that is how we can tell if something is unreasonable or not.

 

[djrakowski]

Actually, yes, we are. I was denied lunch at a public primary school for years, since I did not pray, and refused to fake it merely to receive my share of the gruel.

At a public primary school? Where and when? I went to public school in a variety of locations throughout suburban Detroit and central Florida throughout the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s (if you include university), and never once have I seen organized school prayers, nor have I seen institutionalized discrimination based upon religious belief (or lack thereof).

However, I was once told I was going to hell by a classmate whose father is a minister in the Church of the Nazarene because I dared to write a paper in which I was critical of literal 6-day creationism. That’s about the worst level of discrimination I’ve ever seen in a public school, and that’s pretty mild, fortunately.

Parents would not let me play with their children and called me a ‘witch’ or a ‘satanist’; teachers mistreated me and held me up as an abomination before classrooms - and of course the children took all that as license to attack me, sometimes in packs of more than 20.

That’s truly awful, and no child should be held out as a negative example for something as personal as a belief system. I’ve never personally seen such treatment in public school, so I wonder where and when you went to school that you were subjected to it. As a taxpayer and supporter of the public school system where I live, I would decry these abuses alongside you. Did your parents or anyone else concerned about your welfare do anything to defend your rights?

Having said that, children will find any excuse to attack other children. I was verbally and physically attacked for years because I was small, slight and studious. With children, one need look no further than the examples set for them by the adults in authority over them to determine the source of these brutal behaviors.

As an adult, I have been fired from three jobs when my coworkers or bosses found out I was not a theist - and I do not share that knowledge with anyone unless they ask directly, since I consider loudly proclaiming one’s belief or unbelief rrather tacky and rude. I don’t mind the insults too much, though they hurt. But I assure you it goes beyond insults.

Were you able to bring suit against those who unjustly dismissed you? There are laws, at least in the United States, that protect you against such discrimination.

 

[rlg94086]

What region of the US did this happen in? I’ve only lived in Western states, but that sounds pretty unbelievable. I guess I should also ask, what century did this happen in?

Actually, yes, we are. I was denied lunch at a public primary school for years, since I did not pray, and refused to fake it merely to receive my share of the gruel. Parents would not let me play with their children and called me a ‘witch’ or a ‘satanist’; teachers mistreated me and held me up as an abomination before classrooms - and of course the children took all that as license to attack me, sometimes in packs of more than 20. As an adult, I have been fired from three jobs when my coworkers or bosses found out I was not a theist - and I do not share that knowledge with anyone unless they ask directly, since I consider loudly proclaiming one’s belief or unbelief rather tacky and rude. These were specifically Christians too, not that I care particularly - my Muslim and Hindu bosses and coworkers didn’t mind at all and we had excellent work relations. I do not know why, but that is so. I don’t mind the insults too much, though they hurt. But I assure you it goes beyond insults.

I’m not too big of a fan of Dawkins style as a rhetorician at times, though I do admire him quite a bit. He can come off as rather shrill and impatient. Nevertheless, he is right in saying that enough is enough. Why should we be silenced (or worse) as I have seen advocated many times right here on this forum and right here in this thread, or treated as any less than theists? Indeed, why shouldn’t we have a sense of community and fellowship, even though we nontheists are a pretty diverse lot with not much common agenda except to not be maltreated by the religious, and maybe hanging out and getting a coffee?

 

[Nepenthe]

The public schools where these things occurred were in Dallas TX and Indianapolis IN. Not exactly bastions of enlightenment, to be sure. But no, no adult stood up for me. But in Dallas, eventually a few of the other children got to know me and realized how ugly this situation was, and began fighting for me on the playground, and even telling off the teachers. In Indianapolis I took matters into my own hands, and got allowed an work permit and earned a scholarship to an excellent Jesuit school, and was treated with great warmth and respect by the monks, lay teachers and students of all religions (I may have been been the only lifelong nontheist, but that didn’t matter much) there.

