What should be allowed as far as religious freedom goes?

[Holly3278]

Hey everyone. This is something that is bothering me about religious freedom laws. I totally sympathize with Christian bakers, photographers, etc who face government penalties for refusing to cater to “gay weddings” because they feel that such events are immoral. I believe that they should have their right to exercise their beliefs protected. But is it possible that some could abuse this right to religious freedom and if so, how can we protect against such abuse? For example, a good use of religious freedom would a pro-life doctor refusing to perform or refer for an abortion. But what if a different doctor chose to exercise his religious freedom by refusing to allow a blood transfusion because he was a Jehovah’s Witness? How can laws protecting religious freedom protect the pro-life doctor while refusing to protect the doctor who is withholding a life-saving treatment based on his religious views? This is the only example I can come up with right now but I am sure there are other examples that could apply as well.

 

[shockerfan]

Hey everyone. This is something that is bothering me about religious freedom laws. I totally sympathize with Christian bakers, photographers, etc who face government penalties for refusing to cater to “gay weddings” because they feel that such events are immoral. I believe that they should have their right to exercise their beliefs protected. But is it possible that some could abuse this right to religious freedom and if so, how can we protect against such abuse? For example, a good use of religious freedom would a pro-life doctor refusing to perform or refer for an abortion. But what if a different doctor chose to exercise his religious freedom by refusing to allow a blood transfusion because he was a Jehovah’s Witness? How can laws protecting religious freedom protect the pro-life doctor while refusing to protect the doctor who is withholding a life-saving treatment based on his religious views? This is the only example I can come up with right now but I am sure there are other examples that could apply as well.

Good question…I’ve thought about this too.

Regarding the Christian baker, photographers, etc., to me the dividing line is: Are they just being asked to supply a standard product at their store, or are the being asked to provide some level of artistic creativity making the product unique? Nobody should be forced to provide some level of artistic creativity that is blasphemous. Nobody should be forced to attend a religious service they find blasphemous. Its the individual, not government, that should decide this.

Regarding doctors: The two examples you provided…one takes a life, one saves a life…that could be a good dividing line.

Think about this…the SCOTUS just turned down a case where the state of Washington dictated that a privately owned pharmacy MUST carry abortifacient drugs…there is no choice or freedom. It is the same as the government forcing a Jewish deli to serve ham sandwiches.

This is supposedly a free country. If the person providing services doesn’t provide the service you want…find another provider.

 

[Tomdstone]

. But what if a different doctor chose to exercise his religious freedom by refusing to allow a blood transfusion because he was a Jehovah’s Witness? .

And then there are questions about the members of the Christian Science group who may not seek medical care for their weak or sick infants.

 

[MaryT777]

Excellent question…

 

[perpetual200]

When do we force the override of conscience? HOwever, if your conscience is too big an obstacle to people obtaining service they expect, you should consider another field or location? I would not want a JW doctor who would not order a transfusion to be the only available ER doc for 500 miles. At best, people need to be honest and upfront about some of these things.

 

[perpetual200]

When do we force the override of conscience? HOwever, if your conscience is too big an obstacle to people obtaining service they expect, you should consider another field or location? I would not want a JW doctor who would not order a transfusion to be the only available ER doc for 500 miles. At best, people need to be honest and upfront about some of these things.

 

[shockerfan]

HOwever, if your conscience is too big an obstacle to people obtaining service they expect, you should consider another field or location? I would not want a JW doctor who would not order a transfusion to be the only available ER doc for 500 miles. At best, people need to be honest and upfront about some of these things.

So would you force a devout Catholic OB-GYN to perform an abortion?

 

[Rosebud77]

So would you force a devout Catholic OB-GYN to perform an abortion?

well you could try… Are not drs vettted when they apply to screen out views that might be dangerous? eg the JW? . Would a JW dr refuse to DO that?yes if the patient were JW.

But I thought there were laws that eg nurses could not be obligated to take part in killing unborn babies?

 

[shockerfan]

well you could try… Are not drs vettted when they apply to screen out views that might be dangerous? eg the JW? . Would a JW dr refuse to DO that?yes if the patient were JW.

What is the definition of “dangerous”? Is “pro-life” dangerous?

But I thought there were laws that eg nurses could not be obligated to take part in killing unborn babies?

apparently not in Illinois

lifenews.com/2016/06/09/pro-life-nurse-fired-for-refusing-to-participate-in-abortions-im-called-to-do-no-harm/

 

[jtav]

What is the definition of “dangerous”? Is “pro-life” dangerous?

apparently not in Illinois

lifenews.com/2016/06/09/pro-life-nurse-fired-for-refusing-to-participate-in-abortions-im-called-to-do-no-harm/

I would say there should be three limits to religious freedom:

1. The exercise thereof should never endanger the mental or physical health of another person. Child abuse, assault, etc are never acceptable.
2. What’s being refused should not be intrinsic to the job.
3. You should not deprive others of the necessities of life.

 

[porthos11]

The Church is smart. The dividing line is public order.

In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed (DH 2)

The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles (DH 4)

I can just imaging the smart-alecks chiming in now “but what is public order?”

If you still have to ask that question, you probably belong in jail. Refusing to bake cakes, perform abortions and sterilizations are not contrary to public order. For that matter, neither is refusing to accept a blood transfusion.

