Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Pharmacy / December 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions!!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
RU 486 - 10 Nov 2004 08:02 GMT
Druggists refuse to give out pill

By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY

For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a
Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one
day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription
because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her
prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills.
"Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to
fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to
fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to
Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July
that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not
participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South
Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right
to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar
bills this year.

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a
policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they
object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient
can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the
prescription to another druggist to fill.

In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by
the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's
prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give
the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious
views.

Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such
actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that
would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if
they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for
abortions.

"We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just
the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth
control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America.

"The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number
of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that
prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing,"
she said.

Pharmacists have moved to the front of the debate because of such
drugs as the "morning-after" pill, which is emergency contraception
that can prevent fertilization if taken within 120 hours of
unprotected intercourse.

While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth
control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see
hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as
capable of causing an abortion.

"I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop
human life," says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member
Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she
refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in
the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.

Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the
Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March.
In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in
Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a
rape victim.

In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to
refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another
pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her
prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she
missed a pill because of the delay.

She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of
2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's
Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen
didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in
October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's
pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely.

Susan Winckler, spokeswoman and staff counsel for the American
Pharmacists Association, says it is rare that pharmacists refuse to
fill a prescription for moral reasons. She says it is even less common
for a pharmacist to refuse to provide a referral.

"The reality is every one of those instances is one too many,"
Winckler says. "Our policy supports stepping away but not
obstructing."

In the 1970s, because of abortion and sterilization, some states
adopted refusal clauses to allow certain health care professionals to
opt out of providing those services. The issue re-emerged in the
1990s, says Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which
researches reproductive issues.

Sonfield says medical workers, insurers and employers increasingly
want the right to refuse certain services because of medical
developments, such as the "morning-after" pill, embryonic stem-cell
research and assisted suicide.

"The more health care items you have that people feel are
controversial, some people are going to object and want to opt out of
being a part of that," he says.

In Wisconsin, a petition drive is underway to revive a proposed law
that would protect pharmacists who refuse to prescribe drugs they
believe could cause an abortion or be used for assisted suicide.

"It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose
between their consciences and their livelihoods," says Matt Sande of
Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to
abortion."
Mike (remove XX's to reply) - 10 Nov 2004 20:32 GMT
<stripped irrelevant newsgroups>

It's really amazing the religious zealotry that has spread across the USA.

The funny thing is that these supposed pro-lifers stop caring as soon as
the baby is born.  After that, the kid is completely on his own.  Hey,
you're born now.. unwanted.. we'll cut you'r benefits, too... you can
starve now... you're already born... we don't care anymore.

Thanks,

Mike

> Druggists refuse to give out pill
>
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
> Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to
> abortion."
Joel M. Eichen - 10 Nov 2004 21:17 GMT
><stripped irrelevant newsgroups>
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>> Druggists refuse to give out pill

Hah!

He should lose his license!

Joel

>> By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY
>>
[quoted text clipped - 116 lines]
>> Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to
>> abortion."
Tock - 11 Nov 2004 01:18 GMT
> <stripped irrelevant newsgroups>
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> you're born now.. unwanted.. we'll cut you'r benefits, too... you can
> starve now... you're already born... we don't care anymore.

Ya . . . the pope came out with a thing the other day that said that it was
a sin not to reproduce.   Huh . . . but then he says it's rich people's
responsibility to feed the millions of poor and starving children.   Ha . .
. let him sit in my barber chair and say that . . .
-Tock
Leonard Martin - 11 Nov 2004 05:55 GMT
> > <stripped irrelevant newsgroups>
> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> . let him sit in my barber chair and say that . . .
> -Tock

Your pointing up this inconsistency reveals the truth: they don't care
about the people (or proto-people, I should say). What they care about
is having their ideas of the nature of the world reflected in the law. I
suspect this is the case in part because it must be extremely hard to
keep on believing such unlikely stuff as Christianity, especially
evangelical Christianity, teaches--yet the fact of death produces a
near-desparate need to so believe. Since we are above all social beings,
it helps with this struggle if people around you, and society as a
whole, appear to agree with your unlikely theology.

Leonard

Signature

"Everything that rises must converge"
--Flannery O'Connor

R.White - 11 Nov 2004 11:53 GMT
> <stripped irrelevant newsgroups>
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> you're born now.. unwanted.. we'll cut you'r benefits, too... you can
> starve now... you're already born... we don't care anymore.

How so? Give me some actual examples, not just the same old spin.

> > Druggists refuse to give out pill
> >
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
> > Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to
> > abortion."
Ed Clarke - 11 Nov 2004 12:47 GMT
>> <stripped irrelevant newsgroups>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> How so? Give me some actual examples, not just the same old spin.

http://tinyurl.com/6mplg

Death rates per 100000 children where a child is age 1-14.
Rod Speed - 11 Nov 2004 17:46 GMT
>> Mike (remove XX's to reply) <aXXeneXXas@gwis.com> wrote

>>> It's really amazing the religious zealotry that has spread across the USA.

>>> The funny thing is that these supposed pro-lifers stop caring as soon
>>> as the baby is born.  After that, the kid is completely on his own.  Hey,
>>> you're born now.. unwanted.. we'll cut you'r benefits, too... you can
>>> starve now... you're already born... we don't care anymore.

>> How so? Give me some actual examples, not just the same old spin.

> http://tinyurl.com/6mplg
>
> Death rates per 100000 children where a child is age 1-14.

Thats completely bogus. Yes, it varys quite a bit, but thats mostly
the way the dregs 'live', not because of a lack of 'benefits'.

Australia is stupid enough to pay very generous 'benefits' indeed,
so silly that you can end up with a significantly higher nett income
'living' entirely on benefits than in an unskilled job, if you have more
than a couple of kids, and we still see that hike in the death rate
with the absolute dregs of society receiving those benefits.

We're also stupid enough to pay the 'benefits' in cash
and that does see the worst of the 'parents' piss that
money against the wall on drugs and grog and that has
a very visible effect on the death rate of their brats too.
R.White - 11 Nov 2004 22:02 GMT
> >> <stripped irrelevant newsgroups>
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Death rates per 100000 children where a child is age 1-14.

I didn't see anything on that site that addressed my request for
actual examples of pro-lifers who stopped caring for a baby as soon as
it was born. None. Just more spin.
Joel M. Eichen - 11 Nov 2004 23:12 GMT
>> >> <stripped irrelevant newsgroups>
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>actual examples of pro-lifers who stopped caring for a baby as soon as
>it was born. None. Just more spin.

How about in the U.S.?

How many children grow up in poverty with no hope of any kind of
meaningful life?
Mike (remove XX's to reply) - 13 Nov 2004 20:00 GMT
> I didn't see anything on that site that addressed my request for
> actual examples of pro-lifers who stopped caring for a baby as soon as
> it was born. None. Just more spin.

Two words--welfare reform.

Thanks,

Mike
R.White - 14 Nov 2004 03:40 GMT
> > I didn't see anything on that site that addressed my request for
> > actual examples of pro-lifers who stopped caring for a baby as soon as
> > it was born. None. Just more spin.
>
> Two words--welfare reform.

No, the two words are "more spin."
Ed Clarke - 14 Nov 2004 14:27 GMT
>> > I didn't see anything on that site that addressed my request for
>> > actual examples of pro-lifers who stopped caring for a baby as soon as
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> No, the two words are "more spin."

The site that I pointed to does not mention welfare or have any spin related
stuff.  It's death rate per hundred thousand children.  If you superimpose a
map of Republican versus Democrat voting states over the child mortality rate
map, you will find that Republican states do a worse job of keeping children
alive after birth than Democrat states.  That was the original question.

It could be malice, it could be environmental or it could be chance.  Perhaps
God finds Born-Again-Christians to be an abomination.  Perhaps the Islamists
are correct and God's pissed at the Christian right.  To be sure, you'd have
to find out the reason the children died.  It's merely "Interesting".  By the
way, I'm a registered Republican.
nobody special - 11 Nov 2004 14:11 GMT
So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to hear that
people are taking stands on their beliefs.
Bertie the Bunyip - 11 Nov 2004 15:15 GMT
> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
> hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.

Why is the law thing so important?

Certainly doesn't seemto be for Shrub, anyway.

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 11 Nov 2004 15:17 GMT
>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to hear that
>people are taking stands on their beliefs.

So pharmacists are entited to discriminate about religious beliefs?

Joel
Bertie the Bunyip - 11 Nov 2004 15:20 GMT
>>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
>>hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
>
> So pharmacists are entited to discriminate about religious beliefs?

of course they are.
They can choose to be whatever they want.
In my experience, most of them are Zoroastrans.

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 11 Nov 2004 15:28 GMT
>>>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
>>>hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Bertie

In the United States one cannot discriminate about the delivery of
health care services based upon national origin, religion, or ethnic
persuasion.

There are plenty of court cases ........

A pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription based upon his own
religious beliefs is guilty of such discrimination.
Bertie the Bunyip - 11 Nov 2004 15:33 GMT
>>>>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
>>>>hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> A pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription based upon his own
> religious beliefs is guilty of such discrimination.

But the real question should be whether he can make a decent ice-cream
soda.

Bertei
Joel M. Eichen - 11 Nov 2004 16:07 GMT
>>>>>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
>>>>>hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>Bertei

Good one!

But if he is a Jewish pharmacist, he should ask if the guy ate any
meat during the past six hours ..........

Joel

(actually true)
Bertie the Bunyip - 11 Nov 2004 16:33 GMT
>>>>>>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
>>>>>>hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> But if he is a Jewish pharmacist, he should ask if the guy ate any
> meat during the past six hours ..........

oohkay. You're going to have to expalain that one.

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 11 Nov 2004 23:14 GMT
>>>>>>>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
>>>>>>>hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
>oohkay. You're going to have to expalain that one.

Kosher guys will not eat milk with meat ..... and further ,,,, if they
eat meat, some wait six hours, others wait three hours before milk.

If they drink milk, conversely, the wait is only fifteen minutes .....

Milk is easier to digest, presumably.

>Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip - 11 Nov 2004 23:28 GMT
>>>>>>>>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
>>>>>>>>hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Milk is easier to digest, presumably.

OK, thought maybe you meant they couldn't have sex or wear condoms within
six hours of eating meat.

Makes sense if you think about it.

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 10:43 GMT
>> If they drink milk, conversely, the wait is only fifteen minutes .....
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Bertie

That too .........
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 10:54 GMT
>>> If they drink milk, conversely, the wait is only fifteen minutes
>>> .....
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> That too .........

Really? Not allowed?

Well, I wouldn't feel like after a McDonalds (wouldn't ffle like much of
anything after that, actually) but how about a small piece of chicken?

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 11:11 GMT
>>>> If they drink milk, conversely, the wait is only fifteen minutes
>>>> .....
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Really? Not allowed?

Actually, the Bible itself has plenty to say about sex, almost all of
it being good.

Surprisingly liberal-minded, when it comes to that.

Joel

>Well, I wouldn't feel like after a McDonalds (wouldn't ffle like much of
>anything after that, actually) but how about a small piece of chicken?
>
>Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 11:20 GMT
>>>>> If they drink milk, conversely, the wait is only fifteen minutes
>>>>> .....
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Surprisingly liberal-minded, when it comes to that.

I don't thnk of it in liberal-conservative terms, myself.

just sort of smart/fun vs. stupid/uptight..

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 11:27 GMT
>>>>>> If they drink milk, conversely, the wait is only fifteen minutes
>>>>>> .....
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>Bertie

Well many people have trouble if they believe that something is
sinful, and they have trouble splitting apart which is and which is
not.

Heck, that's the history of the world.

So the Jewish tradition contains many discussions, rules and
regulations about frequency of sex, etc.

As example, wagon-drivers being a particularly demanding line of work,
are excused from as rigorous a time schedule than say a medieval
scholar, who has more energy for that sort of thing.

(This is liberal adapted from, but written in similar words in the
Talmud from 2,000 years ago).

Of course things change. We have less "wagon-drivers" around, some of
the wagon-drivers are women and the entire world has greatrly changed.
But the principle is still there!

Joel

Oh yes, I forgot. The wagons have automatic transmissions these days,
and there's less oxen to beat to get through the red light, so perhaps
the rules have changed. I do not know.
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 11:33 GMT
>>>>>>> If they drink milk, conversely, the wait is only fifteen minutes
>>>>>>> .....
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> are excused from as rigorous a time schedule than say a medieval
> scholar, who has more energy for that sort of thing.

Time schedule?
Mrs Bunyip would be delighted, except I fallinto the wagon-driver thing.

Yehoo!

> (This is liberal adapted from, but written in similar words in the
> Talmud from 2,000 years ago).
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> and there's less oxen to beat to get through the red light, so perhaps
> the rules have changed. I do not know.

My Wagon does not.

Berteo
The Real Bev - 12 Nov 2004 03:06 GMT

> Kosher guys will not eat milk with meat ..... and further ,,,, if they
> eat meat, some wait six hours, others wait three hours before milk.
>
> If they drink milk, conversely, the wait is only fifteen minutes .....
>
> Milk is easier to digest, presumably.

Thank you.  I had long wondered about that, but not enough to actually
formulate the question.

So there is no generally-recognized practice?

I have also wondered about the use of a microwave oven used to heat
bacon.  A friend thought that the residual bacon aroma might be so
disgusting that the oven would not be used.  Rule?

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the
majority, but to be insane in such a useful way that
they can't commit you."              -- Mark Edwards

Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 09:44 GMT
>  
>> Kosher guys will not eat milk with meat ..... and further ,,,, if they
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> disgusting that the oven would not be used.  Rule?
>  

you're not supposed to do bacon in a microwave, as far as i know. Doesn't
kill all the cootie (trichonosis in particular) in the fatty bits.

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 10:51 GMT
>>  
>>> Kosher guys will not eat milk with meat ..... and further ,,,, if they
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>you're not supposed to do bacon in a microwave, as far as i know. Doesn't
>kill all the cootie (trichonosis in particular) in the fatty bits.

Actually you can't do bacon anywhere, mainly because one needs two of
the following:

1. Animal must have a split hoof (similar to a cow).

2. Animal must chew its cud (similar to a cow)

Therefore a pig is never Kosher due to only (2) above, while a bear is
never Kosher due to (2) and (1).

Joel

>Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 10:57 GMT
>>>  
>>>> Kosher guys will not eat milk with meat ..... and further ,,,, if
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> Therefore a pig is never Kosher due to only (2) above, while a bear is
> never Kosher due to (2) and (1).

Yes, this i know and it obviously stems from the trichonosis prolems they
would have had inthe heat with no fridges way back, but I was speaking in a
non-jewish sort of generalgood idea way there.

Bertie.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 11:19 GMT
>> Therefore a pig is never Kosher due to only (2) above, while a bear is
>> never Kosher due to (2) and (1).
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Bertie.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

The reason for group cohesiveness is to preserve smallness which
promotes evolutional cosmological change within the toughest frontier.

How this spells out:

Within 3,000 years, that is within a very brief time, man's image of
himself has changed. Where once we were cohorts of the gods (Greek
mythology), and blown about depending on which gods we were aligned
with, we have gone from that to an all-encompassing self-reliance and
DEPENDENCE on ONE GOD, that is the same God of all.

This includes Muslim, Hindu, Christian, aethist, and Jew.

This type of thinking has led to the Industrial Revolution, the
invention of computers, our systems of law and ethics, etc. Its
stamped out child sacrifice to appease the gods and all kinds of
superstitious nonsense.

Its who we are.

In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the Jewish
faith.

Joel
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 11:23 GMT
>>> Therefore a pig is never Kosher due to only (2) above, while a bear
>>> is never Kosher due to (2) and (1).
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> with, we have gone from that to an all-encompassing self-reliance and
> DEPENDENCE on ONE GOD, that is the same God of all.

Yes, i wouldn't argue wiht that. thogh ti don't believe in dog.

> This includes Muslim, Hindu, Christian, aethist, and Jew.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the Jewish
> faith.

Yes, it's the root of many (not all by a long stretch) faiths, but you
could also say, with equal authority and accuracy, that we're all just
about any religin you care to name.

Me, I'm a Bunyip

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 11:32 GMT
>> In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the Jewish
>> faith.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Bertie

Yes and no.

Some religions have split off in a seriously destructive way. For
example, Palestinian suicide bombers.

Surely better solutions are at hand.

Islamic law in general, does not include punishment that "fits the
crime." They practice unusually harsh punishment which under U.S. law
would never occur.

The U.S. goes out of its way to be fair as per, "an eye for an eye,"
meaning that when one's eye is harmed, that some punishment or
recompense EQUAL to the value but not EXCEEDING the value of an eye
would be appropriate.

This is how ancient thought influences us.

Joel
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 11:52 GMT
>>> In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the Jewish
>>> faith.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Yes and no.

Yes, I am a Bunyip.

> Some religions have split off in a seriously destructive way. For
> example, Palestinian suicide bombers.
>
> Surely better solutions are at hand.

Well of course. They shoul dget some tanks and helicopter gunships and
learn how to fight fair.

> Islamic law in general, does not include punishment that "fits the
> crime." They practice unusually harsh punishment which under U.S. law
> would never occur.

Well, who knows, someay they might deelop their own electric chair.

bertie
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 00:43 GMT
> > In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the Jewish
faith.

> Yes, it's the root of many (not all by a long stretch) faiths, but you
> could also say, with equal authority and accuracy, that we're all just
> about any religin you care to name.
>
> Me, I'm a Bunyip

Orthodox or Reformed?
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 09:34 GMT
>> > In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the Jewish
> faith.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Orthodox or Reformed?

orthodox, of course.

Hmmph.

Well, to be fair, you haven't seen my pictures.

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 13 Nov 2004 11:51 GMT
>> > In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the Jewish
>faith.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Orthodox or Reformed?

Good one!
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 18:28 GMT
> >> > In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the Jewish
> >faith.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Good one!

Thenk yew.

I figured he'd say orthodox, he's as unreformed as they come!
CJS - 13 Nov 2004 18:45 GMT
> > >> > In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the
> Jewish
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> I figured he'd say orthodox, he's as unreformed as they come!

As opposed to most of ADA, who are uninformed.

Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)

All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 20:53 GMT
> > > >> > In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the
Jewish faith.

> > > >> Yes, it's the root of many (not all by a long stretch) faiths, but you
> > > >> could also say, with equal authority and accuracy, that we're all just
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> As opposed to most of ADA, who are uninformed.

Or, even worse, misinformed.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 21:04 GMT
>> > > >> > In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of
>> > > >> > the
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Or, even worse, misinformed.

Or malformed.
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 21:15 GMT
> > > > >> > In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the
> Jewish faith.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Or, even worse, misinformed.

Or in some cases, malformed.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 21:23 GMT
>> "CJS" <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote in message
> news:41965661.3B368287@MEANIE.COM...
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Or in some cases, malformed.

And sometimes, uniformed
Joel M. Eichen - 13 Nov 2004 22:46 GMT
>> > > Good one!
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Or, even worse, misinformed.

Or uniformed .... its bad too.
Joel M. Eichen - 13 Nov 2004 19:31 GMT
>> >> Me, I'm a Bunyip
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>I figured he'd say orthodox, he's as unreformed as they come!

Even better!
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 20:20 GMT
>> >> > In a strange way, dare I say this? All people are people of the
> Jewish
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> I figured he'd say orthodox, he's as unreformed as they come!

Hadn't thought of that, but now that you say it, how could I have picked
anything else?

Bertie
Rod Speed - 12 Nov 2004 19:39 GMT
>>> Therefore a pig is never Kosher due to only (2) above, while a bear is
>>> never Kosher due to (2) and (1).
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> This includes Muslim, Hindu, Christian, aethist, and Jew.

> This type of thinking has led to the Industrial
> Revolution, the invention of computers,

Crap, nothing to do with that at all.

> our systems of law and ethics, etc.

Even that is arguable with modern democracys. We dont
bother with what some damned 'god' has proclaimed on
quite a few of those issues now, and choose to allow divorce
etc and dont stone fornicators to death much anymore etc.

> Its stamped out child sacrifice to appease the
> gods and all kinds of superstitious nonsense.

Still plenty of superstitious nonsense retained, like hacking
the end of kids dicks on day 10 or whenever it is, just
because some obscenity of a god demanded that be
done, dont eat  fish without scales, dont eat pork, even
tho we now know  how to do that safely, etc etc etc.

> Its who we are.

Its how quite a few fools are, anyway.

> In a strange way, dare I say this? All
> people are people of the Jewish faith.

Mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.

Bhuddists, Taoists, Sikhs, Shintoists, etc etc etc aint.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 22:37 GMT
>> This type of thinking has led to the Industrial
>> Revolution, the invention of computers,
>
>Crap, nothing to do with that at all.

YUP,
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 22:38 GMT
>> our systems of law and ethics, etc.
>
>Even that is arguable with modern democracys. We dont
>bother with what some damned 'god' has proclaimed on
>quite a few of those issues now, and choose to allow divorce
>etc and dont stone fornicators to death much anymore etc.

Really?
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 22:39 GMT
>Still plenty of superstitious nonsense retained, like hacking
>the end of kids dicks on day 10 or whenever it is, just
>because some obscenity of a god demanded that be
>done, dont eat  fish without scales, dont eat pork, even
>tho we now know  how to do that safely, etc etc etc.

Has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with wisdom.

Joel

PS- You flunk!
The Real Bev - 13 Nov 2004 04:43 GMT
> >>> Kosher guys will not eat milk with meat ..... and further ,,,, if they
> >>> eat meat, some wait six hours, others wait three hours before milk.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Therefore a pig is never Kosher due to only (2) above, while a bear is
> never Kosher due to (2) and (1).

I know that.  I meant something like a microwave at work where not
everybody keeps Kosher, especially the goyim.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
===============================================
Last night I played a blank tape at full blast.
The mime next door went nuts!

Joel M. Eichen - 13 Nov 2004 11:57 GMT
>> Therefore a pig is never Kosher due to only (2) above, while a bear is
>> never Kosher due to (2) and (1).
>
>I know that.  I meant something like a microwave at work where not
>everybody keeps Kosher, especially the goyim.

I guess this is how a small group keeps small ...... a friend had
asked her neighbor to stash part of her huge Passover dinner in the
neighbor's oven for a couple of hours in preparation for a big dinner.

The oven itself had to be lined with aluminum foil. (?)(?)

I brought over a great bottle of Kosher wine that went straight-away
into the closet, in fear of who might have touched it. (?)(?)

The host couple themselves, strictly Kosher, used to eat vegetarian at
Chi-Chi's from time to time. After ordering, the waitress told them,

"I notice you always order vegetarian."

"Yeah."

"Well the nachos your are gobbling down with your drinks, they are
made with lard."

So much for all the best intentions in the world!

I say if what you are heating is covered, and if you do not eat the
styrofoam, you are not eating the bacon.

The big question is how do the people at work feel about "Halel meat?"

Joel
The Real Bev - 13 Nov 2004 04:41 GMT
What is a Bunyip?

> The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> you're not supposed to do bacon in a microwave, as far as i know. Doesn't
> kill all the cootie (trichonosis in particular) in the fatty bits.

Try the pre-cooked stuff, which is very good even compared to REAL bacon
fried crisp, which is the only way to eat it.  It seems expensive until
you realize how much bacon grease a pound of bacon generates.  

I've read within the last few months that there is no longer a rational
basis for the fear of trichinosis due to to modern hog
culture/processing/storage methods.  No, that doesn't mean I'll eat rare
pork chops.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
===============================================
Last night I played a blank tape at full blast.
The mime next door went nuts!

Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 09:28 GMT
> What is a Bunyip?
>  
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> culture/processing/storage methods.  No, that doesn't mean I'll eat
> rare pork chops.

that's right, now there's only the fear of CJD and a host of other serious
food issues.

Do you know what they feed those hogs nowadays?

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 13 Nov 2004 12:01 GMT
>that's right, now there's only the fear of CJD and a host of other serious
>food issues.
>
>Do you know what they feed those hogs nowadays?

Bunyips?

>Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 16:33 GMT
>>that's right, now there's only the fear of CJD and a host of other
>>serious food issues.
>>
>>Do you know what they feed those hogs nowadays?
>
> Bunyips?

No, not that they haven't tried, but it's common proactice to feed unwanted
cats and dogs from the SPCA to cattle and hogs in the US these days.
No sh.t.

The Brists eventually figured out that even feeding other veggie animals to
each other was a bad thing , and now they're feeding things that sniff each
other's a.ses and will eat any old sh.t off the sidewalk to them?

Yech,

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 13 Nov 2004 17:23 GMT
>>>that's right, now there's only the fear of CJD and a host of other
>>>serious food issues.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>cats and dogs from the SPCA to cattle and hogs in the US these days.
>No sh.t.

So how do the cattle catch the dogs and cats? Some are pretty fast on
their feet.

Joel

>The Brists eventually figured out that even feeding other veggie animals to
>each other was a bad thing , and now they're feeding things that sniff each
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 20:26 GMT
>>>>that's right, now there's only the fear of CJD and a host of other
>>>>serious food issues.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> So how do the cattle catch the dogs and cats? Some are pretty fast on
> their feet.

Um, yeh.

Berti e
CJS - 13 Nov 2004 18:46 GMT
> >>that's right, now there's only the fear of CJD and a host of other
> >>serious food issues.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> each other was a bad thing , and now they're feeding things that sniff each
> other's a.ses and will eat any old sh.t off the sidewalk to them?

Ah, so that's what happened to Tarver.

Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)

All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 20:22 GMT
>> >>that's right, now there's only the fear of CJD and a host of other
>> >>serious food issues.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Ah, so that's what happened to Tarver.

Mm, could be.
Scary think now he's in the food chain.

Mad splaps disease...

Bertie
CJS - 14 Nov 2004 05:11 GMT
> >> >>that's right, now there's only the fear of CJD and a host of other
> >> >>serious food issues.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Mad splaps disease...

Prion demons.

Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)

All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
Bertie the Bunyip - 14 Nov 2004 10:06 GMT
>> >> >>that's right, now there's only the fear of CJD and a host of other
>> >> >>serious food issues.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Prion demons.

Rotted liver.
The Real Bev - 13 Nov 2004 20:12 GMT
> Joel M. Eichen <joeleichen@yahoo.com> drivveled on and on:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> cats and dogs from the SPCA to cattle and hogs in the US these days.
> No sh.t.

That doesn't seem unreasonable, and I've often wondered why they don't
use them to make dog and cat food.  If people don't want excess pets to
be killed they should damn well adopt them.  If they're unwilling to do
that they forfeit the right to whine.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev    
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to
  spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
  begin slitting throats."     -- H.L. Mencken

Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 20:24 GMT
>> Joel M. Eichen <joeleichen@yahoo.com> drivveled on and on:
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> That doesn't seem unreasonable, and I've often wondered why they don't
> use them to make dog and cat food.

they do.

> If people don't want excess pets
> to be killed they should damn well adopt them.  If they're unwilling
> to do that they forfeit the right to whine.

Well, in theory i'd have no quibble (kibble?) with that, but the problem is
that it isn't exactly the healthiest way for anything but worms to eat.

Bertie
The Real Bev - 14 Nov 2004 04:27 GMT
> The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> drivveled on and on:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Well, in theory i'd have no quibble (kibble?) with that, but the problem is
> that it isn't exactly the healthiest way for anything but worms to eat.

A dog will eat nearly anything that doesn't eat it first.  It's probably
the same with cats, they just won't admit it.  They're carnivores.  It's
what they do.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
*******************************************
 My computer doesn't have to be friendly;  
       civil is entirely sufficient.

Bertie the Bunyip - 14 Nov 2004 10:07 GMT
>> The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> drivveled on and on:
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> probably the same with cats, they just won't admit it.  They're
> carnivores.  It's what they do.

Yeea, but now cattle are eaing the same way.

And then.. us..

bertie
The Real Bev - 13 Nov 2004 20:09 GMT
> The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> drivveled on and on...

> > I've read within the last few months that there is no longer a
> > rational basis for the fear of trichinosis due to to modern hog
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Do you know what they feed those hogs nowadays?

Other hogs?  Offal?  Swill?  Slop?  Garbage?  And WTF IS a Bunyip?

Signature

Cheers,
Bev    
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to
  spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
  begin slitting throats."     -- H.L. Mencken

Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 20:23 GMT
>> The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> drivveled on and on...
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Other hogs?  Offal?  Swill?  Slop?  Garbage?

Cats and dogs, actually.

they've been introduced into the food chain in the US.

And WTF IS a Bunyip?

Inceredibly sexy, talented, devil may care creature. Likes bikes, redheads
and cappuchino.

Bertie
Rod Speed - 13 Nov 2004 20:41 GMT
> And WTF IS a Bunyip?

http://www.nla.gov.au/exhibitions/bunyips/

Even you should be able to manage that for yourself.
The Real Bev - 14 Nov 2004 04:36 GMT
> > And WTF IS a Bunyip?
>
> http://www.nla.gov.au/exhibitions/bunyips/

How sad to be a swamp-dwelling despised-by-all Bunyip.  Who took pity on
them and gave them internet access?  

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
*******************************************
 My computer doesn't have to be friendly;  
       civil is entirely sufficient.

Rod Speed - 14 Nov 2004 05:05 GMT
>>> And WTF IS a Bunyip?

>> http://www.nla.gov.au/exhibitions/bunyips/

> How sad to be a swamp-dwelling despised-by-all Bunyip.
> Who took pity on them and gave them internet access?

If I told you that I'd have to kill you.
Oaxaca - 14 Nov 2004 05:29 GMT
>>>> And WTF IS a Bunyip?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> If I told you that I'd have to kill you.

If I told her, would you kill yourself?
Bertie the Bunyip - 14 Nov 2004 10:08 GMT
>> > And WTF IS a Bunyip?
>>
>> http://www.nla.gov.au/exhibitions/bunyips/
>
> How sad to be a swamp-dwelling despised-by-all Bunyip.  Who took pity on
> them and gave them internet access?  

Swampcable,com

Bertrie
Joel M. Eichen - 13 Nov 2004 12:00 GMT
>What is a Bunyip?

Here:

http://members.fortunecity.com/mindzwarped/p11.htm

Lee Dexter & Bertie The Bunyip

Philadelphia Children's Show in 50's

http://phillymemories.tripod.com/id3.htm

What in the world is a bunyip? According to Bertie's creator, Lee
Dexter, bunyips came at the end of the line of creation and got all
the leftover parts. Bertie aired mostly on Sunday mornings and weekday
afternoons on WPTZ-TV (later WRCV and KYW) until 1966, when it spent
one season on WPHL ch. 17.

"I don't think I EVER missed Bertie the Bunyip a single time on Sunday
mornings...I always thought he was kind of a platypus or a dog, or
something just completely made up from scratch... I stopped watching
around 1964 because I was "too old and too cool" by then. I do still
remember some of the other puppets, like Sir Guy de Guy the fox, Nixie
the Pixie, Humphrey the Rabbit, Fussy & Gussy, and Poochy the Pup. I
left the Philly area in 1969, and I guess Bertie was long gone off the
air by then." -Michael V. Asheville, N.C.
"A bunyip is part of Aborigine folklore, like a sort of mythical sort
of spirit or creature, sort of. My sister spent a few months in
Australia, and she actually asked around about it. I never thought
much about it when I watched as a kid, but it is sort of a mystery
solved. -Malcolm Schatz

Candy Apple News Company (info forthcoming)

>> The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in
>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>culture/processing/storage methods.  No, that doesn't mean I'll eat rare
>pork chops.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 16:35 GMT
>>What is a Bunyip?
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> left the Philly area in 1969, and I guess Bertie was long gone off the
> air by then."

Yeah, I remember all of them Sir Guy de Guy died on Skid Row. Fussie and
Gussie are at the leading edge of the Gay marriage thing and Humphrey
bought it in 'Nam and nixie the Pixe ran the Bush campaign under an assumed
name.

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 10:49 GMT
>> Kosher guys will not eat milk with meat ..... and further ,,,, if they
>> eat meat, some wait six hours, others wait three hours before milk.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>So there is no generally-recognized practice?

REPLY

Jeez, I would have to check ,,, I mean I know there is a recognized
practice but it gets very complicated depending on whom you ask.

Now the guys living in Williamsburg (Brooklyn) wearing those huge
black hats and long black coats with the bushy beards, their
recognized practice is to wear black, while other guys, well they
cannot find half those rules and regs in their Bible. They are called,
"The Lubavitchers," or Lubavitcher Chasidic." They are very good with
diamonds by the way, and you may see them in various U.S. cities
conducting wholesale diamond business. I believe they hide the most
valuable diamonds in their beards (humor).

In fact, there are 613 rules TOTAL, but how they are practiced and how
they are interpeted would fill books that would completly fill the
room in which you are sitting.

I guess all religions are like that, but with Judaism, its all written
down. Plus all the opinions, pro and con are written down, like usenet
I guess.

Joel

>I have also wondered about the use of a microwave oven used to heat
>bacon.  A friend thought that the residual bacon aroma might be so
>disgusting that the oven would not be used.  Rule?
Rod Speed - 11 Nov 2004 17:52 GMT
>> Joel M. Eichen <joeleichen@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging
>>>> to hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.

>>> So pharmacists are entited to discriminate about religious beliefs?

>> of course they are.
>> They can choose to be whatever they want.
>> In my experience, most of them are Zoroastrans.

> In the United States one cannot discriminate about
> the delivery of health care services based upon
> national origin, religion, or ethnic persuasion.

That isnt what is happening.

> There are plenty of court cases ........

> A pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription based upon
> his own religious beliefs is guilty of such discrimination.

Nope, no more than someone who refuses to have
anything to do  with individuals who hit their wife are.

Or a liquor store that refuses to sell to an obvious alcoholic bum is.
Joel M. Eichen - 11 Nov 2004 23:16 GMT
>> A pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription based upon
>> his own religious beliefs is guilty of such discrimination.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Or a liquor store that refuses to sell to an obvious alcoholic bum is.

So what nationality, ethnicity, or religions are discriminated against
when the individual refuses to have anything to do with the guy who
beats his wife?
Rod Speed - 11 Nov 2004 22:24 GMT
>>> A pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription based upon
>>> his own religious beliefs is guilty of such discrimination.

>> Nope, no more than someone who refuses to have
>> anything to do  with individuals who hit their wife are.

>> Or a liquor store that refuses to sell to an obvious alcoholic bum is.

> So what nationality, ethnicity, or religions are discriminated
> against when the individual refuses to have anything to do
> with the guy who beats his wife?

Some sects to allow the wife to be beaten,
particularly when she doesnt behave herself.

You just dont hear that much about that approach
anymore, just like you dont for that other endorsed
punishment, stoning to death for adultery etc.

Similarly with divorce, some sects dont allow it.

And some others are into excommunication etc even
now, most obviously with the joveys and SDAs.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 10:52 GMT
>Some sects to allow the wife to be beaten,
>particularly when she doesnt behave herself.

This is true ,,,,,,,, there are even sects where incest is winked at.
Most recently the Amish are coming under fire.

Joel
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 10:59 GMT
>>Some sects to allow the wife to be beaten,
>>particularly when she doesnt behave herself.
>
> This is true ,,,,,,,, there are even sects where incest is winked at.

Spelling!
Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 11:19 GMT
>>>Some sects to allow the wife to be beaten,
>>>particularly when she doesnt behave herself.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Spelling!
>Bertie

You mean the "s" word?
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 11:26 GMT
>>>>Some sects to allow the wife to be beaten,
>>>>particularly when she doesnt behave herself.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> You mean the "s" word?

No, the W word.

Bertie
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 11:33 GMT
>>>>>Some sects to allow the wife to be beaten,
>>>>>particularly when she doesnt behave herself.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Bertie

Give me a hint here ........... which letter has to be changed .....
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 11:53 GMT
>>>>>>Some sects to allow the wife to be beaten,
>>>>>>particularly when she doesnt behave herself.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Give me a hint here ........... which letter has to be changed .....

Well, that depends..

Bertie
Signature

?????

Rod Speed - 12 Nov 2004 19:46 GMT
>> Some sects to allow the wife to be beaten,
>> particularly when she doesnt behave herself.

> This is true ,,,,,,,, there are even sects where incest is winked at.

> Most recently the Amish are coming under fire.

Have a look at what Lot got up to after his wife was allegedly
turned to a pillar of salt when she didnt behave herself.

One rabid antisemite claim that judaism endorses incest and
when someone called him on that claim, he produced one hell
of a list of stuff where it clearly does, mostly from the Torah.

Its a bit like stoning to death, its clearly an available punishment
for particular crimes, just not practiced by jews anymore.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 22:40 GMT
>Have a look at what Lot got up to after his wife was allegedly
>turned to a pillar of salt when she didnt behave herself.
>
>One rabid antisemite claim that judaism endorses incest and
>when someone called him on that claim, he produced one hell
>of a list of stuff where it clearly does, mostly from the Torah.

Absolutely incorrect ,,,,,,

Joel
Rod Speed - 12 Nov 2004 23:21 GMT
>> Have a look at what Lot got up to after his wife was allegedly
>> turned to a pillar of salt when she didnt behave herself.

>> One rabid antisemite claim that judaism endorses incest and
>> when someone called him on that claim, he produced one hell
>> of a list of stuff where it clearly does, mostly from the Torah.

> Absolutely incorrect ,,,,,,

Have fun explaining what Lot's daughters got up to
after his wife ended up a tad solid and immobile.

I forget the detail on the other stuff, mostly to do with
f.cking children if I recall, and likely from the Talmud too.

It can be a tad hilarious what the rabid one eyed fanatics can
find in the religious teachings of the religion they hate. There's
another hilarious one from Mahomet on f.cking goats. Its fine
to f.ck goats, as long as you kill them after you have f.cked
them, and only sell the meat to villages that arent your own.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 10:53 GMT
>Some sects to allow the wife to be beaten,
>particularly when she doesnt behave herself.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>And some others are into excommunication etc even
>now, most obviously with the joveys and SDAs.

Child sacrifice was not unknown, not so long ago ......

Joel
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 11:01 GMT
>>Some sects to allow the wife to be beaten,
>>particularly when she doesnt behave herself.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Child sacrifice was not unknown, not so long ago ......

Not so long ago for nearly every human society on earth.

Abraham didn't blink when he was ordered to, did he? Must have been the
case that it was fairly common up until that point..

And of course George Bush is practicing it to beat the band..

bertie
Rod Speed - 12 Nov 2004 19:48 GMT
>> Some sects do allow the wife to be beaten,
>> particularly when she doesnt behave herself.

>> You just dont hear that much about that approach
>> anymore, just like you dont for that other endorsed
>> punishment, stoning to death for adultery etc.

>> Similarly with divorce, some sects dont allow it.

>> And some others are into excommunication etc even
>> now, most obviously with the joveys and SDAs.

> Child sacrifice was not unknown, not so long ago ......

Not just child sacrifice either, there are quite a few remains
in the foundations of churches which appear to have been
sacrificed to ensure that it wouldnt fall down etc.
CJS - 13 Nov 2004 18:44 GMT
> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
> >>hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> They can choose to be whatever they want.
> In my experience, most of them are Zoroastrans.

Mine's a Christian Scientist.  He says that all medicine is the work of
the devil and refuses to fill any prescription.  Frankly, I'm not sure
how he got his job.

Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)

All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
The Real Bev - 13 Nov 2004 20:15 GMT
> > > <nospam@4methanks.com> wrote:
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> the devil and refuses to fill any prescription.  Frankly, I'm not sure
> how he got his job.

It was an Equal Opportunity thing, involving religious discrimination.
It was either give the guy the job or pay him big bucks.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev    
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to
  spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
  begin slitting throats."     -- H.L. Mencken

Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 20:22 GMT
>> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
>> >>hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> the devil and refuses to fill any prescription.  Frankly, I'm not sure
> how he got his job.

BwawhahwhahwH!

there's a sitcom n that!

Bertie
CJS - 14 Nov 2004 05:12 GMT
> >> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
> >> >>hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> there's a sitcom n that!

I'm thinking reality TV.  

Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)

All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
Bertie the Bunyip - 14 Nov 2004 10:05 GMT
>> >> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging
>> >> >>to hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> I'm thinking reality TV.  

Mmm, yeah.It's only a mtter of time.

Bertie
CJS - 14 Nov 2004 18:17 GMT
> >> >> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging
> >> >> >>to hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Mmm, yeah.It's only a mtter of time.

I'd put money on Fox.  But I think that they have a reality show based
on college drinking games coming out next.

Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)

All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
Jacques Guy - 14 Nov 2004 18:48 GMT

> I'd put money on Fox.  But I think that they have a reality show based
> on college drinking games coming out next.

Bertie the Bunyip will be a favourite. As soon as
he can tell his mouth from his arsehole.
Bertie the Bunyip - 14 Nov 2004 21:24 GMT
>  
>> I'd put money on Fox.  But I think that they have a reality show based
>> on college drinking games coming out next.
>
> Bertie the Bunyip will be a favourite. As soon as
> he can tell his mouth from his arsehole.

It's the taste.

Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip - 14 Nov 2004 21:23 GMT
>> >> >> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging
>> >> >> >>to hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> I'd put money on Fox.  But I think that they have a reality show based
> on college drinking games coming out next.

You're kidding, right?

Jesus H christ on a f.cking skateboard.

I thought they'd hit bottom with that Trump thing.

Bertie
CJS - 15 Nov 2004 04:25 GMT
> >> >> >> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging
> >> >> >> >>to hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> I thought they'd hit bottom with that Trump thing.

Nah.  Just kidding.  Though I do have to admit that the new Trump spoof
is pretty funny.  Slimeballs making a.ses of themselves?  Why, THAT is
good watchin.

Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)

All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
Bertie the Bunyip - 15 Nov 2004 10:49 GMT
>> >> >> >> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very
>> >> >> >> >>encouraging to hear that people are taking stands on their
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> spoof is pretty funny.  Slimeballs making a.ses of themselves?  Why,
> THAT is good watchin.

Can't watch. HAven't seen more than a glimpse of any of those things yet.

Bertie
CJS - 17 Nov 2004 02:42 GMT
> >> >> >> >> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very
> >> >> >> >> >>encouraging to hear that people are taking stands on their
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Can't watch. HAven't seen more than a glimpse of any of those things yet.

Too bad.  It's actually quite amusing to watch the confused, blank look
on the faces of those idiots when one of the "businessmen" tells them
their problem is that they refuse to believe that they are sexy.

Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)

All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
Bertie the Bunyip - 17 Nov 2004 02:52 GMT
>> >> >> >> >> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very
>> >> >> >> >> >>encouraging to hear that people are taking stands on
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> look on the faces of those idiots when one of the "businessmen" tells
> them their problem is that they refuse to believe that they are sexy.

sonds like pretty much the same sort of thrill syou get here!

Bertie
CJS - 19 Nov 2004 05:04 GMT
> >> >> >> >> >> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very
> >> >> >> >> >> >>encouraging to hear that people are taking stands on
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> sonds like pretty much the same sort of thrill syou get here!

I think ADA would make a great TV show.  If Ralphie's underwear is
included, we could copy "Fear Factor."

Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)

All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
Bertie the Bunyip - 19 Nov 2004 18:28 GMT
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>So long as they're acting within the law, it's very
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>encouraging to hear that people are taking stands on
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> I think ADA would make a great TV show.  If Ralphie's underwear is
> included, we could copy "Fear Factor."

And stuff some apanese businessman in a cage wiht Sylvia!

Bertie
baron48 - 11 Nov 2004 19:46 GMT
> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to hear that
> people are taking stands on their beliefs.

What if their belief was that people should seek
healing through prayer and not medicine?  Is it
then ok for them to dispense no medicine of any
kind?  The birth control pill is a legal drug with
prescription and therefore, a pharmacist who won't
dispense it is not doing their job and likely losing
future business for their employer.  If you have a
problem with what is required by a paticular profession,
best choose something else.  Saying you are not going
to do your job because of some religious belief you
hold is fraught with peril for any number of professions.
It is an open invitation to discrimination based on
religious beliefs (not to mention slacking on the
job).

-Tom
Rod Speed - 11 Nov 2004 20:26 GMT
>> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging
>> to hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.

> What if their belief was that people should seek
> healing through prayer and not medicine?  Is it
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> to do your job because of some religious belief you
> hold is fraught with peril for any number of professions.

Gets complicated tho, most obviously with abortions.

If you do consider that its just killing the potential human
for the convenience of the parents who didnt bother with
adequate contraception, surely even you arent seriously
attempting to claim that doctor has to abort it when its legal.

Same with genital mutilation like circumcision too.

Just because some fool jew or moslem claims that
some damned god requires it be done, are you seriously
suggesting that a doctor has to do it when its legal ?

Of course not.

> It is an open invitation to discrimination based on religious beliefs

Gets sillier by the minute.

> (not to mention slacking on the job).

You dont even know that its an employee
doing it rather than the owner of the shop.
baron48 - 12 Nov 2004 16:05 GMT
>  
> >> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> adequate contraception, surely even you arent seriously
> attempting to claim that doctor has to abort it when its legal.

Not the same situation.  If it is an abortion clinic
and one doctor decides he won't do them anymore, that
doctor should find another job.  He should not stand
there turning people away from a place that has a policy
of performing abortions.

> Same with genital mutilation like circumcision too.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Of course not.

Again, not the same situation at all.

> > It is an open invitation to discrimination based on religious beliefs
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You dont even know that its an employee
> doing it rather than the owner of the shop.

Yes, I do know it is an employee.  Owner of a shop
creating a stated policy of not filling birth control
prescriptions is fine (providing it is legal and meets
the terms of their license).  Employees should not
take it into their own hands to decide whether they
will provide certain services based on religious
convictions.

-Tom
khobar - 12 Nov 2004 17:33 GMT
> > >> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging
> > >> to hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> will provide certain services based on religious
> convictions.

Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?

Paul Nixon
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 17:40 GMT
>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<2vi083F2ld84pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>
> Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?

Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh!

Constitutional right?

Bwawhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhawh

You've lost the plot completely, fjukwit.

Since when does anone have a constitutional right to deny rubbers?

Bertie
JL Grasso - 12 Nov 2004 17:43 GMT
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:<2vi083F2ld84pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>
>Since when does anone have a constitutional right to deny rubbers?

Amendment 69.

Jerry
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 17:46 GMT
>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<2vi083F2ld84pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
>
> Jerry

Surely that;s just Texas where they cant figure out what they're for
anyhow.

Bertie
JL Grasso - 12 Nov 2004 17:55 GMT
>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:<2vi083F2ld84pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 74 lines]
>Surely that;s just Texas where they cant figure out what they're for
>anyhow.

I hear they use 'em for eel decoys down there.

Jerry
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 16:26 GMT
>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:<2vi083F2ld84pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>
> I hear they use 'em for eel decoys down there.

Keyboard!

Bertie
AbsolutelyCertain - 12 Nov 2004 19:30 GMT
> > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<2vi083F2ld84pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>
> Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?

Well, that hasn't been decided.  First and foremost, it's a professional
ethics issue.  I refer you to the blurb I posted earlier from the Pharma
publication.

Second, it's also a rule of law issue.  When people start deciding which
rules and laws they'll observe and which ones they won't, then the law
itself is imperiled.  To use an extreme example and one which I am not
painting you with, since you said that you didn't subscribe to it, you can
use the Dominionist model.  There, the laws of man are overruled by the
"laws of God".  The catch, of course, is that men, not God, get to decide
and announce what "God's law" is.  Ultimately, you get Tim McVeigh and David
Koresh .... who place their "values" so far above the standard that they are
essentially lawless.

How far a leap is it from pharmacists deciding which prescriptions to fill,
to doctors deciding which patients to treat?  Nurses deciding which patients
to nurse?

How will the societal model work any more when there are two or more
factions, and the factions cannot even agree on the common rules, laws, and
whether to interact with each other?  How does "America" work then?