Oops, edit: this was in the 70’s and 80’s (yeah, the 1970’s and 1980’s )

As for the work situations, what could a poor young wageslave really do? Heck, the first one was when I was 12 years old, and again, I had no one to defend me. The other two, I could not afford either the time or money to pursue such matters, since I had to scrabble to survive. I will say though, that all three businesses that treated me so went out of business within a year of doing it. Goes to show how such unjust discrimination hurts everyone – I doubt my presence would have kept them in business, but if firing hardworking, intelligent employees for such poor reason was indicative of their overall shoddy business practice, I doubt anything could have!

Thanks for your very kindly concern though!

Just in case anyone brings it up, I hope it’s clear I don’t have any resentment towards religious people. A little nervousness and shyness, that I do have and I think it’s understandable, given my experiences, though many were and are very good. I just do my best to become acquainted, and hopefully friendly, with everyone on an individual basis, whether they’re religious or not.

 

[djrakowski]

The public schools where these things occurred were in Dallas TX and Indianapolis IN. Not exactly bastions of enlightenment, to be sure. But no, no adult stood up for me.

Not even your parents? My goodness, that’s awfully surprising!

But in Dallas, eventually a few of the other children got to know me and realized how ugly this situation was, and began fighting for me on the playground, and even telling off the teachers. In Indianapolis I took matters into my own hands, and got allowed an work permit and earned a scholarship to an excellent Jesuit school, and was treated with great warmth and respect by the monks, lay teachers and students of all religions (I may have been been the only lifelong nontheist, but that didn’t matter much) there.

Ah, good to hear that Catholics were among those who provided you with safe harbor!

Oops, edit: this was in the 70’s and 80’s (yeah, the 1970’s and 1980’s )

I don’t think anyone would’ve confused you for someone from the 19th century!

As for the work situations, what could a poor young wageslave really do? Heck, the first one was when I was 12 years old, and again, I had no one to defend me.

I’m still shocked that your parents or some other concerned adult didn’t put up a fight. Sure, you faced discrimination, and that in itself is inexcusable, but there are laws to protect you, and it seems that the adults in your life failed to make use of them. In other words, the discrimination you’ve faced is far from enshrined in our legal system - quite the opposite.

In other words, the ‘system’ (whatever that may be) doesn’t discriminate against theists any more than it does non-theists.

The other two, I could not afford either the time or money to pursue such matters, since I had to scrabble to survive. I will say though, that all three businesses that treated me so went out of business within a year of doing it.

:clapping:

Goes to show how such unjust discrimination hurts everyone – I doubt my presence would have kept them in business, but if firing hardworking, intelligent employees for such poor reason was indicative of their overall shoddy business practice, I doubt anything could have!

Thanks for your very kindly concern though!

Your assessment of these businesses is right on the mark.

And, you’re welcome. In addition to concern over those who face such discrimination, I was interested in finding out which bastions of hate were responsible for the maltreatment you’ve received.

I would also add that, in certain parts of the country, governmental agencies are enshrining discrimination against Catholics into law, as in the cases in which pro-life Catholic pharmacists were threatened with loss of license for exercising their consciences in refusing to fill prescriptions for artificial contraception. I’m fairly certain that I’ve not seen any such legislation aimed at the personal beliefs of non-theists.

 

[williamric]

Actually, yes, we are. I was denied lunch at a public primary school for years, since I did not pray, and refused to fake it merely to receive my share of the gruel. Parents would not let me play with their children and called me a ‘witch’ or a ‘satanist’; teachers mistreated me and held me up as an abomination before classrooms - and of course the children took all that as license to attack me, sometimes in packs of more than 20. As an adult, I have been fired from three jobs when my coworkers or bosses found out I was not a theist - and I do not share that knowledge with anyone unless they ask directly, since I consider loudly proclaiming one’s belief or unbelief rather tacky and rude. These were specifically Christians too, not that I care particularly - my Muslim and Hindu bosses and coworkers didn’t mind at all and we had excellent work relations. I do not know why, but that is so. I don’t mind the insults too much, though they hurt. But I assure you it goes beyond insults.

Wow, thats really shocking! Is that common in your area? I’m so sorry that happened to you, I know that might sound a tad cheesy

Anyway, Peace

 

[Nepenthe]

djrakowski:

I would also add that, in certain parts of the country, governmental agencies are enshrining discrimination against Catholics into law, as in the cases in which pro-life Catholic pharmacists were threatened with loss of license for exercising their consciences in refusing to fill prescriptions for artificial contraception.