Human sacrifice IS contrary to public order, hence, there is no freedom of religion for any Aztecs or Moloch-worshippers out there.

 

[Hockeygurl]

The laws of professional ethics require a healthcare provider to refer patient’s requesting a procedure that the Dr. feels unethical.

For example, I know of one doctor in our area that refuses to prescribe birth control. But, he is legally required to refer patient’s requesting contraception to another practitioner who does.

As for the nurses question. At a hospital I worked at, only chemotherapy nurses could administer methotrexate to a person with a tubal pregnancy. We had a meeting and names were taken down of who would and who would not desire to participate. It was never an issue.

Hope that helps.

 

[goout]

Good question…I’ve thought about this too.

Regarding the Christian baker, photographers, etc., to me the dividing line is: Are they just being asked to supply a standard product at their store, or are the being asked to provide some level of artistic creativity making the product unique? Nobody should be forced to provide some level of artistic creativity that is blasphemous. Nobody should be forced to attend a religious service they find blasphemous. Its the individual, not government, that should decide this.

Regarding doctors: The two examples you provided…one takes a life, one saves a life…that could be a good dividing line.

Think about this…the SCOTUS just turned down a case where the state of Washington dictated that a privately owned pharmacy MUST carry abortifacient drugs…there is no choice or freedom. It is the same as the government forcing a Jewish deli to serve ham sandwiches.

This is supposedly a free country. If the person providing services doesn’t provide the service you want…find another provider.

It’s simple in concept but can be difficult to employ.

We have a hierarchy of of goods. Morality is the evaluation of human acts in reference to these goods. So we have to evaluate. Can be tricky.

My freedom to practice religion cannot abuse your freedom to live, for example. So a religion which practices human sacrifice is immoral.

My right to make a living does not justify my confiscating businesses from other ethnic groups.

My right to privacy does not come at the expense of other human lives.

My right to have a wedding does not mean I can force someone else to participate.

My right to birth control pills does not demand your payment for them.

Etc…

 

[HelenRose]

well you could try… Are not drs vettted when they apply to screen out views that might be dangerous? eg the JW? . Would a JW dr refuse to DO that?yes if the patient were JW.

But I thought there were laws that eg nurses could not be obligated to take part in killing unborn babies?

The way to keep nurses and doctors who value life out of the system is to require that they perform these operations in school and if they refuse they will not be able to graduate and receive certification.

Here is the situation as I see it. We begin to force doctors and nurses to perform procedures that take human life. Doctors and nurses who value all human life will be forced to leave the profession of healing.

Thereby leaving only the men and women who are willing to take human life. If the government succeeds in becoming the only health provider (as socialists of our nation desire) the medical men and women will be the hand of government who will decide whose lives are valuable for society and whose lives are a detriment to society. These will not only be the unborn, but the mentally ill, and the old.

The government as the only insurance provider will be willing to provide assisted suicide for the suffering but will refuse cancer treatment for those older than, let us say, 65.

Suffering will become a capital crime in such a society.

 

[shockerfan]

I would say there should be three limits to religious freedom:

1. The exercise thereof should never endanger the mental or physical health of another person. Child abuse, assault, etc are never acceptable.

I agree with your examples, however, I have heard pro-abortion rights people make the claim that not performing an abortion could be injurious to the mental well being of the mother, or her life, or her future income.

1. What’s being refused should not be intrinsic to the job.

If I am a Catholic singer, and I sing at weddings, should I be forced to sing at gay weddings even though I consider that blasphemy?

If I am a Pharmacist who owns my own pharmacy, must I carry abortafacient drugs that violate my conscience? If yes, must I carry all drugs ever made, or only those that the pro-abortion rights lobby dictates?

If I am a Catholic ob-gyn, must I be forced to perform abortions?

1. You should not deprive others of the necessities of life.

Ah, but what are the necessities of life?

So far, I can agree in principle with what you wrote, but I guess I need to see how you answer the questions I posed.

 

[jtav]

I agree with your examples, however, I have heard pro-abortion rights people make the claim that not performing an abortion could be injurious to the mental well being of the mother, or her life, or her future income.

If I am a Catholic singer, and I sing at weddings, should I be forced to sing at gay weddings even though I consider that blasphemy?

If I am a Pharmacist who owns my own pharmacy, must I carry abortafacient drugs that violate my conscience? If yes, must I carry all drugs ever made, or only those that the pro-abortion rights lobby dictates?

If I am a Catholic ob-gyn, must I be forced to perform abortions?

Ah, but what are the necessities of life?

So far, I can agree in principle with what you wrote, but I guess I need to see how you answer the questions I posed.

I would agree with your counterexamples. I am writing from a perspective that’s more familiar with people who beat their children or deny them routine medical treatment and call it part of their religion that I would like. I also read about cases where a pediatrician declined to take on a child because they were being raised by lesbians and cases where LGBT were fired from secular businesses for being gay. It’s those examples I wish to prevent, as well as non-Catholics imposing their religion on me.

 

[mikekle]

Part of the problem is…living as a devout christian in a very secular world was never intended to be easy or comfortable, in fact Jesus warned it would be the opposite, so why would anyone expect to be able to live the best of both worlds on the fence, claim to be a faithful christian as well as a model citizen (that is just not possible).