It's not so much an issue of whether someone has the "right" to do something
or not (especially since "rights" can always just be claimed under some
higher authority).  It's an issue of how people who don't agree with each
other coexist and call themselves a country.

Your thoughts?
Rod Speed - 12 Nov 2004 20:22 GMT
>> > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:<2vi083F2ld84pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
> Koresh .... who place their "values" so far above the standard that they are
> essentially lawless.

> How far a leap is it from pharmacists deciding which
> prescriptions to fill, to doctors deciding which patients to treat?

Quite a few do that already in the sense of deciding that those
in need of scarse transplants get the available transplant first
when their medical problem isnt due to self inflicted medical
problems due to lifestyle stuff like smoking etc.

> Nurses deciding which patients to nurse?

There's quite a bit of that been happening
ever since nursing was invented too.

> How will the societal model work any more when there are two or more
> factions, and the factions cannot even agree on the common rules, laws,
> and whether to interact with each other?  How does "America" work then?

Sure, its certainly a complication, but the legal system
does sort of allow for it and has always done so too.

Most commonly seen with the issue of remarraige after divorce in modern times.

And with screwing around outside marraige too.

> It's not so much an issue of whether someone has the
> "right" to do something or not (especially since "rights"
> can always just be claimed under some higher authority).
> It's an issue  of how people who don't agree with each
> other coexist and call themselves a country.

Its got nothing to do with 'call themselves a country' at
all, particularly with modern first world countrys that are
often a very complex mix of all sorts of cultural issues.

> Your thoughts?
khobar - 12 Nov 2004 20:36 GMT
> > > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<2vi083F2ld84pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
> Well, that hasn't been decided.  First and foremost, it's a professional

But it should not be an issue. It's right in the 1st Amendment:  Congress
shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

> ethics issue.  I refer you to the blurb I posted earlier from the Pharma
> publication.

Given that abortion exists up to and including the termination of a viable
fetus, I don't see how one can make a case based on professional ethics.

> Second, it's also a rule of law issue.  When people start deciding which
> rules and laws they'll observe and which ones they won't, then the law
> itself is imperiled.  To use an extreme example and one which I am not

If the law is unconstitutional then it should be imperiled to the highest
degree.

> painting you with, since you said that you didn't subscribe to it, you can
> use the Dominionist model.  There, the laws of man are overruled by the
> "laws of God".  The catch, of course, is that men, not God, get to decide
> and announce what "God's law" is.  Ultimately, you get Tim McVeigh and David
> Koresh .... who place their "values" so far above the standard that they are
> essentially lawless.

My understanding is that God's law is absolute and spelled out for us
already and cannot be changed by man be they Tim McVeigh or David Koresh or
any number of other wannabes. There is a certain amount of interpretation
and "faith" involved (a plane crashes killing hundreds and it's God's Will?)
but the laws of God are pretty straighforward.

> How far a leap is it from pharmacists deciding which prescriptions to fill,
> to doctors deciding which patients to treat?  Nurses deciding which patients
> to nurse?

Doctors already decide which patients to treat.

> How will the societal model work any more when there are two or more
> factions, and the factions cannot even agree on the common rules, laws, and
> whether to interact with each other?  How does "America" work then?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I would offer that the solution
lies in our willingness to accommodate in order to preserve the meaning of
the Constitution.

> It's not so much an issue of whether someone has the "right" to do something
> or not (especially since "rights" can always just be claimed under some
> higher authority).  It's an issue of how people who don't agree with each
> other coexist and call themselves a country.
>
> Your thoughts?

I think it's very telling that some people would call for the pharmacist in
question to be fired.  I could understand if the pharmacist was from the
Shankill Road and the customer was from the Falls Road and the pharmacist
told the customer "we don't serve your kind here," but that's not at all
what happened.

Paul Nixon
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 23:13 GMT
>> Your thoughts?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Falls Road and the pharmacist told the customer "we don't serve your
> kind here,"

Of course you could.

It's the way you are.

Berti e
AbsolutelyCertain - 12 Nov 2004 23:45 GMT
> > > > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<2vi083F2ld84pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
> But it should not be an issue. It's right in the 1st Amendment:  Congress
> shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Well, I'm no lawyer, and neither are you TMK, but I don't think that bucket
carries much water.  Refusing to fill a prescription is not "exercise of
religion" unless you judge that all discrimination on religous grounds comes
under that umbrella, in which case you have Balkanization and open
hostility.  Simply will not work.

> > ethics issue.  I refer you to the blurb I posted earlier from the Pharma
> > publication.
>
> Given that abortion exists up to and including the termination of a viable
> fetus, I don't see how one can make a case based on professional ethics.

No, I can't agree that a pill causes an abortion of a "viable fetus."  I
already said that to me viability begins on the day when the child can
survive outside of its mother.  A zygote is not a human being.
Contraceptive pills are not killing viable humans.  Your argument just
doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

> > Second, it's also a rule of law issue.  When people start deciding which
> > rules and laws they'll observe and which ones they won't, then the law
> > itself is imperiled.  To use an extreme example and one which I am not
>
> If the law is unconstitutional then it should be imperiled to the highest
> degree.

What is the basis for stating that it is?  Which law are you referring to?

A license to dispense pharmaceuticals is entirely the purview of the state
and its licensing authority.  That's the authority which governs.

> > painting you with, since you said that you didn't subscribe to it, you can
> > use the Dominionist model.  There, the laws of man are overruled by the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> and "faith" involved (a plane crashes killing hundreds and it's God's Will?)
> but the laws of God are pretty straighforward.

Says you, but I am under no obligation whatever to accept your view of it,
or your interpretation of it, or anyone else's, because you say so.  I will
not be governed by your idea of what God says.  I'm telling you straight out
.... once the Right starts talking and acting like they have some divine
right, the game is over, and civility goes away.  I don't mean Usenet
civility, I mean general street civility.  I'm talking about breaking up the
country, Paul.

> > How far a leap is it from pharmacists deciding which prescriptions to
> fill,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Doctors already decide which patients to treat.

So a doctor can refuse to treat a woman who takes a contraceptive and who
needs medical care?  Refuse to treat a Jew, because the Jews killed Christ?
Refuse to treal a Muslim, because he might be a terrorist?  A left wing
doctor can refuse to treat a right wing patient?

How far do you want to go with this?  Have you really thought this through?

> > How will the societal model work any more when there are two or more
> > factions, and the factions cannot even agree on the common rules, laws,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> lies in our willingness to accommodate in order to preserve the meaning of
> the Constitution.

Nope.  The "meaning of the Constitution" is open to interpretation.  We are
not out to preserve anything except the Union, Paul.  That and only that is
the goal.  Without the Union, the document is toothless.

> > It's not so much an issue of whether someone has the "right" to do
> something
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> told the customer "we don't serve your kind here," but that's not at all
> what happened.

The pharmacist should be fired.  He has a duty to perform.  If he objects,
let him take up another line of work.
Bertie the Bunyip - 12 Nov 2004 23:54 GMT
>> > > > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:<2vi083F2ld84pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 186 lines]
> The pharmacist should be fired.  He has a duty to perform.  If he
> objects, let him take up another line of work.

maybe as an attendant in a dirty book store, for instance.

"I'm sorry sir, but those dildoes are only to be sold to married couples
and pathetically ugly women. Bring back a note from your wife and you may
have one, but not one of the purple ones"

Bertie
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 00:06 GMT
> > The pharmacist should be fired.  He has a duty to perform.  If he
> > objects, let him take up another line of work.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> and pathetically ugly women. Bring back a note from your wife and you may
> have one, but not one of the purple ones"

Well, according to the scolds, as long as he can argue that his behavior is
on religious grounds, he certainly could.

Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats, if their
religous views forbade them to dine with blacks.

Gas stations could refuse to sell gasoline to Jews, or persons of
Palestinian descent, on religious grounds.  Grocery stores could refuse
groceries to people whose religious views they found distasteful.  Stores
could be marked "White only", "Christian Only", "Jews Only."  America would
be The Land of the Free -- Free to f.ck Over Whomever You Don't Like.

Having lived in a place where black people did in fact get run out of
restaurants, I don't see these things as farfetched at all.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 00:09 GMT
>> > The pharmacist should be fired.  He has a duty to perform.  If he
>> > objects, let him take up another line of work.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Having lived in a place where black people did in fact get run out of
> restaurants, I don't see these things as farfetched at all.

neither do I...

Seen it myself.

bertie
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 02:06 GMT
> > > The pharmacist should be fired.  He has a duty to perform.  If he
> > > objects, let him take up another line of work.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats, if their
> religous views forbade them to dine with blacks.

Are their any religions in which this would be true?

> Gas stations could refuse to sell gasoline to Jews, or persons of
> Palestinian descent, on religious grounds.  Grocery stores could refuse
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Having lived in a place where black people did in fact get run out of
> restaurants, I don't see these things as farfetched at all.

On what religious grounds, exactly?

Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 02:14 GMT
> > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats, if
their
> > religous views forbade them to dine with blacks.
>
> Are their any religions in which this would be true?

How about religions that endanger people because snake handling is part of
their ritual?  How about Christian Science parents who refuse to let their
child have an appendectomy?
How about religions that permit polgamy?

Law has taken precedence over all of them.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 02:54 GMT
> > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats, if
> their
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Law has taken precedence over all of them.

What has that got to do with restaurant owners chasing black people out with
baseball bats?

As for your claim, as of 1999, parents cannot be prosecuted for withholding
medical attention on religious grounds in 40 states, and this was actually
*FEDERAL* regulation to include religious exemptions in the state child
abuse and neglect legislation. In 6 states (Arkansas, Deleware, Iowa, Ohio,
Oregon, and West Virginia), additional laws are on the books that prevent
charges of criminal homicide or manslaughter being laid against parents or
guardians in cases of faith healing that results in the death. In Colorado
the law states that parents or guardians who withhold medical treatment on
religious grounds can't be held liable for harm to a child as long as the
faith-healing treatments are recognized by the IRS and by major insurers.
Christian Science treatments are so recognised.

By 2002, 38 states had laws that permit parents to reject medical treatment
for their children in favor of faith healing - but if the condition is
life-threatening then a physician must be *consulted*.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 03:14 GMT
> > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats, if
> > their
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> What has that got to do with restaurant owners chasing black people out with
> baseball bats?

Well you missed out on segregation and open racial discrimination here.  Not
me, I saw it firsthand.  I saw Willie Mays, the greatest baseball player of
all time, denied service at a Mexican restaurant on McDowell Road near
Central Avenue, because he was black.

Had the restauranteur claimed a religious preference for white customers, I
suppose that under your rules, we'd still be in 1955.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 05:02 GMT
> > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats,
> if
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Had the restauranteur claimed a religious preference for white customers, I
> suppose that under your rules, we'd still be in 1955.

As I asked previously, does any such preference exist? If so, under what
religion do they exist? Is that religion recognised by the Supreme Court as
qualifying for protections under the 1st Amendment?

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 05:11 GMT
> > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats,
> > if
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> religion do they exist? Is that religion recognised by the Supreme Court as
> qualifying for protections under the 1st Amendment?

Which religions did you say were recognized by the Court?  Which part of
Amendment I states that Court approval is required?

Why are you so intent on trying to develop this tortured line of reasoning?

I say again:  You're fired.  I hired you to dispense.  You didn't dispense.
I don't care what your reason is.  Good luck on your next opportunity.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 09:33 GMT
>> > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with
>> > > > > > baseball
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> Which religions did you say were recognized by the Court?  

for f.ck's sake. Don't give them ideas!

Bertie
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 16:09 GMT
> > > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball
> bats,
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> I say again:  You're fired.  I hired you to dispense.  You didn't dispense.
> I don't care what your reason is.  Good luck on your next opportunity.

And you'd be toast. Look up the "Sherbert test".

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 16:26 GMT
> > I say again:  You're fired.  I hired you to dispense.  You didn't
> dispense.
> > I don't care what your reason is.  Good luck on your next opportunity.
>
> And you'd be toast. Look up the "Sherbert test".

Very strange, these rightwingers.  They act as if government is intrusive,
but they want court-approved religions, and lawsuit-decided hiring and
firing decisions ........when it suits their purposes, of course.

Give it up, Paul.  Your twisted view of religion and government just won't
work.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 20:56 GMT
> > > I say again:  You're fired.  I hired you to dispense.  You didn't
> > dispense.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Give it up, Paul.  Your twisted view of religion and government just won't
> work.

I'll ask again: are you wanting to return to our previous level of
communication?

Paul Nixon
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 20:59 GMT
>> > > I say again:  You're fired.  I hired you to dispense.  You didn't
>> > dispense.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> I'll ask again: are you wanting to return to our previous level of
> communication?

Yeah Yeah!

Bertie
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 21:23 GMT
> > > > I say again:  You're fired.  I hired you to dispense.  You didn't
> > > dispense.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> I'll ask again: are you wanting to return to our previous level of
> communication?

Well, I gotta tell you, this worldview I'm getting -- unless I'm getting it
wrong, which is always a possibility -- doesn't compute.

Here's what I have so far:

We talked about murder, and you seemed to be saying that man couldn't have
figured out that murder is wrong unless a deity said so.

We talked about a pharmacist not filling a scrip, and you called it a
"religious exercise".  Then you talked about religions being recognized by
the Supreme Court, as if such recognition had any religious significance.
As if any decision a pharmacist made in relation to his work was to be
explained by some religious declaration (as I said, if I am the store owner,
it makes no difference to me whether your decision is religious, or just
eccentric.  Either you can do the job, or you can't.  If you can't, I don't
care why.  You're fired.  Get out.)

Then you talked about lawsuits as a way to settle the issue.

All very weird.  Here's how it works in my view:  I own a store, and you
apply for a job.  On the application, it says "Will you fill any and all
legal prescriptions?"  If you answer no, I don't hire you.  I don't ask you
why, because I don't care why.  It's my store, and I will operate it
according to generally accepted pharmacy ethics as understood *by me*.
Period.  If there's a problem with that understanding, the responsible party
is me, not you.  Your job is to do the work I hired you to do.

There's no discussion, Paul.  I am not interested in your opinion on this.
Get a lawyer if you want, I don't care.  You are fired.  Clean your locker
and get out.

Don't call me, I'll call you.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 21:36 GMT
> > > > > I say again:  You're fired.  I hired you to dispense.  You didn't
> > > > dispense.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> We talked about murder, and you seemed to be saying that man couldn't have
> figured out that murder is wrong unless a deity said so.

I said that? Where?

> We talked about a pharmacist not filling a scrip, and you called it a
> "religious exercise".  Then you talked about religions being recognized by
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> eccentric.  Either you can do the job, or you can't.  If you can't, I don't
> care why.  You're fired.  Get out.)

I previously suggested you look into the Sherbert case. I still think you
should take a look at it.

> Then you talked about lawsuits as a way to settle the issue.

That's how the Supreme Court gets involved in these matters.

> All very weird.  Here's how it works in my view:  I own a store, and you
> apply for a job.  On the application, it says "Will you fill any and all
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Period.  If there's a problem with that understanding, the responsible party
> is me, not you.  Your job is to do the work I hired you to do.

Well, you've said I was twisted, weird, and something else. You said you
wanted a "serious" conversation but so far all I'm seeing is an attitude -
again.

> There's no discussion, Paul.  I am not interested in your opinion on
this.
> Get a lawyer if you want, I don't care.  You are fired.  Clean your locker
> and get out.
>
> Don't call me, I'll call you.

Then we're back to the way it was which is what I figured you'd go for. Oh
well...

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 21:49 GMT
> > > > > > I say again:  You're fired.  I hired you to dispense.  You didn't
> > > > > dispense.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> I said that? Where?

Not in so many words, but there's no other way to interpret your argument.
How else to handle the proposition that the recognition that murder is wrong
is a "religious" idea?  If I misunderstood, please clarify.

> > We talked about a pharmacist not filling a scrip, and you called it a
> > "religious exercise".  Then you talked about religions being recognized by
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I previously suggested you look into the Sherbert case. I still think you
> should take a look at it.

Thanks.  Now you're fired.  See, that's the part you can't accept.  I don't
have to be proven right, or agree with you, to fire you.
Now the ball is in your court.  Oh, and by the way, I'll notify every
pharmacy within a 1000 mile radius that you personally decide which scrips
get filled.  Good luck finding a job.

> > Then you talked about lawsuits as a way to settle the issue.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> wanted a "serious" conversation but so far all I'm seeing is an attitude -
> again.

I know of no other way to describe that worldview.  It's as if everything
springs from some religious idea.  Perhaps you think it does.  I do not.
The other reality does not compute.

>  > There's no discussion, Paul.  I am not interested in your opinion on
> this.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Then we're back to the way it was which is what I figured you'd go for. Oh
> well...

Nope.  I'm trying to make a point.  You can't get hired by me, and then
after the fact tell me that you have religious beliefs which prevent you
from doing the job I hired you to do.  You misrepresented yourself.  I was
straight with you.  I'm running a drugstore.  Anyone who walks in here with
a legal scrip and the money to pay for it, gets served.  I don't judge you
for not wanting to do that job, but I do decide whether you work for me.
Nobody else decides that.

And while we're at it, please explain to me how contraception is murder?
Are condoms murder weapons?  If so, why isn't abstinence a murder weapon?
Are you going to tell me that the sex act creates the murder, even though no
conception takes place?  And you want to represent these views as
"religious"?  I understand that view as mental illness and manipulation.  We
are never going to agree that contraception is murder.  We aren't ever going
to agree that a  pharmacist has the right to decide whether it is or not,
and thereby refuse to dispense the contraceptive product.

You can say anything you want, and drag the conversation in any way you
want, I am not agreeing with that view, because it's wrong.  Period.

Now, if you want to seek some middle ground here, the floor is yours.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 22:03 GMT
> > > > > > > I say again:  You're fired.  I hired you to dispense.  You
> didn't
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> How else to handle the proposition that the recognition that murder is wrong
> is a "religious" idea?  If I misunderstood, please clarify.

I believe I asked if there were any criminal laws that were not based on
religion. Perhaps I am misremembering, but I'm not sure how that question
has turned into a proposition that the recognition that murder is wrong is
necessarily a religious idea.

> > > We talked about a pharmacist not filling a scrip, and you called it a
> > > "religious exercise".  Then you talked about religions being recognized
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> pharmacy within a 1000 mile radius that you personally decide which scrips
> get filled.  Good luck finding a job.

If you did as you proposed, I wouldn't need a job.

> > > Then you talked about lawsuits as a way to settle the issue.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> springs from some religious idea.  Perhaps you think it does.  I do not.
> The other reality does not compute.

You are an atheist?

> >  > There's no discussion, Paul.  I am not interested in your opinion on
> > this.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> for not wanting to do that job, but I do decide whether you work for me.
> Nobody else decides that.

Unless, of course, you infringe on the free exercise clause.

> And while we're at it, please explain to me how contraception is murder?

That's news to me.

> Are condoms murder weapons?  If so, why isn't abstinence a murder weapon?

Never heard that one.

> Are you going to tell me that the sex act creates the murder, even though no
> conception takes place?  And you want to represent these views as
> "religious"?  I understand that view as mental illness and manipulation.  We
> are never going to agree that contraception is murder.  We aren't ever going
> to agree that a  pharmacist has the right to decide whether it is or not,
> and thereby refuse to dispense the contraceptive product.

What are you talking about? Contraception is murder? Where does this idea of
contraception being murder fit in with the pharmacist?

> You can say anything you want, and drag the conversation in any way you
> want, I am not agreeing with that view, because it's wrong.  Period.

That's fine, but who brought all that into the conversation let alone asked
you to agree with it???

> Now, if you want to seek some middle ground here, the floor is yours.

I'm not sure how to respond except "Over here!" while waving my arms. I
don't know who you were responding to, but it sure wasn't me.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 22:41 GMT
> > > > We talked about murder, and you seemed to be saying that man couldn't
> > have
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> has turned into a proposition that the recognition that murder is wrong is
> necessarily a religious idea.

If I misread that question, I withdraw the complaint.

> > > I previously suggested you look into the Sherbert case. I still think
> you
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> If you did as you proposed, I wouldn't need a job.

Why is that?

> > > > Then you talked about lawsuits as a way to settle the issue.
> > >
> > > That's how the Supreme Court gets involved in these matters.

Let me see if I have this right:  In my hypothetical, I own the drugstore.
I hire you, and you decide not to fill certain prescriptions.  Your
decisions do not coincide with my judgment.

I can't fire you, and the Supreme Court gets to decide the matter?

In that case, let the court make the payments on my store.  Clearly I don't
own it.

I am dispensing LEGAL prescriptions, Paul.  Which part of that do you not
understand?  Do you suppose that I must hire another pharmacist to dispense
the ones you don't want to dispense?

I will hire only pharmacists who dispense *all* legal prescriptions.
Period.

> > I know of no other way to describe that worldview.  It's as if everything
> > springs from some religious idea.  Perhaps you think it does.  I do not.
> > The other reality does not compute.
>
> You are an atheist?

Everything springs from a religious idea?  The United States is now a
theocracy?

> Unless, of course, you infringe on the free exercise clause.

There's no infringement, Paul.  Your relious views do not give you the right
to do anything you want to do in my store.
You are free to practice your religion elsewhere.  Get out.

From a news story:

Employment contracts can trump a pharmacist's right of refusal, said Claire
Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.

A Texas pharmacist was fired earlier this year by the Eckerd drug store
chain for refusing to fill a rape victim's emergency contraceptive
prescription. Eckerd's employment manual says pharmacists are not allowed to
decline filling a prescription based on religious, moral or ethical grounds.
--Associated Press

> > And while we're at it, please explain to me how contraception is murder?
>
> That's news to me.

Then under what tenet does a pharmacist refuse to dispense contraceptives?

--/
Another incident occurred in North Richland Hills, Texas, when a
second-grade teacher and mother of two was denied her birth control
prescription at CVS because of the pharmacist's "personal belief." A CVS
spokesperson responded, "We recognize that, in very limited circumstances, a
pharmacist may have a deeply held personal belief regarding a certain
medication, and we would respect their belief in that particular instance. .
. However, our pharmacists have a responsibility to ensure that our
customers are able to obtain their medications."
--/
khobar - 14 Nov 2004 02:51 GMT
> > > > > We talked about murder, and you seemed to be saying that man
> couldn't
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> If I misread that question, I withdraw the complaint.

It was honest curiosity, nothing more.

> > > > I previously suggested you look into the Sherbert case. I still think
> > you
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Why is that?

If you violated my rights (and you would have in many states), I would sue.

> > > > > Then you talked about lawsuits as a way to settle the issue.
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I can't fire you, and the Supreme Court gets to decide the matter?

Who said you can't fire someone? You're free to fire anyone, anytime.

If, however, you are shown to have violated my rights, you could be forced
to rehire me.

> In that case, let the court make the payments on my store.  Clearly I don't
> own it.

You may own it, but that doesn't free you from various regulations, laws,
etc.

> I am dispensing LEGAL prescriptions, Paul.  Which part of that do you not
> understand?  Do you suppose that I must hire another pharmacist to dispense
> the ones you don't want to dispense?

The legality of the prescriptions is not an issue.

> I will hire only pharmacists who dispense *all* legal prescriptions.
> Period.

How, exactly, would you determine which pharmacists would be qualified?

> > > I know of no other way to describe that worldview.  It's as if
> everything
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Everything springs from a religious idea?  The United States is now a
> theocracy?

No idea and I don't think it is. You didn't answer my question: are you an
atheist?

> > Unless, of course, you infringe on the free exercise clause.
>
> There's no infringement, Paul.  Your relious views do not give you the right
> to do anything you want to do in my store.
> You are free to practice your religion elsewhere.  Get out.

Fine.

> From a news story:
>
> Employment contracts can trump a pharmacist's right of refusal, said Claire
> Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.

Yes, according to the NHCLU, not the Supreme Court. Incidently,  New
Hampshire is one of many states that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill
prescriptions for any reason.