I am fervently opposed to all forms of discrimination, although I think you might have chosen a better example. I don’t think such rulings were made in order to discriminate against Catholics, but sheerly to protect the entire relationship structure of medicine, as predicated upon the safety of the patients. There’s a ‘chain-of-command’ problem there, since physicians do the prescribing and pharmacists, not knowing why those medications were prescribed (eg, women are often prescribed hormone supplements and regulators for reasons not involving contraception) and are bound by their duty to fill them, save in a few cases – like say, if a person comes in obviously intoxicated or clearly ill or wounded in such a way that the prescription might no longer be appropriate, they may, at least temporarily, refuse to dispense and inform the prescribing physician of the situation.

Possibly, an entire separate code could be made for Catholic pharmacies, but then what about those patients who either are not Catholic or need the objectionable-to-Catholic medications for non-objectionable reasons, and perhaps that’s the only pharmacy such patients have access to? And then codes for other religious and ethical flavors of pharmacy…Egad, what a mess that would be!

Perhaps it would be better for anyone who does have moral qualms about a profession to choose another, just as someone who has absolute conscientious objection to blowing people up should not become an artillery gunner in the armed forces.

If there are other anti-Catholic, or anti-Muslim, or anti-ANYbody legislations on the tables, I would like to know, so that I can help fight them.

djrakowski:

I’m fairly certain that I’ve not seen any such legislation aimed at the personal beliefs of non-theists.

Often it isn’t the laws that discriminate, but the problems with accessing them and enforcing them that are the rub. Catholic, Jews, black people - all have their anti-defamation/discrimination and advocacy groups. Nontheists sure could use such an organization too.

 

[fnr]

Although I haven’t read Dawkins’ works yet, most atheists base their arguments against Christianity on “straw”. That is, most, rather, nearly all atheists (from what I have heard, even Dawkins himself bases his book, “God Delusion” from a terrible misunderstanding of what our faith truly teaches and bases his premises on false teachings or unexact half truths from dimwitted Christians), I guess would probably flunk a test on say, our Catholic faith. What value is an argument if one argues and tries to disprove a premise he doesn’t fully understand? In essence it is nothing, for it is based on a premise which is non substantial. A straw man argument.

I think it’s important to characterize Dawkins’ arguments properly, lest we ourselves respond uncritically to a “straw man argument.” They are in fact not a mere characterization of a theist stereotype, but a compilation of arguments that skeptics throughout history have used in arguing against God. I should note that I’ve not read The God Delusion, but I’ve listened to numerous podcast interviews with Dawkins and have watched his Q&A/Debate with British professor of historical theology Allistor McGrath on Google Video. I also should note that aside from the content of his argument, some of his statements in interviews have seemed to steotype theists as easily cowed self-deluding simps. That’s to what I most seriously object.

As I understand it, here are his main arguments:
(1) Science, as we understand it, does not require a God to explain the observed universe.
(2) The problem of evil. Why do evils such as natural disaster exist? Why does one person survive such an event, while many die? Why are there diseases such as cancer in two-year old children?
(3) The historicity of various religions’ claims. Namely, that there is little historical evidence to back the factual claims of any one religion, including the Resurrection of Christ (in Christianity), the appearance of Gabriel to Muhammad (in Islam), and/or the appearance of Krishna to Arjuna before battle (in Hinduism).

I think each of these points is easily addressed, but not too easily. Many of the “stock” answers from theists are all too “pat.” For instance, one historical answer to the problem of evil is that it’s God’s will that one person lives while 10,000 die. Sure, it could be true, but it’s awfully cold and arbitrary. Another, a Christian response, is that death came into the world with the “Sin of Adam” (never mind Eve of course, though she was first to sin), so all such disasters are the result of this original sin. I find that also thin. There’s plenty of evidence of death among non-human animals before the emergence of Homo sapiens sapeins, and it’s not at all clear that there was an actual Adam and Eve in the “historical person” sense of the word.