> A Texas pharmacist was fired earlier this year by the Eckerd drug store
> chain for refusing to fill a rape victim's emergency contraceptive
> prescription. Eckerd's employment manual says pharmacists are not allowed to
> decline filling a prescription based on religious, moral or ethical grounds.
> --Associated Press

In this particular case (Denton), the pharmacist refused to transfer the
prescription. He got what he deserved.

In the Wisconsin case, the pharmacist was the only one there, but
(apparently) instead of transferring the prescription to another pharmacy,
he refused. Not sure how this is going to play out since he had an agreement
with his boss regarding contraceptives.

> > > And while we're at it, please explain to me how contraception is murder?
> >
> > That's news to me.
>
> Then under what tenet does a pharmacist refuse to dispense contraceptives?

I've no idea - I'm not a pharmacist nor have I ever been faced with any
situation that would come anywhere close. I'm also not Roman Catholic, as is
the Wisconsin pharmacist in question.

> --/
> Another incident occurred in North Richland Hills, Texas, when a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> customers are able to obtain their medications."
> --/

So what did CVS do? Respect the belief or enforce the responsibility?

Paul Nixon

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 14 Nov 2004 03:19 GMT
> > > > > > We talked about murder, and you seemed to be saying that man
> > couldn't
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> Who said you can't fire someone? You're free to fire anyone, anytime.

Thank you.  Kindly clean out your locker and turn in your keys.

> If, however, you are shown to have violated my rights, you could be forced
> to rehire me.

Meanwhile, have a nice life.

> > In that case, let the court make the payments on my store.  Clearly I
> don't
> > own it.
>
> You may own it, but that doesn't free you from various regulations, laws,
> etc.

Duh.  Really?  I'll bet most pharmacy owners, like Eckerd, don't know that.

> > I am dispensing LEGAL prescriptions, Paul.  Which part of that do you not
> > understand?  Do you suppose that I must hire another pharmacist to
> dispense
> > the ones you don't want to dispense?
>
> The legality of the prescriptions is not an issue.

It's the only issue.

> > I will hire only pharmacists who dispense *all* legal prescriptions.
> > Period.
>
> How, exactly, would you determine which pharmacists would be qualified?

How does anyone ascertain whether any applicants are qualified for anything?

> > > > I know of no other way to describe that worldview.  It's as if
> > everything
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> No idea and I don't think it is. You didn't answer my question: are you an
> atheist?

Do you need to know that in order to arrange your conversation here?

> > > Unless, of course, you infringe on the free exercise clause.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Hampshire is one of many states that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill
> prescriptions for any reason.

With or without "religious exercise?"

> > A Texas pharmacist was fired earlier this year by the Eckerd drug store
> > chain for refusing to fill a rape victim's emergency contraceptive
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> So what did CVS do? Respect the belief or enforce the responsibility?

Based on their statement, both.  I respect your views.  It's been nice
knowing you.  Etc.
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 03:23 GMT
> > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats, if
> > their
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> faith-healing treatments are recognized by the IRS and by major insurers.
> Christian Science treatments are so recognised.

I wasn't talking about prosecuting the parents.  Courts can and will order a
medical procedure.  A clear violation of religious rights.

> By 2002, 38 states had laws that permit parents to reject medical treatment
> for their children in favor of faith healing - but if the condition is
> life-threatening then a physician must be *consulted*.

See previous.  The fact that 12 states don't do that shows that there is no
universally accepted interpretation, and religious rights can be abrogated.
I rest my case.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 05:08 GMT
> > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats,
> if
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> I wasn't talking about prosecuting the parents.  Courts can and will order a
> medical procedure.  A clear violation of religious rights.

Then there has never been a case where a child has died as a result of
faith-healing.

> > By 2002, 38 states had laws that permit parents to reject medical
> treatment
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> universally accepted interpretation, and religious rights can be abrogated.
> I rest my case.

What happened to your claim that law has taken precedence over all of them?
Hey, if you want to downgrade your claim, by all means you are free to do
so - it's your decision, your choice.

Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 05:16 GMT
> > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball
bats, if
> > > > their religous views forbade them to dine with blacks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are their any religions in which this would be true?
> > > >
> > > > How about religions that endanger people because snake handling is
part of
> > > > their ritual?  How about Christian Science parents who refuse to let
their
> > > > child have an appendectomy?
> > > > How about religions that permit polgamy?
> > > >
> > > > Law has taken precedence over all of them.
> > >
> > > What has that got to do with restaurant owners chasing black people
out with
> > > baseball bats?
> > >
> > > As for your claim, as of 1999, parents cannot be prosecuted for
withholding
> > > medical attention on religious grounds in 40 states, and this was
actually
> > > *FEDERAL* regulation to include religious exemptions in the state child
> > > abuse and neglect legislation. In 6 states (Arkansas, Deleware, Iowa,
Ohio,
> > > Oregon, and West Virginia), additional laws are on the books that
prevent
> > > charges of criminal homicide or manslaughter being laid against
parents or
> > > guardians in cases of faith healing that results in the death. In
Colorado
> > > the law states that parents or guardians who withhold medical
treatment on
> > > religious grounds can't be held liable for harm to a child as long as
the
> > > faith-healing treatments are recognized by the IRS and by major
insurers.
> > > Christian Science treatments are so recognised.
> >
> > I wasn't talking about prosecuting the parents.  Courts can and will
order a
> > medical procedure.  A clear violation of religious rights.
>
> Then there has never been a case where a child has died as a result of
faith-healing.

Wrong, irrelevant, and a dodge.

> > > By 2002, 38 states had laws that permit parents to reject medical
treatment
> > > for their children in favor of faith healing - but if the condition is
> > > life-threatening then a physician must be *consulted*.
> >
> > See previous.  The fact that 12 states don't do that shows that there is
no
> > universally accepted interpretation, and religious rights can be
abrogated.
> > I rest my case.
>
> What happened to your claim that law has taken precedence over all of them?
> Hey, if you want to downgrade your claim, by all means you are free to do
> so - it's your decision, your choice.

It has in various venues.  I didn't claim or imply that it happens in all
venues.  You're the one making the universalist claims.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 16:08 GMT
> > > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball
> bats, if
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
> It has in various venues.  I didn't claim or imply that it happens in all
> venues.  You're the one making the universalist claims.

Actually, you did when you claimed "[l]aw has taken precedence over all of
them." I suppose now you're going to claim you were referring only to those
specific ones you mentioned, huh?

Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 21:32 GMT
> > > > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball
bats, if
> > > > > > their religous views forbade them to dine with blacks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are their any religions in which this would be true?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about religions that endanger people because snake handling
is part of
> > > > > > their ritual?  How about Christian Science parents who refuse to
let
> > their
> > > > > > child have an appendectomy?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > > > >
> > > > > What has that got to do with restaurant owners chasing black
people out with
> > > > > baseball bats?
> > > > >
> > > > > As for your claim, as of 1999, parents cannot be prosecuted
forwithholding
> > > > > medical attention on religious grounds in 40 states, and this was
actually
> > > > > *FEDERAL* regulation to include religious exemptions in the state
child
> > > > > abuse and neglect legislation. In 6 states (Arkansas, Deleware,
Iowa,
> > Ohio,
> > > > > Oregon, and West Virginia), additional laws are on the books that
prevent
> > > > > charges of criminal homicide or manslaughter being laid against
parents or
> > > > > guardians in cases of faith healing that results in the death. In
Colorado
> > > > > the law states that parents or guardians who withhold medical
treatment on
> > > > > religious grounds can't be held liable for harm to a child as long
as the
> > > > > faith-healing treatments are recognized by the IRS and by major
insurers.
> > > > > Christian Science treatments are so recognised.
> > > >
> > > > I wasn't talking about prosecuting the parents.  Courts can and will
order a
> > > > medical procedure.  A clear violation of religious rights.
> > >
> > > Then there has never been a case where a child has died as a result of
faith-healing.

> > Wrong, irrelevant, and a dodge.
> >
> > > > > By 2002, 38 states had laws that permit parents to reject medical
treatment
> > > > > for their children in favor of faith healing - but if the
condition is
> > > > > life-threatening then a physician must be *consulted*.
> > > >
> > > > See previous.  The fact that 12 states don't do that shows that
there is no
> > > > universally accepted interpretation, and religious rights can be
abrogated.
> > > > I rest my case.
> > >
> > > What happened to your claim that law has taken precedence over all of
them?
> > > Hey, if you want to downgrade your claim, by all means you are free to
do
> > > so - it's your decision, your choice.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> them." I suppose now you're going to claim you were referring only to those
> specific ones you mentioned, huh?

What I said was:

"How about religions that endanger people because snake handling is part of
their ritual?  How about Christian Science parents who refuse to let their
child have an appendectomy?  How about religions that permit polgamy?

"Law has taken precedence over all of them."

It's a fact that law has taken precedence over all of the examples I
provided.  I didn't say in every case or in every state, so it's not a
universalist claim.  You misinterpreted it that way.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 21:41 GMT
> > > > > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball
> bats, if
[quoted text clipped - 86 lines]
> provided.  I didn't say in every case or in every state, so it's not a
> universalist claim.  You misinterpreted it that way.

Oh bravo John. You da man!

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 22:01 GMT
> "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> "How about religions that endanger people because snake handling is part of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> provided.  I didn't say in every case or in every state, so it's not a
> universalist claim.  You misinterpreted it that way.

The law is not perfect.  But one thing is clear:  Polygamy is a cover for
sexual abuse of children, as practiced out here in the West by Mormon sects.
And by David Koresh.  Only in America could such crimes be called
"religion", and without giving religion a bad name.
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 22:39 GMT
> > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > "How about religions that endanger people because snake handling is part
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> And by David Koresh.  Only in America could such crimes be called
> "religion", and without giving religion a bad name.

Damn, and I thought it was just a way that God provided for every man to
have a different wife for every night of the week and generate enough
dependents to never have to pay taxes.

I don't know how widespread the abuse is, but any is too much.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 22:48 GMT
>> > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > "How about religions that endanger people because snake handling is
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> I don't know how widespread the abuse is, but any is too much.

I thought the same thing, but know little or nohng about it.

I did see a program about a guy who was defying the ban, years ago (I thnk
that Dickhead witha capital D,Geraldo presented it) and the "wives" were
all prettyyoung. Most of them had been donated to this guy by their
parents.

Bertie
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 23:15 GMT
> >> > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >> > "How about religions that endanger people because snake handling is
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> that Dickhead witha capital D,Geraldo presented it) and the "wives" were
> all prettyyoung. Most of them had been donated to this guy by their
parents.

I saw it, or a similar one, too.  Made my stomach churn.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 23:28 GMT
>> >> > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> >> > "How about religions that endanger people because snake handling
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> I saw it, or a similar one, too.  Made my stomach churn.

Didn't think a lot of it at the time.And it was some time ago. I never
thought about it 'til I just read that post and I have to say,that's what
it looked like.
Geraldo painted the guy like he was some sort of , um don't know what.

Bertie
rxempress - 13 Nov 2004 20:51 GMT
If I am not comfortable filling a prescription for an addict then I may not
do it. I may consult the physician to make him aware of a problem and based
on a mutual decision I will fill the prescription or he will void the
prescription.

If he says fill the prescription and I believe the prescription should not
be filled I will hand the prescription back to the patient.  If the doctor
nullifies the prescription then I destroy it.

If I am was not comfortable with any prescription then I will not fill it.
We once had a doctor feel-good in town who wrote oxycontin 5 times daily
prn.  Oxycontin is not a prn drug and should only be used every 12 hours.  I
call the doctor... he told me to fill as is.  I handed the patient the rx
back and said he had to go somewhere else.. I will not fill it.

If a pharmacist refuses to fill a rx for birth control or the morning after
pill then they should hand the prescription back to the patient.    I wonder
if they would fill a rx for viagra or fertility pills since these also are
forms of drugs playing God.
Aimee - 13 Nov 2004 06:40 GMT
> > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats,
> > if
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> Then there has never been a case where a child has died as a result of
> faith-healing.

Or been "healed" by it. There is no such thing as "faith healing".
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 09:32 GMT
>> > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball
>> > > bats, if
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> What has that got to do with restaurant owners chasing black people
> out with baseball bats?

What has that got to do with you claiming to be English?

Bertie
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 02:24 GMT
> > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats, if
> their
> > religous views forbade them to dine with blacks.
>
> Are their any religions in which this would be true?

Why is that for us to say?  Are the arbiters of what others' religious
beliefs might tell them to do?

> > Gas stations could refuse to sell gasoline to Jews, or persons of
> > Palestinian descent, on religious grounds.  Grocery stores could refuse
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> On what religious grounds, exactly?

Once you open the door to "religious grounds" then how do you filter out
anything?

Who decides what is religious, and what isn't?  Religious people?
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 02:27 GMT
Corrected below

> > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats, if
> > their
> > > religous views forbade them to dine with blacks.
> >
> > Are their any religions in which this would be true?

Why is that for us to say?  Are we the arbiters of what others' religious
beliefs might tell them to do?
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 02:56 GMT
> Corrected below
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>  Why is that for us to say?  Are we the arbiters of what others' religious
>  beliefs might tell them to do?

No. The Supreme Court is.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 03:15 GMT
> > Corrected below
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> No. The Supreme Court is.

Really?  The Court decides which personal choices are religous, and which
are not?

Case law, please?
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 03:23 GMT
> > Corrected below
> >
> > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats,
if their
> > > > > religous views forbade them to dine with blacks.
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> No. The Supreme Court is.

You may want to google U.S. v. Ballard.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 16:19 GMT
> > > Corrected below
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> You may want to google U.S. v. Ballard.

And?

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 16:26 GMT
> > > > Corrected below
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> And?

And we could turn it into a 5-year harangue?
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 20:57 GMT
> > > > > Corrected below
> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> And we could turn it into a 5-year harangue?

What's that supposed to mean?

Paul Nixon
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 21:01 GMT
>> > > > > Corrected below
>> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> What's that supposed to mean?

Pretty obvious to me, though it's more likely ot be a four year harangue.

Bertie
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 21:28 GMT
> >> > > > > Corrected below
> >> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Pretty obvious to me, though it's more likely ot be a four year harangue.

Not to be confused with a four-egg meringue.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 22:20 GMT
>> >> > > > > Corrected below
>> >> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Not to be confused with a four-egg meringue.

That's rich!

bertie
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 22:27 GMT
> >> >> > > > > Corrected below
> >> >> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> That's rich!

Now, that took some crust.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 22:33 GMT
>> >> >> > > > > Corrected below
>> >> >> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Now, that took some crust.

Got nothing. I have a limited Bennet Cerf repertoire.

Stupid c.nt!

bertie
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 21:24 GMT
> > > > > > Corrected below
> > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> What's that supposed to mean?

It means that the actual question here is long forgotten, and now we are
going to argue the arcana of SCOTUS decisions?

Why am I not surprised?
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 21:38 GMT
> > > > > > > Corrected below
> > > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Why am I not surprised?

The question was whether the pharmacist had the right to refuse to fill a
legal prescription, no?

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 21:49 GMT
> > > > > > > > Corrected below
> > > > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 21:50 GMT
> > > > > > > > Corrected below
> > > > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> The question was whether the pharmacist had the right to refuse to fill a
> legal prescription, no?

Not to me.  I am not arguing that right.  I am arguing that in my drugstore,
the employees are bound to observe my rules.  If they cannot, they are free
to leave.  My rules are legal and within the established boundaries of the
ethics of the profession.  I make no judgement about you if you disagree,
you just can't work for me.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 22:06 GMT
> > > > > > > > > Corrected below
> > > > > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> ethics of the profession.  I make no judgement about you if you disagree,
> you just can't work for me.

If your rules infringe upon the free exercise clause then they are NOT
legal. That's the point.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 22:41 GMT
> > > > > > > > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in
> message
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>
> Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 22:42 GMT
> "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in message

> If your rules infringe upon the free exercise clause then they are NOT
> legal. That's the point.

They don't.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 23:04 GMT
> > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in message
>
> > If your rules infringe upon the free exercise clause then they are NOT
> > legal. That's the point.
>
> They don't.

According to who?

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 23:27 GMT
> > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in message
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 23:30 GMT
> > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in message
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> According to who?

When you took the job, you agreed to comply with my rules.  If you don't,
you're fired.  You don't have to agree with them.  You just have to live up
to your agreement.  If you won't agree, then I'll not hire you.

"Exercise" has nothing to do with it.  I don't know of any religion which
recognizes a pharmacy ritual or ceremony, do you?
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 23:33 GMT
>> > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in message
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> "Exercise" has nothing to do with it.  I don't know of any religion
> which recognizes a pharmacy ritual or ceremony, do you?

Well, there's the Hopis..

Bertie
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 23:39 GMT
> >> > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in message
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Well, there's the Hopis..

"Have you taken the slow release Peyote before, Mr. Running Dog?  Just sign
here, please.  That's a $5 copay."
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 23:45 GMT
>> >> > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in message
>> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> "Have you taken the slow release Peyote before, Mr. Running Dog?  Just
> sign here, please.  That's a $5 copay."

hmm, they might look into a line of low fat communion hosts at Eckard's..

Bertie
khobar - 14 Nov 2004 02:59 GMT
> > > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in message
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> "Exercise" has nothing to do with it.  I don't know of any religion which
> recognizes a pharmacy ritual or ceremony, do you?

No idea what that's about. Pharmacy ritual or ceremony??

Has such a case come before the Supreme Court? If they have ruled that
pharmacists must fill the prescriptions regardless of their religious
convictions, then that's what they have to do. End of story (until the
SCOTUS reverses itself). If they have ruled that pharmacists are protected
under the free exercise clause, then the employer is toast. As it stands
now, it seems evenly split across the country.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 14 Nov 2004 03:28 GMT
> > > > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in message
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> No idea what that's about. Pharmacy ritual or ceremony??

It's about your strawman "religious exercise" argument, Paul.  I can refuse
to do anything, anywhere, any time, and claim that it is my right to do so
as an exercise of my religious freedom.  As long as I can connect that dot
to an approved religion, as I understand your view, I'm covered, and I can
sue anybody who tries to interfere with me.

It's an interesting model.  I think this is known as "Monkeyfuck, with
bananas."  How in the world does the world operate under a model like that?
Nobody can count on anyone to do anything.  No expectation is too serious to
be not trampled on by somebody's "religious exercise" because the laws of
man are impotent in the face of God's Mighty Word, as interpreted by you, or
me, or anyone.

Richard Nixon, no relation to you I presume, didn't need to resign the
presidency.  He needed only to claim that he did what he did in order to
meet his religious obligations.  He felt it his moral duty to keep tens of
thousands of dollars in cash in the White House to pay off his lowlife
criminal operatives.  God told him to do it.  Sounds nutty, doesn't it?

> Has such a case come before the Supreme Court? If they have ruled that
> pharmacists must fill the prescriptions regardless of their religious
> convictions, then that's what they have to do. End of story (until the
> SCOTUS reverses itself). If they have ruled that pharmacists are protected
> under the free exercise clause, then the employer is toast. As it stands
> now, it seems evenly split across the country.

Well, I think the Supreme Court is going to have to hire more people.
They'll be deciding everything, all the time.  They'll have to have
operators on duty 24 hours a day to take all the emergency calls.  We'll
have to amend the Constitution to expand the court to 4,373 Justices to
handle the load.  Nothing will be too small a concern to bring before the
Court.

The Court, of course, will simply consult God's Word in making their
decisions.  This, they will get from official priests who will be housed in
vast dormitories near the capitol.

I see a whole, brave new world coming ......

No wonder the Bush base believes in the end time.  If I imagined a world as
f.cked up as they might make it, I'd want to be transported out of here too
.............
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 23:13 GMT
> > Not to me.  I am not arguing that right.  I am arguing that in my
drugstore,
> > the employees are bound to observe my rules.  If they cannot, they are
free
> > to leave.  My rules are legal and within the established boundaries of the
> > ethics of the profession.  I make no judgement about you if you disagree,
> > you just can't work for me.
>
> If your rules infringe upon the free exercise clause then they are NOT
> legal. That's the point.

Now we're into the rights of an employer with an at-will employee who cannot
or will not perform the expected duties of the job.  If the free exercise
is, say, that the employee wants to wear headgear as a religious observance,
that's not going to interfere with the job of taking orders and dispensing
scrips, and the employer loses.  A more relevant case was the firefighter
who refused to shave his beard on religious grounds.  The government said
that interfered with his ability to effectively use a smoke mask in the
performance of his expected duties.  I think the government essentially won
that one.

I'm not going to go back to SCOTUS citing, but there's considerable
statutory and case law on employee relations that would make me think twice
about my "religious right" to refuse to perform the expected job duty of
dispensing valid scrips for my employer.  A doctor is usually a
self-employed entity and that gives him firmer ground to stand on.  Within
the context of this discussion, AC as owner of the shop would not be subject
to the "performance of duties" issue, either, if he decided not to fill a
scrip.
khobar - 14 Nov 2004 03:03 GMT
> > > Not to me.  I am not arguing that right.  I am arguing that in my
> drugstore,
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> performance of his expected duties.  I think the government essentially won
> that one.

Yes, there are exemptions and tests and various qualifications used to
determine the outcome.

> I'm not going to go back to SCOTUS citing, but there's considerable
> statutory and case law on employee relations that would make me think twice
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> to the "performance of duties" issue, either, if he decided not to fill a
> scrip.

Well, in the cases cited so far regarding pharmacists, it seems in each case
the refusal to fill the prescription was not the issue that led to the
terminations but rather their refusal to transfer the prescriptions to
others that would fill them. At least that's how it's looking to me. I could
be wrong, but clearly that refusal goes against everything - to me it's a
clear attempt on the part of the pharmacist to force his religious views
onto others, and that's not right.

Paul Nixon
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 02:55 GMT
> > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats, if
> > their
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Why is that for us to say?  Are the arbiters of what others' religious
> beliefs might tell them to do?

Yes. You can't just claim something on religious grounds.

> > > Gas stations could refuse to sell gasoline to Jews, or persons of
> > > Palestinian descent, on religious grounds.  Grocery stores could refuse
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Who decides what is religious, and what isn't?  Religious people?

The Supreme Court.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 03:14 GMT
> > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats, if
> > > their
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> The Supreme Court.

Really?  The Supreme Court gets to decide what is religious?

My oh my.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 09:42 GMT
>> > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball
>> > > > bats,
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> My oh my.

give them time.

Bertie
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 16:22 GMT
> > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats,
> if
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> My oh my.

Yes. Want the cases?

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 18:18 GMT
> > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball bats,
> > if
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Yes. Want the cases?

Oh no, that's okay Paul.  I believe everything you say.  All religions must
be approved by the Supreme Court.  It's just like having the UL tag on a
toaster.  And of course, no person can claim any moral or religious position
unless that position is duly authorized by an approved religion.  It's all
perfectly clear, my good man.  I appreciate the information.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 20:27 GMT
>> > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with
>> > > > > > baseball
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
> Oh no, that's okay Paul.  I believe everything you say.  All religions
> must be approved by the Supreme Court.  

sh.t. Better get my application in or there could be hell to pay at the
next virgin sacrifice.

Bertie
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 20:58 GMT
> > > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball
> bats,
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> unless that position is duly authorized by an approved religion.  It's all
> perfectly clear, my good man.  I appreciate the information.

How unfortunate.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 21:26 GMT
> > > > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball
> > bats,
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>
> How unfortunate.

Indeed.  You seem to think that you can manufacture a reality and make it
real by verbalizing it over and over.  No wonder you like George Bush.

Don't let anything dissuade you from your personal reality, but don't expect
me to buy into it.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 21:39 GMT
> > > > > > > > > Restaurant owners could chase black people out with baseball
> > > bats,
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
> Don't let anything dissuade you from your personal reality, but don't expect
> me to buy into it.

Ah, another personal attack.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 21:52 GMT
> > > > > > > > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in
> message
[quoted text clipped - 77 lines]
>
> Ah, another personal attack.