However, many natural disasters take lives on account of human choice and hubris, not the actual meteorological or geological phenomena. New Orleans, for instance, was such a disaster more due to the excessive confidence in city planners in 1950s engineering, the overconfidence (i.e. pride) in evacuation and shelter plans, the failure to educate its residents on the risks of Katrina, and the unwillingness of decision makers to listen to expert recommendations who warned of such disasters years before it happened, than to the occurence of a Class 4 hurricane per se. The earthquake in northern Pakistan, which claimed so many lives, can be thought of as a failure of development, and of “donor fatigue” setting in concurrently with the Himalayan winter.

But childhood cancer? Failure to thrive among infants? Truly not easy to answer. I think epidemiologic data can tell us more about how our actions affect our childrens’ health, but some diseases are truly genetic. Hard to blame people for that one, unless you are willing to say that those with genetic illnesses shouldn’t breed. That’s a pretty monstrous line.

 

[Greg27]

I am fervently opposed to all forms of discrimination, although I think you might have chosen a better example. I don’t think such rulings were made in order to discriminate against Catholics, but sheerly to protect the entire relationship structure of medicine, as predicated upon the safety of the patients. There’s a ‘chain-of-command’ problem there, since physicians do the prescribing and pharmacists, not knowing why those medications were prescribed (eg, women are often prescribed hormone supplements and regulators for reasons not involving contraception) and are bound by their duty to fill them, save in a few cases – like say, if a person comes in obviously intoxicated or clearly ill or wounded in such a way that the prescription might no longer be appropriate, they may, at least temporarily, refuse to dispense and inform the prescribing physician of the situation.

Possibly, an entire separate code could be made for Catholic pharmacies, but then what about those patients who either are not Catholic or need the objectionable-to-Catholic medications for non-objectionable reasons, and perhaps that’s the only pharmacy such patients have access to? And then codes for other religious and ethical flavors of pharmacy…Egad, what a mess that would be!

Perhaps it would be better for anyone who does have moral qualms about a profession to choose another, just as someone who has absolute conscientious objection to blowing people up should not become an artillery gunner in the armed forces.

If there are other anti-Catholic, or anti-Muslim, or anti-ANYbody legislations on the tables, I would like to know, so that I can help fight them.

Often it isn’t the laws that discriminate, but the problems with accessing them and enforcing them that are the rub. Catholic, Jews, black people - all have their anti-defamation/discrimination and advocacy groups. Nontheists sure could use such an organization too.

To add my comment on this, I think if a Catholic pharmacist is going to refuse the dispensation of certain medicines on grounds of conscience (such as the pill or RU-486) then they should make it clear to customers before they use the pharmacy either that:

1. Their pharmacy does not have, and is not able to dispense these medicines and if possible:
2. The reasons why these medicines cannot be supplied.

The balance between personal conscience and ethics or law is not always easy, but I believe it is morally wrong for a pharmacist who is employed (at least assuming the pharmacy belongs to a franchise) at a secular pharmacy to refuse treatment or medicine on religious grounds to someone who does not belong to their faith or does not follow their beliefs. If they must refuse medicine though, they should state clearly beforehand to customers either they cannot dispense this medicine, or else give the customer the reasons why, and propose an alternative.

Otherwise, if one can’t follow and carry out the functions of one’s profession and the duties it entails to my best ability, on grounds of conscience, then one in my view should resign from that profession. If I was a Catholic lawyer who had to defend someone who was being prosecuted for running an illegal underground abortion clinic, and was not allowed to refuse the case, I would be obligated by reason of my profession as a lawyer to give this person the best defense possible, according to my ability, even if what they were doing was against the law and against my moral principles. This is because it is my duty as a lawyer to do this, and if I can’t do this, then I am not really a lawyer any more. The thing I would have to do in this situation then, is resign either as a lawyer, or as the defense attorney of this person.

Likewise in my view, a pharmacist who does not make their stand clear to customers, or in good conscience refuses to stock certain products they feel are against their principles, and denies or gives treatments only on the basis of their or another person’s religious belief, has fatally compromised themselves and their duties in the role they play, and thus should resign from their job. A person who can’t do their duties properly as an employee because they deliberately refuse to do so, is rightly in my view seen as grounds for dismissal, and it is better for the employer and the employee if the employee leaves and finds another job where their conscience does not conflict with their duties.