Yes, you'd like everything to be "religious exercise" and "personal attack".
That way, your views never have to stand on their own two feet.  I'm making
a simple assertion:  Your reality is not understandable to me.  There's
nothing personal about it.  It wouldn't matter who you were or what the
circumstaces were.  I'd say exactly the same thing, and then offer you
lunch.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 23:16 GMT
> > > > > > > > > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in
> > message
[quoted text clipped - 92 lines]
> circumstaces were.  I'd say exactly the same thing, and then offer you
> lunch.

Referring to someone's opinion as their "personal reality" is an insult.
Whether you understand my opinion or not is irrelevant. If my position is
incorrect then that's fine - just offer some proof.

I am curious, however, why you seem to be steering the discussion away from
the pharmacist and the SCOTUS and toward my supposed personal reality, my
supposed religious beliefs, etc.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 23:33 GMT
> > Yes, you'd like everything to be "religious exercise" and "personal
> attack".
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Referring to someone's opinion as their "personal reality" is an insult.

Why is that?  Do you claim that your personal reality, your personal view of
the world around you, is greater than "personal?"  That yours supersedes
someone else's?

> Whether you understand my opinion or not is irrelevant. If my position is
> incorrect then that's fine - just offer some proof.

The burden is on you, not me.  I set up a hypothetical where I am the store
owner.  I fired you.  I don't have to prove anything.

> I am curious, however, why you seem to be steering the discussion away from
> the pharmacist and the SCOTUS and toward my supposed personal reality, my
> supposed religious beliefs, etc.

Because "SCOTUS" and all this nonsense about "exercise of religious belief"
is not reality, it's your spin.  You may think you are right, and I have no
comment.  However, in my example, you're fired.  Your personal beliefs are
not my business.  Nor mine, yours.
khobar - 14 Nov 2004 03:16 GMT
> > > Yes, you'd like everything to be "religious exercise" and "personal
> > attack".
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> the world around you, is greater than "personal?"  That yours supersedes
> someone else's?

I made no such claims. Your "assertion" and followup statements are
"belittling" in nature.

> > Whether you understand my opinion or not is irrelevant. If my position is
> > incorrect then that's fine - just offer some proof.
>
> The burden is on you, not me.  I set up a hypothetical where I am the store
> owner.  I fired you.  I don't have to prove anything.

If I sue you, you most certainly do.

> > I am curious, however, why you seem to be steering the discussion away
> from
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> comment.  However, in my example, you're fired.  Your personal beliefs are
> not my business.  Nor mine, yours.

Okay, see you in court.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 14 Nov 2004 03:36 GMT
> > > > Yes, you'd like everything to be "religious exercise" and "personal
> > > attack".
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> I made no such claims. Your "assertion" and followup statements are
> "belittling" in nature.

You're mighty sensitive, Paul.  This here is a food fight room, as I have
tried to tell you lo these many times.  Lighten up.

My question above is a simple intellectual inquiry.  Unless we can establish
your basis for believing that whatever your personal view is, it trumps mine
*a priori*, then I don't know what the complaint is.  You've conjured up a
setup where I, as a drugstore owner, seem to be powerless to have any
control over what goes on in my store.  I'm at the mercy of my employees'
"religious" beliefs, which are whatever they say they are, I guess, and I
can't even qualify them in this regard before I hire them, or fire them if
they don't conduct my business in the manner I desire.  I guess anyone with
a pharmacy license is a mandatory hire, and I have no control over them once
hired.

I say again, I can't compute this model.  Rather than cavil with me over who
said which version of what, why don't you just make your position clear in a
succinct review of the major points?

> > > Whether you understand my opinion or not is irrelevant. If my position
> is
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> If I sue you, you most certainly do.

No.  My lawyer is good, and he'll get a summary judgement against you in a
countersuit and I'll end up owning your house and your boat.

> > > I am curious, however, why you seem to be steering the discussion away
> > from
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Okay, see you in court.

Talk to the hand.  Your case is never going to even get to the depositions.
khobar - 14 Nov 2004 22:41 GMT
> > > > > Yes, you'd like everything to be "religious exercise" and "personal
> > > > attack".
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> You're mighty sensitive, Paul.  This here is a food fight room, as I have
> tried to tell you lo these many times.  Lighten up.

Ah, so we have reverted to our previous level of communication. Fine - buh
bye.

> My question above is a simple intellectual inquiry.  Unless we can establish
> your basis for believing that whatever your personal view is, it trumps mine
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> Talk to the hand.  Your case is never going to even get to the depositions.

Buh bye.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 14 Nov 2004 23:04 GMT
> > > > > > Yes, you'd like everything to be "religious exercise" and
> "personal
[quoted text clipped - 88 lines]
>
> Buh bye.

Don't let the door ........well, you know.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 09:31 GMT
>> > > The pharmacist should be fired.  He has a duty to perform.  If he
>> > > objects, let him take up another line of work.
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> On what religious grounds, exactly?

Sort of religious grounds your buddy, shrub, subs to.

bertei
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 01:31 GMT
> > > > > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:<2vi083F2ld84pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> under that umbrella, in which case you have Balkanization and open
> hostility.  Simply will not work.

Exactly how is refusing to fill a prescription discrimination on religious
grounds? What religion requires birth control pills as an integral part?

> > > ethics issue.  I refer you to the blurb I posted earlier from the Pharma
> > > publication.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Contraceptive pills are not killing viable humans.  Your argument just
> doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

I was referring to your argument over "professional ethics".

> > > Second, it's also a rule of law issue.  When people start deciding which
> > > rules and laws they'll observe and which ones they won't, then the law
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> What is the basis for stating that it is?  Which law are you referring to?

Any law that is in violation of the US Constitution.

> A license to dispense pharmaceuticals is entirely the purview of the state
> and its licensing authority.  That's the authority which governs.

State law cannot be in violation of the US Constitution (although it often
is, at least until challenged).

> > > painting you with, since you said that you didn't subscribe to it, you
> can
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> civility, I mean general street civility.  I'm talking about breaking up the
> country, Paul.

I don't disagree with you that there are those who would attempt to use
whatever they have at their disposal to do as you suggest (which is one
reason I disagree with Supreme Court justices being political appointees),
but I disagree that it is *my* interpretation of God's law we're talking
about. Such laws as "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" seem
absolute. No killing under *any* circumstance and no stealing under *any*
circumstance. Away goes war, capital punishment, murder, abortion, theft,
etc.

Unfortunately, because of the way the bible is written there are any number
of other "laws" that are subject to interpretation. So all I can really say
is that while I do not share your doom and gloom picture, I do see and
understand exactly the danger you are talking about.

> > > How far a leap is it from pharmacists deciding which prescriptions to
> > fill,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> How far do you want to go with this?  Have you really thought this through?

A doctor can refuse to perform various medical procedures based on his
religious beliefs. The refusal is *his* exercise of *his* religious beliefs,
not his discrimination against *someone else's* religious beliefs. Two
totally different things.

> > > How will the societal model work any more when there are two or more
> > > factions, and the factions cannot even agree on the common rules, laws,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> not out to preserve anything except the Union, Paul.  That and only that is
> the goal.  Without the Union, the document is toothless.

Yes, the purpose of the Surpreme Court is to interpret the Constitution.
That does not change the fact that we constantly accommodate in order to
preserve that meaning. For example, freedom of speech is what's written, but
that's since been interpreted to extend to freedom of expression. Why?
Because it was thought to be implied as an accommodation for those seeking
protection under the 1st Amendment for things that were not previously
considered to be covered under it.

> > > It's not so much an issue of whether someone has the "right" to do
> > something
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> The pharmacist should be fired.  He has a duty to perform.  If he objects,
> let him take up another line of work.

So, you are in favor of religious discrimination.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 01:53 GMT
not be an issue. It's right in the 1st Amendment:
> Congress
> > > shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Exactly how is refusing to fill a prescription discrimination on religious
> grounds? What religion requires birth control pills as an integral part?

No, I'm talking about the grounds for refusing.  If the grounds are not
religious, then the claim that the pharmacist can refuse because he is
"exercising his religion" collapses.  Of course, I'm of the opinion that
even if religious grounds are claimed, the assertion is on shaky ground.
Like I said, with that argument, almost anything can be done under the
"protection" of religious exercise.

> > Contraceptive pills are not killing viable humans.  Your argument just
> > doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.
>
> I was referring to your argument over "professional ethics".

The pharmacist is expected to follow the ethical standards of the
profession, no?

> > > If the law is unconstitutional then it should be imperiled to the
> highest
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Any law that is in violation of the US Constitution.

But that's not the pharmacist's decision.  Citizens do not get to decide
which laws to obey, do they?  Say yes, because there are several that I'd
prefer to ignore right away.

> > A license to dispense pharmaceuticals is entirely the purview of the state
> > and its licensing authority.  That's the authority which governs.
>
> State law cannot be in violation of the US Constitution (although it often
> is, at least until challenged).

You keep saying these things, but no constitutional issue has been raised or
adjudicated.

> > > but the laws of God are pretty straighforward.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> circumstance. Away goes war, capital punishment, murder, abortion, theft,
> etc.

Umm.  Please show me the constitutional basis for the idea that a zygote is
a human being or a citizen with rights, and I'll reconsider my opinion.  To
my reading, citizenship is determined at birth.

> Unfortunately, because of the way the bible is written there are any number
> of other "laws" that are subject to interpretation. So all I can really say
> is that while I do not share your doom and gloom picture, I do see and
> understand exactly the danger you are talking about.

"Doom and gloom" are marketing words, Paul.  Like "choice" is.

> > > Doctors already decide which patients to treat.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> not his discrimination against *someone else's* religious beliefs. Two
> totally different things.

Then the pharmacist's refusal fails.  He is not performing a medical
procedure, or participating in one.  It's none of his business what I do
with my pills.  He can refuse at his peril, but I'm not the one who
interjected "exercise of relious freedom" into the thing.  What religion
tells people they can't dispense a legal prescription to a legally entitled
patient, for a purpose known only to the doctor and the patient?

Please don't try to argue that there are not Catholics who practice birth
control.

> > Nope.  The "meaning of the Constitution" is open to interpretation.  We
> are
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Yes, the purpose of the Surpreme Court is to interpret the Constitution.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to adjudicate when a case is brought and
they agree to hear it.  There is a lot more interpretation of court
decisions going on than there is interpretation of the constitution.  Have
you ever seen a court decision as short and sweet as the constitution is?

> That does not change the fact that we constantly accommodate in order to
> preserve that meaning. For example, freedom of speech is what's written, but
> that's since been interpreted to extend to freedom of expression. Why?
> Because it was thought to be implied as an accommodation for those seeking
> protection under the 1st Amendment for things that were not previously
> considered to be covered under it.

Yes.

> > The pharmacist should be fired.  He has a duty to perform.  If he objects,
> > let him take up another line of work.
>
> So, you are in favor of religious discrimination.

The firing is not a religious decision.  It's a business decision and a
medical decision and a pharmacy ethics decision.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 02:39 GMT
> not be an issue. It's right in the 1st Amendment:
> > Congress
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Like I said, with that argument, almost anything can be done under the
> "protection" of religious exercise.

But it can only be discrimination if a person is discriminating *against*
someone else. In the case in hand, the other person's religion was not an
issue.

> > > Contraceptive pills are not killing viable humans.  Your argument just
> > > doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> The pharmacist is expected to follow the ethical standards of the
> profession, no?

Yes - it would be unethical to require a pharmacist to engage in an activity
that violates that pharmacist's religious beliefs.

The *only* problem with this particular case, it seems, is that no
alternative arrangements were made. *THAT* is what the focus of the
complaint should be.

> > > > If the law is unconstitutional then it should be imperiled to the
> > highest
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> which laws to obey, do they?  Say yes, because there are several that I'd
> prefer to ignore right away.

Actually, it is the pharmacist's decision. If they feel it is against their
religion it is their decision. The does not mean that person is in the
right. If the customer feels some sort of discrimination was in play, they
can file a discrimination suit and let the court decide.

Generally, the pharmacist's boss can fire the person for failing to fulfil
their duties or just fire them in the right to work states, and then the
pharmacist can file a discrimination suit against the boss charging
religious discrimination, and again the court will decide.

Ultimately, some lawyers get to be busy while everyone else suffers.

Thankfully many states have since enacted protections for exercising
religious rights to circumvent the problems that can otherwise arise.

> > > A license to dispense pharmaceuticals is entirely the purview of the
> state
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> You keep saying these things, but no constitutional issue has been raised or
> adjudicated.

Slavery.

> > > > but the laws of God are pretty straighforward.
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> a human being or a citizen with rights, and I'll reconsider my opinion.  To
> my reading, citizenship is determined at birth.

It is? Should I start packing then?

As it stands, in some states (Mississippi, for example), a fetus is
considered a person. Thus if you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged
with a double homicide. Whether that will extend to zygotes or not doesn't
matter - at the moment it apparently doesn't thus "Thou shalt not kill"
would not apply in such cases. However, it seems the consideration changes
once the zygote has advanced to be classified as a fetus.

> > Unfortunately, because of the way the bible is written there are any
> number
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> "Doom and gloom" are marketing words, Paul.  Like "choice" is.

Describe it however you like, but you did, after all, make the claim that
"I'm telling you straight
out ... once the Right starts talking and acting like they have some divine
right, the game is over."

> > > > Doctors already decide which patients to treat.
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> tells people they can't dispense a legal prescription to a legally entitled
> patient, for a purpose known only to the doctor and the patient?

Of course it's their business. There's the moral issue (to make sure you
aren't some precription drug junkie like Rush), there's the ethical issue
(to make sure the drugs prescribed are consistent with the reason for
prescribing them), there's the liability issue (they have to be sure of the
dose and accuracy), etc.

As to facing peril for exercising religious freedom - I think your comment
speaks for itself.

> Please don't try to argue that there are not Catholics who practice birth
> control.

Nope.

> > > Nope.  The "meaning of the Constitution" is open to interpretation.  We
> > are
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> decisions going on than there is interpretation of the constitution.  Have
> you ever seen a court decision as short and sweet as the constitution is?

Has the Supreme Court ruled on non-Constitutional issues? Their
interpretation of other court rulings are based on their duty to determine
whether such rulings are Constitutional or not. Period.

> > That does not change the fact that we constantly accommodate in order to
> > preserve that meaning. For example, freedom of speech is what's written,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> The firing is not a religious decision.  It's a business decision and a
> medical decision and a pharmacy ethics decision.

You are in favor of firing a person based on their religious beliefs. Call
it a business decision, medical decision, pharmacy ethics decision or
whatever you like, the basic tenet for the firing is the person's religious
beliefs being in contradiction with *your* beliefs.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 03:11 GMT
> > not be an issue. It's right in the 1st Amendment:
> > > Congress
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> someone else. In the case in hand, the other person's religion was not an
> issue.

No, apparently the pharmacist's was.  Somehow we have this turned around.

> > > > Contraceptive pills are not killing viable humans.  Your argument just
> > > > doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Yes - it would be unethical to require a pharmacist to engage in an activity
> that violates that pharmacist's religious beliefs.

Well, cling to that all you want, but it's a lose-lose proposition.  If that
assertion stands, then anything and everything becomes acceptable under the
guise of "religious beliefs."  You don't get to move the lines around at
will.  Either the pharmacist does his job, or he doesn't.
If he doesn't, fine .... but he can't be a pharmacist.  A pharmacist
dispenses medicine as prescribed.  He's not a priest.  Nobody is forcing him
to be a pharmacist.

> The *only* problem with this particular case, it seems, is that no
> alternative arrangements were made. *THAT* is what the focus of the
> complaint should be.

I don't follow.

> > > > > If the law is unconstitutional then it should be imperiled to the
> > > highest
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Actually, it is the pharmacist's decision. If they feel it is against their
> religion it is their decision.

Fine, then it's my decision not to pay taxes to support an immoral war.  The
American experiment is over.

It's my decision not to pay taxes to educate your kids.  I think you are
unclean and immoral.  Sorry.

It's my decision not to sell groceries to you.  I believe you to be a
sinner.  I cannot feed you and promote sin.

> The does not mean that person is in the
> right. If the customer feels some sort of discrimination was in play, they
> can file a discrimination suit and let the court decide.

Hm, a Republican advocating lawsuits?

> Generally, the pharmacist's boss can fire the person for failing to fulfil
> their duties or just fire them in the right to work states, and then the
> pharmacist can file a discrimination suit against the boss charging
> religious discrimination, and again the court will decide.

Lawsuits and more lawsuits.  Oh dear.

> Ultimately, some lawyers get to be busy while everyone else suffers.

Oh dear!

> Thankfully many states have since enacted protections for exercising
> religious rights to circumvent the problems that can otherwise arise.

It is not a religious right to take a job where pills you don't like are
dispensed, and then refuse to dispense them.  That's deliberate obstruction.
Let the pharmacist become a house painter or a mechanic.

> > > > A license to dispense pharmaceuticals is entirely the purview of the
> > state
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Slavery.

I'm talking about the pharmacist.  Has there been a case?

> > > > > but the laws of God are pretty straighforward.
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> It is? Should I start packing then?

You know what I meant.  Show the basis for citizenship, and therefore
protection, for a zygote, in the Constitution.

> As it stands, in some states (Mississippi, for example), a fetus is
> considered a person. Thus if you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged
> with a double homicide.

> Whether that will extend to zygotes or not doesn't
> matter - at the moment it apparently doesn't thus "Thou shalt not kill"
> would not apply in such cases. However, it seems the consideration changes
> once the zygote has advanced to be classified as a fetus.

Who makes that classification?  Priests?  The same doctors who aren't
qualified to make their own medical decisions without government
instruction?

> > > Unfortunately, because of the way the bible is written there are any
> > number
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> out ... once the Right starts talking and acting like they have some divine
> right, the game is over."

You seem to be blind to the consequences you don't want to consider.  And
hypersensitive to the ones you have decided are important.  Do you think
that a "religious" faction can impose its views on the other factions
without consequences?  Whose religion gets to govern when religions compete
for power?

> > > > > Doctors already decide which patients to treat.
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> prescribing them), there's the liability issue (they have to be sure of the
> dose and accuracy), etc.

None of those stretches makes it to the point.  The point is that the doctor
prescribes, not the pharmacist.  The pharmacist does not get to decide who
gets a *legal* prescription.  If there's a question of application, he calls
the doctor, he doesn't decide himself.

Dose and accuracy are not at issue here.

> As to facing peril for exercising religious freedom - I think your comment
> speaks for itself.

Saying a thing does not make it so.  Religious freedom does not include the
freedom to assume the responsibility of pharmacist, and then unilaterally
decide what a pharmacist should do.  That's why it's called a "profession."
That's why it's regulated heavily.

> > Please don't try to argue that there are not Catholics who practice birth
> > control.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> interpretation of other court rulings are based on their duty to determine
> whether such rulings are Constitutional or not. Period.

Forget it, you are determined to get off topic.  If I own the drugstore and
you refuse to dispense a legal scrip, you're fired.  The end.  You don't get
to decide what to dispense and call that a "religious exercise" any more
than you get to pray and sing hymns at the top of your lungs while working.
You don't get to wear a priest's collar while at work unless you are a
priest, and I mean that literally.  You don't get to lecture customers about
religion.  You are free to resign and go forth and practice your religion to
your heart's content.  When you are work in the store, you follow the rules.

> > > That does not change the fact that we constantly accommodate in order to
> > > preserve that meaning. For example, freedom of speech is what's written,
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> You are in favor of firing a person based on their religious beliefs.

Again, you cannot make a thing so by saying it is so.  Of course, that's the
whole basis of religion, no?  But anyway, if I'm the store owner, I get to
decide why you are fired, not you.  You are fired for not dispensing a legal
scrip.  Doing so is your job, I told you that when I hired you.  Had you
told me that you would decide which prescriptions are morally correct, I
would not have hired you because I can't trust you to do your job properly.
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 02:09 GMT
> > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> >
> > Well, that hasn't been decided.  First and foremost, it's a professional
>
> But it should not be an issue. It's right in the 1st Amendment:  Congress
> shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Tell that to anyone who tried to use free exercise of religion as a defense
against charges of breaking any federal law.

No constitutional right is absolute.  The messy part is balancing rights
when they come in conflict.

> My understanding is that God's law is absolute and spelled out for us
> already and cannot be changed by man be they Tim McVeigh or David Koresh or
> any number of other wannabes. There is a certain amount of interpretation
> and "faith" involved (a plane crashes killing hundreds and it's God's Will?)
> but the laws of God are pretty straighforward.

Which version of "God's law" are you talking about?  It's not that simple.
A "certain amount of interpretation" can lead to diametrically opposed
outcomes.  What kind of universal law is that?

> > How far a leap is it from pharmacists deciding which prescriptions to
fill,
> > to doctors deciding which patients to treat?  Nurses deciding which
patients
> > to nurse?
>
> Doctors already decide which patients to treat.

This is a murky area, to say the least.  In at least some states, religious
hospitals don't have to provide services that they are opposed to.  On the
other hand, say you're the only ER surgeon on duty when a patient presents
with acute appendicitis, and you say "Sorry, my religion reveres the human
appendix and it would be a sin for me to remove it," and the patient dies.
Whether it's a violation of law would depend on local legislation, and I
doubt that a religious defense would hold if there were applicable laws
prohibiting refusal of medical service.  It certainly would be a violation
of medical ethics.  And it would subject the doctor and the hospital to
civil liability.

> I think it's very telling that some people would call for the pharmacist in
> question to be fired.  I could understand if the pharmacist was from the
> Shankill Road and the customer was from the Falls Road and the pharmacist
> told the customer "we don't serve your kind here," but that's not at all
what happened.

Would you call for the firing of the ER doctor who refused to remove the
appendix?  If not, why?

The pharmacist's and the ER doctor's situations are not exactly equivalent,
but close enough that the answers are not necessarily obvious and
unequivocal.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 03:05 GMT
> > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Tell that to anyone who tried to use free exercise of religion as a defense
> against charges of breaking any federal law.

First you have to understand what is classified as a religion. Then you have
to understand what constitutes religious grounds. Only then will you
understand why anyone who tried to claim free exercise of religion as a
defense against charges of breaking any federal law simply failed.

> No constitutional right is absolute.  The messy part is balancing rights
> when they come in conflict.

If the Supreme Court says it's absolute, then it is. Until the Supreme Court
changes it's stand.

> > My understanding is that God's law is absolute and spelled out for us
> > already and cannot be changed by man be they Tim McVeigh or David Koresh
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> A "certain amount of interpretation" can lead to diametrically opposed
> outcomes.  What kind of universal law is that?

I know "the bible" is full of contradictions, or at least it is supposed to
be. So in this instance, this is a no-win argument.

> > > How far a leap is it from pharmacists deciding which prescriptions to
> fill,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> with acute appendicitis, and you say "Sorry, my religion reveres the human
> appendix and it would be a sin for me to remove it," and the patient dies.

What religion does that?

> Whether it's a violation of law would depend on local legislation, and I
> doubt that a religious defense would hold if there were applicable laws
> prohibiting refusal of medical service.  It certainly would be a violation
> of medical ethics.  And it would subject the doctor and the hospital to
> civil liability.

First the surgeon would have to prove his religion actually was in play. Be
rather odd for a surgeon though, no?

> > I think it's very telling that some people would call for the pharmacist
> in
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Would you call for the firing of the ER doctor who refused to remove the
> appendix?  If not, why?

If he could prove his refusal was based on his religious beliefs, and those
beliefs were recognised and protected under the US Constitution, then
absolutely no, I would not call for his firing.

> The pharmacist's and the ER doctor's situations are not exactly equivalent,
> but close enough that the answers are not necessarily obvious and
> unequivocal.

All you really need to do is find such a case that wasn't supported by a
valid claim. In the case of the pharmacist, she has a valid claim, presuming
her religion does, in fact, prevent her from filling such precriptions and
that her religion is also recognised by the US Supreme Court.

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 03:42 GMT
> > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> What religion does that?

First Church of the Holy Caecum.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 16:23 GMT
> > > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>
> First Church of the Holy Caecum.

Okie dokie. Are we reverting to our previous level of communication?

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 18:19 GMT
> > > > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
>
> Okie dokie. Are we reverting to our previous level of communication?

You've burst my appendix.  I mean, bubble.

I have a perverse sense of humor, Paul.  Don't take it personally.
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 20:29 GMT
.

> I have a perverse sense of humor, Paul.  Don't take it personally.

That's kind of cruel, isnt it?

He's a republican.

Bertie
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 21:00 GMT
> > > > > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
>
> I have a perverse sense of humor, Paul.  Don't take it personally.

I never take it personally. Are we reverting to our previous level of
communication?

Paul Nixon
Bertie the Bunyip - 13 Nov 2004 21:05 GMT
>> > > > > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
>> > > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 107 lines]
>
> I never take it personally.

You'd have to have a personality, fo rthat..

Berti e
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 21:26 GMT
> > > > > > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > > > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 90 lines]
> I never take it personally. Are we reverting to our previous level of
> communication?

That depends on whether you start calling me names or not.  If not, then no.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 21:40 GMT
> > > > > > > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > > > > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 103 lines]
>
> That depends on whether you start calling me names or not.  If not, then no.

So why the personal attacks then?

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 21:53 GMT
> > > > > > > > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in
> message
[quoted text clipped - 115 lines]
>
> So why the personal attacks then?

So, why the personal attack then?
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 23:16 GMT
> > > > > > > > > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in
> > message
[quoted text clipped - 127 lines]
>
> So, why the personal attack then?

What personal attack?

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 13 Nov 2004 23:34 GMT
> > > > > > > > > > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in
> > > message
[quoted text clipped - 138 lines]
>
> What personal attack?

The personal attack that claims I'm making a personal attack.

Say, can we keep this down to one subthread?  I have a lot of things to do
this weekend.

Seriously.
khobar - 14 Nov 2004 03:17 GMT
> > > > > > > > > > > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in
> > > > message
[quoted text clipped - 153 lines]
>
> Seriously.

Seriously? Hmm...

Paul Nixon
AbsolutelyCertain - 14 Nov 2004 03:38 GMT
> > Say, can we keep this down to one subthread?  I have a lot of things to do
> > this weekend.
> >
> > Seriously.
>
> Seriously? Hmm...

Seriously.  This is my last post to this subthread.  I'm giving you exactly
two subthreads on the pharmacy thing.  That's my limit in a non-capital
case.  Appeals must be made to the Maricopa County Animal Control officer in
your neighborhood.
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 03:53 GMT
> > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > > >
> > > > Well, that hasn't been decided.  First and foremost, it's a
professional

> > > But it should not be an issue. It's right in the 1st Amendment:
Congress
> > > shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
> >
> > Tell that to anyone who tried to use free exercise of religion as a
defense
> > against charges of breaking any federal law.
>
> First you have to understand what is classified as a religion. Then you have
> to understand what constitutes religious grounds. Only then will you
> understand why anyone who tried to claim free exercise of religion as a
> defense against charges of breaking any federal law simply failed.

You may find ESA v. Rylander instructive on what is classified as a
religion.  You don't have to beleive in any god to enjoy the protections of
religious freedom.  SCOTUS seems to be pretty liberal when it comes to what
is a religion.

I'll save you the google:
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_ESARylander.htm

> > No constitutional right is absolute.  The messy part is balancing rights
> > when they come in conflict.
>
> If the Supreme Court says it's absolute, then it is. Until the Supreme Court
> changes it's stand.

Show us a case where SCOTUS has ruled that any constitutional right is
absolute.  The law books are full of cases where they've said otherwise.

> > > My understanding is that God's law is absolute and spelled out for us

> > > already and cannot be changed by man be they Tim McVeigh or David Koresh
> > or
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I know "the bible" is full of contradictions, or at least it is supposed to
> be. So in this instance, this is a no-win argument.

I rest my case.

> > > > How far a leap is it from pharmacists deciding which prescriptions to
> > fill,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> >
> > This is a murky area, to say the least.  In at least some states,
religious
> > hospitals don't have to provide services that they are opposed to.  On the
> > other hand, say you're the only ER surgeon on duty when a patient presents
> > with acute appendicitis, and you say "Sorry, my religion reveres the human
> > appendix and it would be a sin for me to remove it," and the patient dies.
>
> What religion does that?

Irrelevant.  What good is law if it cannot be extended to situations that
have not already been adjudicated?

> > Whether it's a violation of law would depend on local legislation, and I
> > doubt that a religious defense would hold if there were applicable laws
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> First the surgeon would have to prove his religion actually was in play. Be
> rather odd for a surgeon though, no?

See previous.  You have gone way out on a shaky limb with this type of
argument.  When has the government ever imposed a law that requires me to
testify against myself?  As improbable as that may be, I want my Bill of
Rights.

> > > I think it's very telling that some people would call for the
pharmacist in
> > > question to be fired.  I could understand if the pharmacist was from the
> > > Shankill Road and the customer was from the Falls Road and the
pharmacist
> > > told the customer "we don't serve your kind here," but that's not at all
> > what happened.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> beliefs were recognised and protected under the US Constitution, then
> absolutely no, I would not call for his firing.

So you're happy with the prospect that when the ambulance, by local
ordinance, hauls you to that ER with appendicitis, you'll die.  Okay.

BTW, calling for his firing may or may not have anything to do with
constitutional law.

> > The pharmacist's and the ER doctor's situations are not exactly
equivalent,
> > but close enough that the answers are not necessarily obvious and
unequivocal.

> All you really need to do is find such a case that wasn't supported by a
> valid claim. In the case of the pharmacist, she has a valid claim, presuming
> her religion does, in fact, prevent her from filling such precriptions and
> that her religion is also recognised by the US Supreme Court.

As I said, we're in a murky area.  Perhaps there is no SCOTUS case governing
that, I'm not going to google the entire record to find out, but I was just
trying to widen the door.

Oops, you don't like that.  Sorry.
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 16:44 GMT
> > > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> religious freedom.  SCOTUS seems to be pretty liberal when it comes to what
> is a religion.

Did I say you had to believe in a god to enjoy the protections of religious
freedom? Nope.

> I'll save you the google:
> http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_ESARylander.htm
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Show us a case where SCOTUS has ruled that any constitutional right is
> absolute.  The law books are full of cases where they've said otherwise.

And? What has this to do with what I said?

> > > > My understanding is that God's law is absolute and spelled out for us
>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> Irrelevant.  What good is law if it cannot be extended to situations that
> have not already been adjudicated?

How do you think these things end up in court?

> > > Whether it's a violation of law would depend on local legislation, and I
> > > doubt that a religious defense would hold if there were applicable laws
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> testify against myself?  As improbable as that may be, I want my Bill of
> Rights.

Testify against yourself? Hmm, I suppose you could twist things like that,
but the fact remains that the Supreme Court has decided what constitutes
religion and has dictated what religious practices are allowed.

Reynolds v. U.S. - banned polygamy

Davis v. Beason where the court required anything calling itself a religion
to have: (a) a belief in God as Creator; (b) a system of morals which don't
interfere with others; (c) a system of worship civilized by Western
standards.

U.S. v. Ballard - concluded that it doesn't matter how preposterous, true or
false, the doctrine is, the true test of what constitutes a religion is the
sincerity of its members in miracles or other claims which cannot be proven.

U.S. v. Seeger - required conscientious objectors to have some sort of
belief in a Supreme Being; skepticism, atheism, and other socialogical or
philosophical positions, even if they have a moral code, do not qualify as
religious beliefs.

Shall I go on?

> > > > I think it's very telling that some people would call for the
> pharmacist in
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> So you're happy with the prospect that when the ambulance, by local
> ordinance, hauls you to that ER with appendicitis, you'll die.  Okay.

Correct.

> BTW, calling for his firing may or may not have anything to do with
> constitutional law.

May or may not is a bit ambiguous.

> > > The pharmacist's and the ER doctor's situations are not exactly
> equivalent,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> that, I'm not going to google the entire record to find out, but I was just
> trying to widen the door.

Sherbert is the closest case I can think of off-hand.

Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 21:57 GMT
> > > > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, that hasn't been decided.  First and foremost, it's a
professional

> > > > > But it should not be an issue. It's right in the 1st Amendment:
Congress
> > > > > shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
> > > >
> > > > Tell that to anyone who tried to use free exercise of religion as a
defense
> > > > against charges of breaking any federal law.
> > >
> > > First you have to understand what is classified as a religion. Then
you have
> > > to understand what constitutes religious grounds. Only then will you
> > > understand why anyone who tried to claim free exercise of religion as a
> > > defense against charges of breaking any federal law simply failed.
> >
> > You may find ESA v. Rylander instructive on what is classified as a
> > religion.  You don't have to beleive in any god to enjoy the protections
of
> > religious freedom.  SCOTUS seems to be pretty liberal when it comes to
what
> > is a religion.
>
> Did I say you had to believe in a god to enjoy the protections of religious
> freedom? Nope.

The reference to ESA was an indirect response to your attempts to brush off
examples of religion gone bad and using the First Amendment as a shield,
with "who does that?"  With the bar set so low, it's relatively easy to
qualify as a protected entity.  It's not dispositive, merely instructive.

> > I'll save you the google:
> > http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_ESARylander.htm
> >
> > > > No constitutional right is absolute.  The messy part is balancing
rights
> > > > when they come in conflict.
> > >
> > > If the Supreme Court says it's absolute, then it is. Until the Supreme
Court
> > > changes it's stand.
> >
> > Show us a case where SCOTUS has ruled that any constitutional right is
> > absolute.  The law books are full of cases where they've said otherwise.
>
> And? What has this to do with what I said?

Perhaps you missed the part where you said "If the Supreme Court says it's
absolute, then it is."  Show us a case where SCOTUS has declared a right to
be absolute.

> > > > > My understanding is that God's law is absolute and spelled out for
us
> > > > > already and cannot be changed by man be they Tim McVeigh or David
Koresh
> > > > or
> > > > > any number of other wannabes. There is a certain amount of
interpretation
> > > > > and "faith" involved (a plane crashes killing hundreds and it's
God's Will?)
> > > > > but the laws of God are pretty straighforward.
> > > >
> > > > Which version of "God's law" are you talking about?  It's not that
simple.
> > > > A "certain amount of interpretation" can lead to diametrically opposed
> > > > outcomes.  What kind of universal law is that?
> > >
> > > I know "the bible" is full of contradictions, or at least it is
supposed to
> > > be. So in this instance, this is a no-win argument.
> >
> > I rest my case.
> >
> > > > > > How far a leap is it from pharmacists deciding which
prescriptions to fill,
> > > > > > to doctors deciding which patients to treat?  Nurses deciding
which patients
> > > > > > to nurse?
> > > > >
> > > > > Doctors already decide which patients to treat.
> > > >
> > > > This is a murky area, to say the least.  In at least some states,
religious
> > > > hospitals don't have to provide services that they are opposed to.
On the
> > > > other hand, say you're the only ER surgeon on duty when a patient
presents
> > > > with acute appendicitis, and you say "Sorry, my religion reveres the
human
> > > > appendix and it would be a sin for me to remove it," and the patient
dies.

> > > What religion does that?
> >
> > Irrelevant.  What good is law if it cannot be extended to situations that
> > have not already been adjudicated?
>
> How do you think these things end up in court?

So by refusing to respond directly to my point, you indirectly concede the
possibility of my example, thank you.

> > > > Whether it's a violation of law would depend on local legislation,
and I
> > > > doubt that a religious defense would hold if there were applicable
laws
> > > > prohibiting refusal of medical service.  It certainly would be a
violation
> > > > of medical ethics.  And it would subject the doctor and the hospital
to
> > > > civil liability.
> > >
> > > First the surgeon would have to prove his religion actually was in
play. Be
> > > rather odd for a surgeon though, no?

Some doctors refuse to do abortions or prescribe birth control on religious
grounds, so the difference is only a matter of degree.  How about an ER
doctor who refuses to perform an emergency abortion to save the life of the
mother, on religious grounds, and she dies?

> > See previous.  You have gone way out on a shaky limb with this type of
> > argument.  When has the government ever imposed a law that requires me to
> > testify against myself?  As improbable as that may be, I want my Bill of
Rights.

> Testify against yourself? Hmm, I suppose you could twist things like that,
> but the fact remains that the Supreme Court has decided what constitutes
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> interfere with others; (c) a system of worship civilized by Western
> standards.

Of which, (a) and (c) seem to have been pretty much overtaken by ESA.

> U.S. v. Ballard - concluded that it doesn't matter how preposterous, true or
> false, the doctrine is, the true test of what constitutes a religion is the
> sincerity of its members in miracles or other claims which cannot be proven.

Right.  So f I'm a fundie Islam who sincerely believes that God commands me
to kill the infidels... other tests would invalidate the claim, but the
court must accept that as a valid religious doctrine.

> U.S. v. Seeger - required conscientious objectors to have some sort of
> belief in a Supreme Being; skepticism, atheism, and other socialogical or
> philosophical positions, even if they have a moral code, do not qualify as
> religious beliefs.

Overtaken a few years later by Welsh v. United States, which removed the
requirement that the CO believe in God, but no matter.

> Shall I go on?

No.  Your point, that the courts will rule on the interplay of religion and
society and government, is a given.  We got into this sub-thread with
concerns expressed about whether religious beliefs can be taken too far.
You say the courts will rule, fair enough, but given the context of the
political arguments here, the concern of a large portion of our society is
that the Bush administration will push religion into a role that it ought
not play, in terms of both public policy and future judicial appointments,
who, as you say, will decide what the law allows or does not allow.

> > > > > I think it's very telling that some people would call for the
pharmacist in
> > > > > question to be fired.  I could understand if the pharmacist was
from the
> > > > > Shankill Road and the customer was from the Falls Road and the
pharmacist
> > > > > told the customer "we don't serve your kind here," but that's not
at all
> > > > what happened.
> > > >
> > > > Would you call for the firing of the ER doctor who refused to remove
the
> > > > appendix?  If not, why?
> > >
> > > If he could prove his refusal was based on his religious beliefs, and
those
> > > beliefs were recognised and protected under the US Constitution, then
> > > absolutely no, I would not call for his firing.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Correct.

Okay, it's your life, but you're sounding suspiciously like a liberal here -
a willing, senseless, and useless martyrdom in the cause of PC.

> > BTW, calling for his firing may or may not have anything to do with
> > constitutional law.
>
> May or may not is a bit ambiguous.

You, uncomfortable with ambiguity?

> > > > The pharmacist's and the ER doctor's situations are not exactly
equivalent,
> > > > but close enough that the answers are not necessarily obvious and
unequivocal.

> > > All you really need to do is find such a case that wasn't supported by a
> > > valid claim. In the case of the pharmacist, she has a valid claim,
presuming
> > > her religion does, in fact, prevent her from filling such precriptions
and
> > > that her religion is also recognised by the US Supreme Court.
> >
> > As I said, we're in a murky area.  Perhaps there is no SCOTUS case
governing
> > that, I'm not going to google the entire record to find out, but I was
just
> > trying to widen the door.
>
> Sherbert is the closest case I can think of off-hand.

But probably not dispositive for the pharmacist, since Sherbert merely
wanted to have Saturday as the Sabbath.  There is room to argue that the
state has a compelling interest in having licensed pharmacists dispense
valid scrips upon presentation.

Anyway, we're off into an area that neither of us has much experience in and
is tangential to the initial issue, as I mentioned above.  We've both made
our points with SCOTUS cites, nothing more to be gained there.  Unless you
want to widen the door.  ;-)
khobar - 13 Nov 2004 23:49 GMT
> > > > > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> with "who does that?"  With the bar set so low, it's relatively easy to
> qualify as a protected entity.  It's not dispositive, merely instructive.

And that answers my question...how exactly?

And what attempts to brush off examples of religion gone bad? History is
chock full of examples.

> > > I'll save you the google:

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_ESARylander.htm

> > > > > No constitutional right is absolute.  The messy part is balancing
> rights
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> absolute, then it is."  Show us a case where SCOTUS has declared a right to
> be absolute.

And perhaps you missed the part in the same breath which added "Until the
Supreme Court changes it's stand." Hello????

> > > > > > My understanding is that God's law is absolute and spelled out for
> us
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> So by refusing to respond directly to my point, you indirectly concede the
> possibility of my example, thank you.

Concede? Refused to respond directly to your point?? Your "point" is simple
common knowledge - you were stating the obvious.

> > > > > Whether it's a violation of law would depend on local legislation,
> and I
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> doctor who refuses to perform an emergency abortion to save the life of the
> mother, on religious grounds, and she dies?

Okay, how about an ER doctor who refuses to perform an emergency abortion to
save the life of the mother, on religious grounds, and she dies?

> > > See previous.  You have gone way out on a shaky limb with this type of
> > > argument.  When has the government ever imposed a law that requires me
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Of which, (a) and (c) seem to have been pretty much overtaken by ESA.

Yes, exactly.

> > U.S. v. Ballard - concluded that it doesn't matter how preposterous, true
> or
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> to kill the infidels... other tests would invalidate the claim, but the
> court must accept that as a valid religious doctrine.

How so?

> > U.S. v. Seeger - required conscientious objectors to have some sort of
> > belief in a Supreme Being; skepticism, atheism, and other socialogical or
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Overtaken a few years later by Welsh v. United States, which removed the
> requirement that the CO believe in God, but no matter.

Yes, exactly.

> > Shall I go on?
>
> No.  Your point, that the courts will rule on the interplay of religion and
> society and government, is a given.  We got into this sub-thread with
> concerns expressed about whether religious beliefs can be taken too far.

Religious beliefs being taken too far? That's a given. So what's the point
of this sub-thread?

> You say the courts will rule, fair enough, but given the context of the
> political arguments here, the concern of a large portion of our society is
> that the Bush administration will push religion into a role that it ought
> not play, in terms of both public policy and future judicial appointments,
> who, as you say, will decide what the law allows or does not allow.

Bush would not be the first to do so. As I previously stated, this is one
reason I am against the Supreme Court being political appointees.

> > > > > > I think it's very telling that some people would call for the
> pharmacist in
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Okay, it's your life, but you're sounding suspiciously like a liberal here -
> a willing, senseless, and useless martyrdom in the cause of PC.

Okie dokie.

> > > BTW, calling for his firing may or may not have anything to do with
> > > constitutional law.
> >
> > May or may not is a bit ambiguous.
>
> You, uncomfortable with ambiguity?

What was the point of your statement?

> > > > > The pharmacist's and the ER doctor's situations are not exactly
> equivalent,
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> state has a compelling interest in having licensed pharmacists dispense
> valid scrips upon presentation.

Sherbert refused to obey her boss on religious grounds, and was fired. She
was also denied unemployment because of her religious reasons for refusing
to do suitable work were considered invalid. The Supreme Court ruled in her
favor.

> Anyway, we're off into an area that neither of us has much experience in and
> is tangential to the initial issue, as I mentioned above.  We've both made
> our points with SCOTUS cites, nothing more to be gained there.  Unless you
> want to widen the door.  ;-)

I will simply add that, as always, there is more to the story:

MADISON, Wis.-A Roman Catholic pharmacist who declined to fill a
prescription for a birth control medication faced a hearing yesterday before
the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board.  The Wisconsin Department of
Regulation and Licensing, which brought the charge, accused him of
endangering "the health, welfare, or safety of a patient."
"The pharmacist did not endanger anyone," said Alliance Defense Fund allied
attorney Steven Aden, chief litigation counsel of the Christian Legal
Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom.  "The patient was not harmed
and did not become pregnant due to our client's decision of conscience.  The
state has a constitutional duty to respect those religious convictions."

The pharmacist, Neil Noesen, had an agreement with his work site that
allowed him to defer prescriptions for contraceptives to the pharmacy
manager.  When a customer arrived on July 6, 2002, to have a prescription
for a contraceptive refilled, Noesen was the only one on duty.  He informed
the customer that he could not fill the prescription due to his religious
convictions.  The pharmacy manager filled the prescription two days later.

The customer filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Regulation
and Licensing, which notified Noesen on October 23, 2003, that it was
instituting disciplinary proceedings against him before the Pharmacy
Examining Board.

"Mr. Noesen is a highly principled pharmacist precisely because of his
religious beliefs.  Far from constituting a threat to the public, such
beliefs contribute to the level of professionalism and ethics that the state
desires and needs in the medical community it regulates," Aden said.  "The
proceedings against Mr. Noesen are entirely counter-productive as well as
unwarranted."

The Pharmacy Examining Board did not rule on the matter at yesterday's
hearing.

Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 14 Nov 2004 01:44 GMT
> > > > > > > > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> > > > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 342 lines]
>
> Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 14 Nov 2004 02:17 GMT
> > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message

> > > Did I say you had to believe in a god to enjoy the protections of
religious
> > > freedom? Nope.
> >
> > The reference to ESA was an indirect response to your attempts to brush
off
> > examples of religion gone bad and using the First Amendment as a shield,
> > with "who does that?"  With the bar set so low, it's relatively easy to
> > qualify as a protected entity.  It's not dispositive, merely instructive.
>
> And that answers my question...how exactly?

Google the definitions of informative and dispositive.

> And what attempts to brush off examples of religion gone bad? History is
> chock full of examples.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> > > >
> > > > > > No constitutional right is absolute.  The messy part is
balancing rights
> > > > > > when they come in conflict.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the Supreme Court says it's absolute, then it is. Until the
Supreme Court
> > > > > changes it's stand.
> > > >
> > > > Show us a case where SCOTUS has ruled that any constitutional right is
> > > > absolute.  The law books are full of cases where they've said
otherwise.

> > > And? What has this to do with what I said?
> >
> > Perhaps you missed the part where you said "If the Supreme Court says it's
> > absolute, then it is."  Show us a case where SCOTUS has declared a right
to
> > be absolute.
>
> And perhaps you missed the part in the same breath which added "Until the
> Supreme Court changes it's stand." Hello????

"Changes its stand" means nothing if it hasn't taken any such stand in the
first place.  I'm not talking about "absolute over time" I'm talking about
absolute in relation to other rights.  Show us a case where SCOTUS has
declared a right to be absolute, regardless of whether it changed its stand
before or after the ruling.

> > Right.  So f I'm a fundie Islam who sincerely believes that God commands
me
> > to kill the infidels... other tests would invalidate the claim, but the
> > court must accept that as a valid religious doctrine.
>
> How so?

Ballard.  Hello????

> > > Shall I go on?
> >
> > No.  Your point, that the courts will rule on the interplay of religion
and
> > society and government, is a given.  We got into this sub-thread with
> > concerns expressed about whether religious beliefs can be taken too far.
>
> Religious beliefs being taken too far? That's a given. So what's the point
> of this sub-thread?

At this juncture, not much.

> > > > BTW, calling for his firing may or may not have anything to do with
> > > > constitutional law.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> What was the point of your statement?

I can call for his firing without any reference to constitutional issues.
As you say, the courts will settle that.

> > > Sherbert is the closest case I can think of off-hand.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> was also denied unemployment because of her religious reasons for refusing
> to do suitable work were considered invalid. The Supreme Court ruled in
her favor.

The state never showed any compelling interest in keeping her from getting
her job back or collecting benefits.  The state might be able to show a
compelling interest in not having people arbitrarily turned away from
filling scrips.

> > Anyway, we're off into an area that neither of us has much experience in
and
> > is tangential to the initial issue, as I mentioned above.  We've both made
> > our points with SCOTUS cites, nothing more to be gained there.  Unless you
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> The Pharmacy Examining Board did not rule on the matter at yesterday's
hearing.

So this is informative but not dispositive.  And it won't be until all the
appeals are completed.  No problem.
AbsolutelyCertain - 14 Nov 2004 03:14 GMT
> > > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 151 lines]
> So this is informative but not dispositive.  And it won't be until all the
> appeals are completed.  No problem.

Drugstore owner:  Hello?  Sue-Preem Cowart?  This here is Elwood Suggs,
owner of the PillPopper Drug Store out hear in Stump, Jawjuh.  Listen heah,
I need ta know if I c'n far this hear pharmacist.   Yes ma'am, I'll hold
......
khobar - 14 Nov 2004 03:44 GMT
> > > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Google the definitions of informative and dispositive.

So you refuse to answer. Fine.

> > And what attempts to brush off examples of religion gone bad? History is
> > chock full of examples.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> "Changes its stand" means nothing if it hasn't taken any such stand in the
> first place.  I'm not talking about "absolute over time" I'm talking about

The Supreme Court has taken many stands with regards to the exercise clause.
In the bigger picture, the intent of my comment was to point out exactly
what you stated - nothing is absolute.

> absolute in relation to other rights.  Show us a case where SCOTUS has
> declared a right to be absolute, regardless of whether it changed its stand
> before or after the ruling.

If the SCOTUS has changed its stand at any time, that negates the notion
that rights are absolute by definition. Thus I ask, where are you headed
with this?

> > > Right.  So f I'm a fundie Islam who sincerely believes that God commands
> me
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Ballard.  Hello????

You're kidding, right? No, you're probably not. Do you think a compelling
reason not to let you go and kill infidels could be cooked up? Maybe?

> > > > Shall I go on?
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> I can call for his firing without any reference to constitutional issues.
> As you say, the courts will settle that.

Fair enough.

> > > > Sherbert is the closest case I can think of off-hand.
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> compelling interest in not having people arbitrarily turned away from
> filling scrips.

They might.

> > > Anyway, we're off into an area that neither of us has much experience in
> and
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> So this is informative but not dispositive.  And it won't be until all the
> appeals are completed.  No problem.

That's right. There's more:

"     A Wisconsin pharmacist on Monday faced a disciplinary hearing after
refusing to fill a woman's oral contraceptive prescription or transfer the
prescription to another pharmacy in 2002, the AP/Washington Times reports.
Neil Noesen said he refused to fill university student Amanda Phiede's oral
contraceptive prescription while working as a substitute pharmacist at a
Kmart pharmacy in Menomonie, Wis., in July 2002 because "he did not want to
commit a sin," according to the AP/Times (AP/Washington Times, 10/12).
Noesen asked Phiede if she was using the drug for birth control. When the
Phiede confirmed that she was, Noesen told her that he would not fill the
prescription. Phiede then asked him where else she could get the
prescription filled, but Noesen refused to provide her with that information
because of his religious beliefs. Phiede later went to a Wal-Mart pharmacy,
but when the Wal-Mart pharmacist called Noesen to have him transfer the
prescription, Noesen refused, saying again that artificial contraception is
against his personal beliefs. Noesen continued to refuse to fill the
prescription even after two police officers and the Kmart assistant manager
spoke with him. The police took no further action, and the managing
pharmacist filled Phiede's prescription when he returned to work on Monday."

The issue is not his refusal to dispense the contraceptive pills but rather
his blatent refusal to transfer the prescription. He's toast (I imagine),
and I think deservedly so.

Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 15 Nov 2004 00:13 GMT
> > Google the definitions of informative and dispositive.
>
> So you refuse to answer. Fine.

My answer was informative, not dispositive.  Got it?

> The Supreme Court has taken many stands with regards to the exercise clause.
> In the bigger picture, the intent of my comment was to point out exactly
> what you stated - nothing is absolute.
>
> > absolute in relation to other rights.  Show us a case where SCOTUS has
> > declared a right to be absolute, regardless of whether it changed its
stand
> > before or after the ruling.
>
> If the SCOTUS has changed its stand at any time, that negates the notion
> that rights are absolute by definition. Thus I ask, where are you headed
with this?

I'll spell it out one more time.  When I said no right is absolute, I meant
"in relation to any other right."  Freedom of religion doesn't mean that you
can kill others in the name of your god.  Freedom of speech does not protect
you from consequences for falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or
libel.  The right to keep and bear arms is subject to local ordinances.
Every one of our constitutional rights can be, has been, and is abridged
when it comes in conflict with other rights.  This has nothing to do with
the fact that the interpretation of the relative relationships among these
rights may change over time.  It is an inherent characteristic of the
system, regardless of whether the courts change or do not change their
interpretations over time.  Your observation that changes in interpretation
further erode the assertion that rights are absolute is correct, but not
necessary for my assertion that rights inherently are not absolute.

> > > > Right.  So f I'm a fundie Islam who sincerely believes that God
commands me
> > > > to kill the infidels... other tests would invalidate the claim, but
the
> > > > court must accept that as a valid religious doctrine.
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You're kidding, right? No, you're probably not. Do you think a compelling
> reason not to let you go and kill infidels could be cooked up? Maybe?

Ballard says you cannot question whether the religious principles offered as
a defense are valid or not as religious precepts.  Other tests will keep you
from killing people in the name of God.  IIRC, you listed one in your own
posts here.

> "     A Wisconsin pharmacist on Monday faced a disciplinary hearing after
> refusing to fill a woman's oral contraceptive prescription or transfer the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> his blatent refusal to transfer the prescription. He's toast (I imagine),
> and I think deservedly so.

The refusal to transfer the scrip might well be the dispositive legal test.
khobar - 15 Nov 2004 00:55 GMT
> > > Google the definitions of informative and dispositive.
> >
> > So you refuse to answer. Fine.
>
> My answer was informative, not dispositive.  Got it?

Your answer was nonresponsive.

> > The Supreme Court has taken many stands with regards to the exercise
> clause.
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> further erode the assertion that rights are absolute is correct, but not
> necessary for my assertion that rights inherently are not absolute.

No one was arguing that anything is strictly "absolute" - I thought that
point was clear the first time. I thought it must have been clear the second
time when I pointed out what I said the first time. Here we are on the third
go around and there still appears to be some confusion as to what was meant
by what I said. I did not offer the changing of interpretation to further
erode any assertion that rights are absolute - I stated it to point out that
rights are not absolute.

> > > > > Right.  So f I'm a fundie Islam who sincerely believes that God
> commands me
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> from killing people in the name of God.  IIRC, you listed one in your own
> posts here.

Okay, I skipped over your inclusion of the fact that such a claim would be
invalidated by various tests that would be applied - I apologize for that.

> > "     A Wisconsin pharmacist on Monday faced a disciplinary hearing after
> > refusing to fill a woman's oral contraceptive prescription or transfer the
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> The refusal to transfer the scrip might well be the dispositive legal test.

So far the cases I've been reading all seem to involve either a refusal to
transfer or some sort of attempt at religious indoctrination. Either
behaviours are wrong and should be subject to some form of punishment that
could be anything from a simple warning all the way to immediate
termination.

Also, I have to retract a claim I made somewhere along the line where I
stated or at least implied that religions were qualified by the Supreme
Court. This is clearly in error. I should have said religious practices were
qualified by the Supreme Court.

Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 15 Nov 2004 01:25 GMT
> > > > Google the definitions of informative and dispositive.
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Your answer was nonresponsive.

Okie-doke, you're entitled.

> No one was arguing that anything is strictly "absolute" - I thought that
> point was clear the first time. I thought it must have been clear the second
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> erode any assertion that rights are absolute - I stated it to point out that
> rights are not absolute.

It seems we're going around in circles here while in basic ageement.

> > > > > > Right.  So f I'm a fundie Islam who sincerely believes that God
commands me
> > > > > > to kill the infidels... other tests would invalidate the claim,
but the
> > > > > > court must accept that as a valid religious doctrine.
> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > >
> > > You're kidding, right? No, you're probably not. Do you think a
compelling
> > > reason not to let you go and kill infidels could be cooked up? Maybe?
> >
> > Ballard says you cannot question whether the religious principles
offered as
> > a defense are valid or not as religious precepts.  Other tests will keep
you
> > from killing people in the name of God.  IIRC, you listed one in your own
> > posts here.
>
> Okay, I skipped over your inclusion of the fact that such a claim would be
> invalidated by various tests that would be applied - I apologize for that.

No problem.

> Also, I have to retract a claim I made somewhere along the line where I
> stated or at least implied that religions were qualified by the Supreme
> Court. This is clearly in error. I should have said religious practices were
> qualified by the Supreme Court.

No problem.
AbsolutelyCertain - 15 Nov 2004 02:32 GMT
> "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No problem.

Thanks for that clarification (Paul).  However, I still have a problem.
Just because the court may have described "religious practices" does not
mean that such practices are "authorized" by the court, or that the court is
the authority in those practices or in practices in general.  I hope you'll
agree.

The whole idea of freedom of (and from) religious practice becomes pretty
snarled when we start to drift toward some official idea of what that
practice is.  I don't care what the court says on this subject.  Government
approval of religous practice is bad mojo, no matter what the pretext.
Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the religious
right.  Having a slightly religious government strikes me as being slightly
pregnant, or slightly dead.  It either is separate, or it is not.  The
separation is important; vital to the proper function of government and to
the ongoing freedom of religion and religions from government interference,
IMO.  I don't think it's trivial that the first words in the Bill of Rights
are about religion.  If I had to pick just one constraint from the Bill to
keep, that would be it.
Rod Speed - 15 Nov 2004 03:07 GMT
>> "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the religious
> right.

Its much more complicated than that in practice, particularly with
the most obnoxious approaches that some religions endorse
like stoning people to death, killing adulterers etc etc etc.

And then there's the other problem, those who try
to claim to be adherents to a particular religion when
that endorses stuff that suits them like pot smoking etc.

> Having a slightly religious government strikes me as being slightly
> pregnant, or slightly dead.  It either is separate, or it is not.

Its nothing like as black and white as that.

Even the most basic 'thou shalt not kill' is ALWAYS more
complicated than that, particularly with self defence etc.

> The separation is important; vital to the proper function
> of government and to the ongoing freedom of religion
> and religions from government interference, IMO.

Sure, but when the constitution explicitly disallows govt
involvment in religion, it always gets complicated at the
edges when the govt needs to proscribe some of the
worst of what the worst of the religions get up to etc.

> I don't think it's trivial that the first words
> in the Bill of Rights are about religion.

Sure, it was clearly written by those into religion.

> If I had to pick just one constraint
> from the Bill to keep, that would be it.

Dunno, the rule of law stuff is more important.
AbsolutelyCertain - 15 Nov 2004 03:34 GMT
> >> "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> the most obnoxious approaches that some religions endorse
> like stoning people to death, killing adulterers etc etc etc.

That makes little sense to me.  There are quite good laws against stoning
people to death, killing adulterers .... why would these things impinge on
the religious exercise issue?

> And then there's the other problem, those who try
> to claim to be adherents to a particular religion when
> that endorses stuff that suits them like pot smoking etc.

All religions endorse what suits them.

> > Having a slightly religious government strikes me as being slightly
> > pregnant, or slightly dead.  It either is separate, or it is not.
>
> Its nothing like as black and white as that.

I think it is.  It's the camel in the tent idea.  Camel in tent = bad.

> Even the most basic 'thou shalt not kill' is ALWAYS more
> complicated than that, particularly with self defence etc.

Nobody is talking about a proscription against killing.  As I already said,
you don't need a religion to have that proscription.

> > The separation is important; vital to the proper function
> > of government and to the ongoing freedom of religion
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> edges when the govt needs to proscribe some of the
> worst of what the worst of the religions get up to etc.

See above.  Bad acts are bad acts, it doesn't matter what the motive is.

> > I don't think it's trivial that the first words
> > in the Bill of Rights are about religion.
>
> Sure, it was clearly written by those into religion.

It was written by people who knew that tangling up with religion was the
greatest threat possible to liberty, short of a king.

> > If I had to pick just one constraint
> > from the Bill to keep, that would be it.
>
> Dunno, the rule of law stuff is more important.

Unless religion is kept separate, you have no true rule of law.  Religion is
dogmatic.  That's the whole point.
Rod Speed - 15 Nov 2004 04:50 GMT
>> >> "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> you'll
>> > agree.

>>> The whole idea of freedom of (and from) religious practice
>>> becomes pretty snarled when we start to drift toward some
>>> official idea of what that practice is.  I don't care what the
>>> court says on this subject. Government approval of religous
>>> practice is bad mojo, no matter what the pretext. Government
>>> and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the religious right.

>> Its much more complicated than that in practice, particularly with
>> the most obnoxious approaches that some religions endorse
>> like stoning people to death, killing adulterers etc etc etc.

> That makes little sense to me.

Your problem.

> There are quite good laws against stoning people to death, killing adulterers
> ....
> why would these things impinge on the religious exercise issue?

Because those are just the most dramatic issues.

Once you get to the other stuff like multiple wives,
parents having any say at all on who their kids get
to marry etc, its never going to be possible to ensure
that the govt stays right out of religious issues.

I personally think that the fools that hack the ends off
their kid's dicks just because some complete and utter
obscenity of a god demands that be done should be
prevented from mutilating their kids like that.

>> And then there's the other problem, those who try
>> to claim to be adherents to a particular religion when
>> that endorses stuff that suits them like pot smoking etc.

> All religions endorse what suits them.

Separate issue entirely to those who claim to adhere to a
particular religion just so they can do what is banned for others.

>>> Having a slightly religious government strikes me as being slightly
>>> pregnant, or slightly dead.  It either is separate, or it is not.

>> Its nothing like as black and white as that.

> I think it is.

More fool you.

> It's the camel in the tent idea.  Camel in tent = bad.

Its nothing like as black and white as that.

Most obviously with the ban on polygamy.

Particularly with the exceptions for those who migrated into
the country after they had married more than one wife etc.

>> Even the most basic 'thou shalt not kill' is ALWAYS more
>> complicated than that, particularly with self defence etc.

> Nobody is talking about a proscription against killing.

Its an EXAMPLE of where its aint black and white, stupid.

> As I already said, you don't need
> a religion to have that proscription.

Might as well try explaining basics concepts to a stone.

>>> The separation is important; vital to the proper function
>>> of government and to the ongoing freedom of religion
>>> and religions from government interference, IMO.

>> Sure, but when the constitution explicitly disallows govt
>> involvment in religion, it always gets complicated at the
>> edges when the govt needs to proscribe some of the
>> worst of what the worst of the religions get up to etc.

> See above.

Completely useless.

> Bad acts are bad acts, it doesn't matter what the motive is.

Its nothing like as black and white as that with some issues
like circumcision, polygamy, arranged marraiges, etc etc etc.

>>> I don't think it's trivial that the first words
>>> in the Bill of Rights are about religion.

>> Sure, it was clearly written by those into religion.

> It was written by people who knew that
> tangling up with religion was the greatest
> threat possible to liberty, short of a king.

Wrong.

>>> If I had to pick just one constraint
>>> from the Bill to keep, that would be it.

>> Dunno, the rule of law stuff is more important.

> Unless religion is kept separate, you have no true rule of law.

Bullshit.

> Religion is dogmatic.  That's the whole point.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it aint.

Anyway, I wont be bothering with this crap anymore,
more useful trying to explain basic concepts to a stone.
AbsolutelyCertain - 15 Nov 2004 05:02 GMT
> "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.not> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Your problem.

What?  f.ck off.

> > There are quite good laws against stoning people to death, killing adulterers
> > ....
> > why would these things impinge on the religious exercise issue?
>
> Because those are just the most dramatic issues.

Uh, that's not an answer, or even close.

> Once you get to the other stuff like multiple wives,
> parents having any say at all on who their kids get
> to marry etc, its never going to be possible to ensure
> that the govt stays right out of religious issues.

Absurd.  Bad acts are bad acts.  Laws against them will exist, and be
enforced, or not.  Whether people choose to call these bad acts "religious
exercise" or not doesn't really matter ..... as long as there are not enough
people who support polygamy to become a political bloc and obtain power.
There's no guarantee of that, of course, but at some point if people are
going to govern themselves, then they have to take responsibility for the
outcome.

> I personally think that the fools that hack the ends off
> their kid's dicks just because some complete and utter
> obscenity of a god demands that be done should be
> prevented from mutilating their kids like that.

Feel the rage.  Are you talking about circumcision?  Methinks you might be
overreacting.

> >> And then there's the other problem, those who try
> >> to claim to be adherents to a particular religion when
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Separate issue entirely to those who claim to adhere to a
> particular religion just so they can do what is banned for others.

Bad acts, etc.

> >>> Having a slightly religious government strikes me as being slightly
> >>> pregnant, or slightly dead.  It either is separate, or it is not.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> More fool you.

No, actually I'm right, and you're wrong.

> > It's the camel in the tent idea.  Camel in tent = bad.
>
> Its nothing like as black and white as that.
>
> Most obviously with the ban on polygamy.

Nonsensical.

> Particularly with the exceptions for those who migrated into
> the country after they had married more than one wife etc.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Its an EXAMPLE of where its aint black and white, stupid.

Ah-ah-ah, you said the "s" word.

Game over.

> > As I already said, you don't need
> > a religion to have that proscription.
>
> Might as well try explaining basics concepts to a stone.

Well, that might work for you.  You seem to have the gift of stonegab.

> >>> The separation is important; vital to the proper function
> >>> of government and to the ongoing freedom of religion
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Completely useless.

Nope.  You are quite wrong.

> > Bad acts are bad acts, it doesn't matter what the motive is.
>
> Its nothing like as black and white as that with some issues
> like circumcision, polygamy, arranged marraiges, etc etc etc.

Of course it is.  Your problem is that you can't make useful distinctions.
You are comparing circumcision with the grotesque western American practice
of polygamy (and comcomitant child brides, etc)?   You must be kidding.

> >>> I don't think it's trivial that the first words
> >>> in the Bill of Rights are about religion.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Wrong.

Nope.  Absolutely right.  The separation is essential to both government and
religion.  The two are not compatible.
If you doubt that, try living in Iran.

> >>> If I had to pick just one constraint
> >>> from the Bill to keep, that would be it.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Bullshit.

Religious idealogues will always try to rearrange the law to suit their
preferences.  Without separation, you might as well turn the government over
to Bob Jones University.  Oh, wait .....

> > Religion is dogmatic.  That's the whole point.
>
> Sometimes it is, sometimes it aint.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!    The "is" part is what we're talking
about.

Your statement is beyond idiotic.  You might as well say that some dictators
are bad, and some are good.

Yep, true enough.  Are those odds good enough for you to choose to live
under a dictatorship?

Are they good enough for you to choose to live in a theocracy?

> Anyway, I wont be bothering with this crap anymore,
> more useful trying to explain basic concepts to a stone.

I think a stone would understand you perfectly.
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) - 05 Dec 2004 15:06 GMT
> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
> religious
> right.  Having a slightly religious government strikes me as being
> slightly
> pregnant, or slightly dead.  It either is separate, or it is not.

So because "Thou shalt not kill" is a RELIGIOUS Law, we must remove our laws
on murder ? I mean we can't be "slightly religious"
Bertie the Bunyip - 05 Dec 2004 15:48 GMT
>> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
>> religious
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> So because "Thou shalt not kill" is a RELIGIOUS Law, we must remove
> our laws on murder ?

makes sense to me.

bertie
Bertie the Bunyip - 05 Dec 2004 15:49 GMT
>> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
>> religious
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> So because "Thou shalt not kill" is a RELIGIOUS Law, we must remove
> our laws on murder ? I mean we can't be "slightly religious"

moe importantly, of course, it makes sense to George Bush!

All hail George Bush, ruler of the world!

Bertie
Paul Gooding - 05 Dec 2004 19:41 GMT
> >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
> >> religious
> >> right.  Having a slightly religious government strikes me as being
> >> slightly
> >> pregnant, or slightly dead.  It either is separate, or it is not.

> So because "Thou shalt not kill" is a RELIGIOUS Law, we must remove
> our laws on murder ? I mean we can't be "slightly religious"

Absurd.  Your "question" comes with a supposition that people could
not have figured out that murder is wrong, and make laws against it,
without religion to tell them to do it.  Your "law" is a religious
commandment, not a worldly law, and it is the commandment of a
particular religious set.

Laws are best made in pursuit of the real interests of the governed.
The governed generally do not need officialdom, such as religion or
kingly rulers, to tell them what is in their best interests.  The
American Revolution was pretty much all about that very concept.  The
only mention of religion in the Constitution is to tell government to
keep its distance from it.

You can be as religous as you like.  Government cannot.
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) - 06 Dec 2004 22:51 GMT
>> >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
>> >> religious
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Absurd.

<snip>

Exactly
getsumonya - 06 Dec 2004 23:05 GMT
Heres more fuel for ya.

This was in Sunday's Denton paper - The Denton Record Chronicle
www.dentonrc.com
.
I'm just gonna cut n paste instead of a link.

The Irresponsible Pharmacists Act

12:31 AM CST on Sunday, December 5, 2004

A bill pre-filed in the Texas Legislature would protect unprofessional
conduct by pharmacists and usurp the right of companies to run their own
businesses. Call it the Irresponsible Pharmacists' Relief and Protection Act
of 2005.

It's not that often that a bill manages to be this bad on two levels at
once. Our congratulations to state Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, who
dreamed it up.

Rep. Corte's HB 16 will be of interest in Denton because it may well have
had its beginnings here.

The bill would indemnify a pharmacist from any disciplinary action from his
employer for failing to fill a prescription for contraceptives.

A controversy over just that issue made news earlier this year in Denton
when three pharmacists at a chain pharmacy declined to fill a prescription
for a "morning-after" birth-control pill that had been prescribed by a
physician for a rape victim. The pharmacists' action violated the store's
own written policy and the regulations of the state Board of Pharmacy, not
to mention the standards of common decency and compassion for an innocent
victim of a vicious crime.

The pharmacists were dismissed by their abashed employer; Corte's bill is
apparently the official riposte of those who would impose their religious
views on individuals and corporations alike.

As we said earlier, this bill offends on two levels. First is its granting
to pharmacists a power they should not have: the power to decide who - if
anyone - is to receive a particular medication.

Corte claims that he wants his bill to apply only to "morning-after"
birth-control pills, but he admits it doesn't read that way. As it stands at
the moment, the bill would let any pharmacist in Texas veto a prescription
for any birth control and would protect him from any professional or
governmental retribution.

By law, regulation and tradition, the power to decide who gets prescription
medication has been held by the men and women who have the training to do
so - the physicians - and we see no reason why a lesser-trained medical
professional should have veto power on the basis of moral or religious
opinions.

The second offensive idea behind this bill is that it takes away the right
of a business owner to set policy for his own establishment.

If the proprietors of a pharmacy do not wish to fill prescriptions for
contraceptives, they do not have to stock it. If they do choose to stock and
sell such medications, however, they have the right to demand that their
employees fill prescriptions for them quickly, politely and without any
lectures on religion or morality.

Pharmacists with sincere moral or religious objections to that are free to
start their own stores or seek employment at stores that share their views.

But they deserve no government protection for their unprofessional conduct.
aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com - 07 Dec 2004 03:06 GMT
uh huh.  so some spotty oik working behind the pharmacy counter at a
store can countermand the instruction and authority of a doctor on the
basis of religious grounds ?  next, lets see an ER nurse refuse a blood
transfusion to a casualty and cite the religious grounds of being a
jehova's witness...

taking a step backwards isnt it ? the next step ... just slip a couple
of leeches down the cod piece.
aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com - 07 Dec 2004 03:06 GMT
uh huh.  so some spotty oik working behind the pharmacy counter at a
store can countermand the instruction and authority of a doctor on the
basis of religious grounds ?  next, lets see an ER nurse refuse a blood
transfusion to a casualty and cite the religious grounds of being a
jehova's witness...

taking a step backwards isnt it ? the next step ... just slip a couple
of leeches down the cod piece.
Bob G. - 07 Dec 2004 19:49 GMT
>uh huh.  so some spotty oik working behind the pharmacy counter at a
>store can countermand the instruction and authority of a doctor on the
>basis of religious grounds ?

IF ...I had a moral problem with filling any Rx...why should I have to
follow instructuions from anyone...Doctor or not.... !

I actually do not have any problem filling Birth Control Rx's BUT if I
held strong religious or moral beliefs against filling any Rx's
honestly would not fill them....

Just send the patient up the street .... to another Pharmacy... or
hand off the Rx to another Pharmacist to fill...

Bob Griffiths
khobar - 07 Dec 2004 17:35 GMT
> > >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
> > >> religious
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> You can be as religous as you like.  Government cannot.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 08 Dec 2004 02:52 GMT
> > > >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
> > > >> religious
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
> among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.  We're
governed by the latter, not the former.
khobar - 08 Dec 2004 03:52 GMT
> > > > >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
> > > > >> religious
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.  We're
> governed by the latter, not the former.

Among other things, the Constitution clarifies and/or defines more
specifically the Rights the DoI mentions.

Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 08 Dec 2004 04:56 GMT
> > > > > >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of
> the
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> > >
> > > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal,
> > > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that
> > > among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Among other things, the Constitution clarifies and/or defines more
> specifically the Rights the DoI mentions.

So you agree with my analysis.  Thanks.
khobar - 08 Dec 2004 19:51 GMT
> > > > > > >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of
> > the
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> So you agree with my analysis.  Thanks.

You're welcome.

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 11 Dec 2004 20:00 GMT
>> > > > > > >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations
>of
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

bwahahahahhahhahahhahahahhaha

you would claim you were in the right even if you ran red traffic
light.

f.cking ahole.
Joel M. Eichen - 11 Dec 2004 21:53 GMT
>>> > > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message

Dear Running With Scissors,

Around here that kind of activity lands you handcuffed and in jail.
See article below. PS- Running With Scissors is an old Indian name,
isn't it?

Joel

**

Posted on Sat, Dec. 11, 2004




Scissors get girl in legal trouble

The 10-year-old was handcuffed and taken to a police station after
scissors were found in her book bag.

By Susan Snyder

Inquirer Staff Writer

A 10-year-old fourth-grade girl at Holme Elementary School in the Far
Northeast was pulled out of class, handcuffed, and taken to the local
police station in the back of a police wagon earlier this week after a
pair of 8-inch scissors were found in her book bag, according to
authorities and her angry mother.

School district and police officials said yesterday that they were
following state law and procedures in dealing with students who have
weapons on school property. They say that those rules demand police be
called and that procedures call for handcuffing suspects regardless of
age or crime.

Porsche Brown's mother, Rose Jackson, was outraged.

"My daughter cried and cried," Jackson said yesterday. "She had no
idea what she did was wrong. I think that was way too harsh."

Jackson said principal Ethel M. Cabry had known Porsche for four years
and should have called her home.

"I want something done to that principal and that teacher. They didn't
notify me about my baby. They called the police," Jackson said.

District spokesman Fernando Gallard acknowledged that Cabry had not
called Jackson but said that school police called her when they phoned
city police.

School district officials acknowledged that the girl was not using the
item as a weapon or threatening anyone with it. The scissors were
found Thursday morning during a search of students' belongings after
something was discovered missing from the teacher's desk area, Gallard
said.

The scissors, however, qualified as a possible weapon under a
long-standing state law, and the school followed proper procedure by
calling city police, he said.

Porsche will be suspended for five days, and the district will then
decide whether to expel her to a disciplinary school or allow her to
return to Holme, he said.

City police, meanwhile, decided not to charge her with a crime because
they determined that she had no intent to use the scissors as a
weapon, said Inspector William Colarulo, a police spokesman. In fact,
police believe she had the scissors to unwrap a new CD, Colarulo said.

He defended the police officers' decision to handcuff the child and
take her to Eighth Police District headquarters. All suspects,
regardless of age or crime, are handcuffed, he said. "The officers
acted in good faith," he said.

Jackson, who maintained that her daughter had the scissors for a
previous school assignment, said that if the district acted based on
state law, the law must be changed.

"This should be done per case," based on circumstances. She said her
daughter did nothing to warrant police intervention: "She's like,
'Mom, we use scissors in school.' "
aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com - 13 Dec 2004 04:48 GMT
> >>> > > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Joel

i must visit there soon.

(in respect of old Indian Name, there are two lines of ancestry that
could be followed, 1. Running With Scissors Patel of the Mughal Empire
and 2. Chief Running With Scissors, father of Two Dogs f.cking.

thanx for the story btw. ...  who the f.ck names their offspring
"porsche" apart from a premier league footballer!  any mention of a
sibling called "Gucci" or "Prada" by any chance ????

> Posted on Sat, Dec. 11, 2004
>
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
> daughter did nothing to warrant police intervention: "She's like,
> 'Mom, we use scissors in school.' "
khobar - 12 Dec 2004 00:10 GMT
> >> > > > > > >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations
> >of
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>
> f.cking ahole.

RWS, cut back on the stupid pills.

Paul Nixon
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Dec 2004 12:38 GMT
>> bwahahahahhahhahahhahahahhaha
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

.....and cut back on the lines (post trimming)!

Joel
khobar - 13 Dec 2004 18:21 GMT
> >> bwahahahahhahhahahhahahahhaha
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Joel

You don't like me to keep RWS in all his glory? Sigh - well, yours was a
reasonable request so I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

Paul Nixon
aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com - 13 Dec 2004 19:10 GMT
> > >> bwahahahahhahhahahhahahahhaha
> > >>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Paul Nixon

bwahahahahahahhahahahhahaha

twat.
aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com - 13 Dec 2004 04:50 GMT
sorry nixon, they are impossible to get nowadays..  you seem to have
absorbed the global stockpile.
khobar - 13 Dec 2004 18:22 GMT
> sorry nixon, they are impossible to get nowadays..  you seem to have
> absorbed the global stockpile.

"That's so funny I forgot to laugh" is about all the response you warrant.

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 13 Dec 2004 19:47 GMT
>> sorry nixon, they are impossible to get nowadays..  you seem to have
>> absorbed the global stockpile.
>
>"That's so funny I forgot to laugh" is about all the response you warrant.
>
>Paul Nixon

you really are a classic !  classic twat.
aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com - 13 Dec 2004 05:04 GMT
the back pedal !

nixon you are a total f.cking googler
khobar - 13 Dec 2004 18:23 GMT
> the back pedal !
>
> nixon you are a total f.cking googler

Back pedal? No, that's the boot up your arse again.

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 13 Dec 2004 19:48 GMT
>> the back pedal !
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

yeah nixon of course.
Sylvia Else - 09 Dec 2004 12:15 GMT
Well,they give me all the drugs I need and more!

Sylvia
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) - 08 Dec 2004 22:46 GMT
And yet, Thomas Jefferson's statements (not found in the Constitution)
concerning the separation of church and state DO carry the weight of Law
*very interesting*

>> > > >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
>> > > >> religious
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.  We're
> governed by the latter, not the former.
Razzer - 08 Dec 2004 23:30 GMT
>And yet, Thomas Jefferson's statements (not found in the Constitution)

Much like the words "Trinity" and "Original Sin"?

>concerning the separation of church and state DO carry the weight of Law
>*very interesting*

What weight of law? The Establishment Clause is enforced. Jefferson's
analogy is used to explain it.
running with scissors - 11 Dec 2004 19:55 GMT
>> > > >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
>> > > >> religious
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.  We're
>governed by the latter, not the former.

a "Nixon Back Pedal" should be following.
khobar - 12 Dec 2004 01:30 GMT
> >> > > >> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
> >> > > >> religious
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> a "Nixon Back Pedal" should be following.

Why? Do you believe what John said was injurious to the point I made? Have
you even any clue what that point was?

No, I didn't think so.

Paul Nixon
aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com - 13 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
good god you are an ignorant c.nt nixon.

here, let me give you a little challenge and lets see if you rise to
it.

...get off your bigoted, self righteous, self serving, self
aggrandizing, ignorant and obnoxious high horse (no thats not all
nixon,  still more...)

and read the f.cking interjections between yourself and mazor...  then,
now here's the real challenge...

read it again without your bigoted, self righteous, self serving, self
aggrandizing, f.cking ignorant and obnoxious mentality.

then maybe, just maybe *YOU* will have a f.cking clue what the point
was you nimrod.
khobar - 13 Dec 2004 18:27 GMT
> good god you are an ignorant c.nt nixon.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> then maybe, just maybe *YOU* will have a f.cking clue what the point
> was you nimrod.

Mazor made a correct statement and I agreed with it. If you are reading the
*exchange* incorrectly then that's your problem. But isn't that always the
case? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 13 Dec 2004 19:49 GMT
>> good god you are an ignorant c.nt nixon.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

bwahahahhahahhahahahahaha

you just couldn't rise to the challenge !
khobar - 13 Dec 2004 20:29 GMT
> >> good god you are an ignorant c.nt nixon.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> you just couldn't rise to the challenge !

Where have I ever been bigoted?

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 14 Dec 2004 03:10 GMT
>> >> good god you are an ignorant c.nt nixon.
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

so you dispute being a bigot...
.. but not self righteous, self serving, self aggrandizing, f.cking ignorant and
obnoxious.

hmmmmm.
Scott M. Kozel - 14 Dec 2004 04:04 GMT
running with scissors <aabbcc_running_with_scissors@SPAM
FILTERhotmail.com> wrote:

> >"running with scissors" <aabbcc_running_with_scissors@SPAM
> >> > aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com> wrote
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> .. but not self righteous, self serving, self aggrandizing, f.cking ignorant and
> obnoxious.

http://www.baloney-any.way.you.slice.it
running with scissors - 14 Dec 2004 04:59 GMT
>running with scissors <aabbcc_running_with_scissors@SPAM
>FILTERhotmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
>http://www.baloney-any.way.you.slice.it
khobar - 14 Dec 2004 20:00 GMT
> >> >> good god you are an ignorant c.nt nixon.
> >> >>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> hmmmmm.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha. Okay, who *didn't* see that one coming???

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 15 Dec 2004 05:16 GMT
>> >> >> good god you are an ignorant c.nt nixon.
>> >> >>
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

well quite obviously you didn't.

you lead with the chin and try your weak a.s attempt at saving face and instead
provide yet another fine example of the "nixon back pedal".

you really are a f.cking div nixon and you still cannot fathom it.
khobar - 15 Dec 2004 15:22 GMT
> >> >> >> good god you are an ignorant c.nt nixon.
> >> >> >>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> you really are a f.cking div nixon and you still cannot fathom it.

Not only are you a moron, but a delusional one at that. Well done!

While you continue digging that hole you're in ever deeper, keep hoping
that's just warm water falling on your head.

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 16 Dec 2004 01:38 GMT
>> >> >> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:27:34 -0700, "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

hah the continual attempt at the "nixon back pedal".

want a recitation from Mazor on "projecting" ????
khobar - 16 Dec 2004 03:05 GMT
<snip>

> >Not only are you a moron, but a delusional one at that. Well done!
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> want a recitation from Mazor on "projecting" ????

Of course you offer a recitation from Mazor on "projecting". From memory
too, no doubt.

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 16 Dec 2004 04:33 GMT
><snip>
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

nixon, do you have a f.cking brain tumor or something? I asked *YOU* if *YOU*
wanted a recitation from *MAZOR* on "projecting".

its astounding that anyone can be as f.cking obtuse, or shall we just classify
your obtusity as downright thick, as you portray yourself.  or are you the
result of a medical experiment - can you clarify if you have opposable thumbs ?

Usenet continues to laugh AT you, not WITH you.
khobar - 16 Dec 2004 16:17 GMT
> ><snip>
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> nixon, do you have a f.cking brain tumor or something? I asked *YOU* if *YOU*
> wanted a recitation from *MAZOR* on "projecting".

Yes, I know. And? I assumed you knew what recitation meant in the context of
your using it. Obviously I'm still giving you far too much credit.

> its astounding that anyone can be as f.cking obtuse, or shall we just classify
> your obtusity as downright thick, as you portray yourself.  or are you the
> result of a medical experiment - can you clarify if you have opposable thumbs ?
>
> Usenet continues to laugh AT you, not WITH you.

Wow, you really are delusional!

BTW, thanks for posting that whiney public appeal for help in dealing with
those who have rightfully pegged you as an idiot. Now that was funny.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 16 Dec 2004 20:09 GMT
>> ><snip>
>> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

you prove my exact point succinctly nixon you div.
running with scissors - 17 Dec 2004 08:14 GMT
>> ><snip>
>> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>Yes, I know.

so why make such a f.cking moronic statement then ?

> And?

well, then you must be a f.cking moron then !

> I assumed you knew what recitation meant in the context of
>your using it.

well seeing as *I* used the word, in the context of the post *I* made, in
reference to the statement *I* made; being the correct usage of the word and in
the correct context, it's patently obvious that *YOU* don't have a f.cking clue
on meaning, the usage of, or the context.  

Your continual weak a.s "nixon back pedal" is the Usenet equivalent of pissing
over your shoes and you only serve to enforce the earlier point I made that you
would run a red light and claim you had right of way.

> Obviously I'm still giving you far too much credit.

no obviously you are either channeling Tarver or are one exceptionable dim c.nt.

>> its astounding that anyone can be as f.cking obtuse, or shall we just
>classify
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Wow, you really are delusional!

hmmm read the follow-ups nimrod. *YOU* have earned yourself the reputation of
being a f.cking idiot laughing stock.

>BTW, thanks for posting that whiney public appeal for help in dealing with
>those who have rightfully pegged you as an idiot. Now that was funny.
>Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

must be time for your med's.

>Paul "The Dim c.nt of ADA"  Nixon
khobar - 17 Dec 2004 23:58 GMT
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> so why make such a f.cking moronic statement then ?

Well you are the hands-down expert on making moronic statements - no doubt
about that in any circles.

> > And?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the correct context, it's patently obvious that *YOU* don't have a f.cking clue
> on meaning, the usage of, or the context.

Consider your previous statement "I asked *YOU* if *YOU* wanted a recitation
from *MAZOR* on "projecting" and your above statement together.

> Your continual weak a.s "nixon back pedal" is the Usenet equivalent of pissing
> over your shoes and you only serve to enforce the earlier point I made that you
> would run a red light and claim you had right of way.

Why don't you be a sport and tell us what *your* definition of "back pedal"
is - after all, you've been dancing that around here for quite some time now
to music only you can hear.

> > Obviously I'm still giving you far too much credit.
>
> no obviously you are either channeling Tarver or are one exceptionable dim c.nt.

Yes, I am exceptional.

> >> its astounding that anyone can be as f.cking obtuse, or shall we just
> >classify
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> hmmm read the follow-ups nimrod. *YOU* have earned yourself the reputation of
> being a f.cking idiot laughing stock.

Are these followups ones you believe will eventually be posted, or are you
just imagining them altogether? Or are they from people who don't matter
anyway? All of the above perhaps?

> >BTW, thanks for posting that whiney public appeal for help in dealing with
> >those who have rightfully pegged you as an idiot. Now that was funny.
> >Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
> must be time for your med's.

Speaking from experience again, eh?

> >Paul "The Dim c.nt of ADA"  Nixon

Yeah, that's consistent with what we expected from you.
Clap.............clap.................clap...................

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 18 Dec 2004 03:55 GMT
>> >> >> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:22:20 -0700, "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>Consider your previous statement "I asked *YOU* if *YOU* wanted a recitation
>from *MAZOR* on "projecting" and your above statement together.

what the f.ck are you babbling on about ? are you *completely* f.cking insane or
just simple ? re read it you f.cking nimrod.  if that's too difficult ask a
responsible adult to help you with it.

>> Your continual weak a.s "nixon back pedal" is the Usenet equivalent of
>pissing
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Yes, I am exceptional.

well thanks for the straight answer.

>> >> its astounding that anyone can be as f.cking obtuse, or shall we just
>> >classify
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>just imagining them altogether? Or are they from people who don't matter
>anyway? All of the above perhaps?

perhaps your self aggrandizing universe omits the comprehension of you being
considered a f.cking moron.

>> >BTW, thanks for posting that whiney public appeal for help in dealing
>with
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Speaking from experience again, eh?

uh huh.  you've been posting in ADA for a while.

>> >Paul "The Dim c.nt of ADA"  Nixon
>
>Yeah, that's consistent with what we expected from you.
>Clap.............clap.................clap...................

it is isn't it;  calling a dim c.nt a "dim c.nt"

>Paul "The Dim c.nt of ADA" Nixon
khobar - 20 Dec 2004 01:44 GMT
> >> >> >> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:22:20 -0700, "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com>
> >wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> just simple ? re read it you f.cking nimrod.  if that's too difficult ask a
> responsible adult to help you with it.

What part did you not understand? Consider what you previously said and what
you followed up with together. Simple as that.

> >> Your continual weak a.s "nixon back pedal" is the Usenet equivalent of
> >pissing
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> well thanks for the straight answer.

You're welcome.

> >> >> its astounding that anyone can be as f.cking obtuse, or shall we just
> >> >classify
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> perhaps your self aggrandizing universe omits the comprehension of you being
> considered a f.cking moron.

Well now, you've gone from accusing me of being self righteous, self
serving, self aggrandizing, f.cking ignorant and
obnoxious moron down to just being a self-aggrandizing, f.cking moron, and I
didn't have to do a damned thing. Hmm, I'd say in another couple of days
you'll have reversed yourself entirely and realize that it is *YOU* who are
all of those things.

> >> >BTW, thanks for posting that whiney public appeal for help in dealing
> >with
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> uh huh.  you've been posting in ADA for a while.

Have you required meds since I began posting on ADA? I was under the
impression you've been on them far longer than that.

> >> >Paul "The Dim c.nt of ADA"  Nixon
> >
> >Yeah, that's consistent with what we expected from you.
> >Clap.............clap.................clap...................
>
> it is isn't it;  calling a dim c.nt a "dim c.nt"

Yup, it is consistent.

> >Paul "The Dim c.nt of ADA" Nixon

Why did you not answer my question regarding your charge that I was a bigot,
and why have you so far refused to entertain, err, enlighten us with your
definition of "back pedal"?

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 21 Dec 2004 08:16 GMT
>> >> >> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:05:18 -0700, "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 155 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

keep going nimrod, lets see what you can really do.  I think we are just
scratching the surface of your stupidity
khobar - 21 Dec 2004 16:34 GMT
> >Why did you not answer my question regarding your charge that I was a bigot,
> >and why have you so far refused to entertain, err, enlighten us with your
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> keep going nimrod, lets see what you can really do.  I think we are just
> scratching the surface of your stupidity

And still no answer from you re: my questions.

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 21 Dec 2004 23:41 GMT
>> >Why did you not answer my question regarding your charge that I was a
>bigot,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

because nixon,  people with more than just basic life sustaining neurological
functions don't need it explaining and what it means.  it's as obvious as your
crass stupidity.
khobar - 22 Dec 2004 01:44 GMT
> >> >Why did you not answer my question regarding your charge that I was a
> >bigot,
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> functions don't need it explaining and what it means.  it's as obvious as your
> crass stupidity.

Thanks for another gem, Patrick.

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 22 Dec 2004 06:38 GMT
>> >> >Why did you not answer my question regarding your charge that I was a
>> >bigot,
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

'nuff said, you clueless c.nt.
khobar - 22 Dec 2004 07:28 GMT
> >> >> >Why did you not answer my question regarding your charge that I was a
> >> >bigot,
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> 'nuff said, you clueless c.nt.

If 'nuff said, why did you add to it? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks Patrick. Keep 'em comin'.

Paul Nixon
aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com - 13 Dec 2004 05:06 GMT
an increased effort on "The Nixon Back Pedal"

nixon, you are a grade A ignorant turd.  do the gene pool a favor dont
reproduce anymore:  to be sure, gas yourself in your car.
khobar - 13 Dec 2004 18:28 GMT
> an increased effort on "The Nixon Back Pedal"

How so?

> nixon, you are a grade A ignorant turd.  do the gene pool a favor dont
> reproduce anymore:  to be sure, gas yourself in your car.

Didn't seem to work for you. Oh, but then you've no clue of what you're
doing - no wonder.

Paul Nixon
running with scissors - 13 Dec 2004 20:10 GMT
>> an increased effort on "The Nixon Back Pedal"
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Paul Nixon

yes of course nixon, you clueless berk.
Joel M. Eichen - 05 Dec 2004 16:07 GMT
>> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
>> religious
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>So because "Thou shalt not kill" is a RELIGIOUS Law, we must remove our laws
>on murder ? I mean we can't be "slightly religious"

Can we get more atheist pharmacists then?
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) - 06 Dec 2004 22:50 GMT
Can't see why not....

>>> Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
>>> religious
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Can we get more atheist pharmacists then?
Pumbaa - 07 Dec 2004 21:45 GMT
<SNIP>
> >So because "Thou shalt not kill" is a RELIGIOUS Law, we must remove our laws
> >on murder ? I mean we can't be "slightly religious"
>
> Can we get more atheist pharmacists then?

BTY, Isn't the correct translation "You shalt not murder"  from JPS
Hebrew-English Tanakh

If it is not then States like Texas are immoral as its heads the nation in
the number of State administered killings (death by lethal injection). Going
over seas and dropping bombs on people like Uncle Sam has been doing would
also be classified as killing.
Joel M. Eichen - 07 Dec 2004 22:32 GMT
><SNIP>
>> >So because "Thou shalt not kill" is a RELIGIOUS Law, we must remove our
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>BTY, Isn't the correct translation "You shalt not murder"  from JPS
>Hebrew-English Tanakh

Only after 1917.

The previous translations said "KILL."

So these translations are victims the same as the other translations
....

>If it is not then States like Texas are immoral as its heads the nation in
>the number of State administered killings (death by lethal injection). Going
>over seas and dropping bombs on people like Uncle Sam has been doing would
>also be classified as killing.
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) - 08 Dec 2004 22:51 GMT
The Bible was originally written in English, of course !

>><SNIP>
>>> >So because "Thou shalt not kill" is a RELIGIOUS Law, we must remove our
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>>over seas and dropping bombs on people like Uncle Sam has been doing would
>>also be classified as killing.
DylanBD - 08 Dec 2004 23:23 GMT
It is ridiculous that this is even an issue.

You don't need a "church vs. state" argument to realize that it's not
discrimination to fire somebody for refusing to do their job.  If I hire
someone to dig ditches on Sunday and Monday, they accept the job and then
don't show up on Sunday because their religion mandates that they must spend
the whole day resting, it's not religious discrimination to point out that
they have not lived up to the terms of their contract.

I know a nurse who I respect a lot, who left OB/GYN nursing for the ICU in
the seventies after abortion was legalized.  She's morally opposed to
abortion, and when assisting with abortions became a part of her job, she
could no longer in conscience keep that job.  End of story.
running with scissors - 11 Dec 2004 19:49 GMT
>It is ridiculous that this is even an issue.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>abortion, and when assisting with abortions became a part of her job, she
>could no longer in conscience keep that job.  End of story.

just as well she didnt become a jehovas witness then.
Arri London - 05 Dec 2004 23:14 GMT
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:

> > Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
> > religious
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> So because "Thou shalt not kill" is a RELIGIOUS Law, we must remove our laws
> on murder ? I mean we can't be "slightly religious"

It isn't a religious law. Why would someone think that it is?
running with scissors - 06 Dec 2004 05:54 GMT
> > Government and religion do not mix, despite the aspirations of the
> > religious
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> So because "Thou shalt not kill" is a RELIGIOUS Law, we must remove our laws
> on murder ? I mean we can't be "slightly religious"

utter f.cking bollocks glenn.
so if its a religious law, which religion is it pertaining to? where
do countries of differing relgious basis stand ?

can you advise of statute law about coveting thy neighbors wife,
worshipping false gods/icons ?

as a christian mystic you're not very good at being a mystic.  not
very good about being a god botherer either.
Rod Speed - 13 Nov 2004 04:26 GMT
>> > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>>
>> Doctors already decide which patients to treat.

> This is a murky area, to say the least.  In at least some states, religious
> hospitals don't have to provide services that they are opposed to.

Yes, most obviously with abortions.

And presumably they do vary on the basics of what
to do about a brat born grossly defective so there is
no chance that it can survive for more than a few days.

Most appear to just let it starve to death etc.

> On the other hand, say you're the only ER surgeon on duty
> when a patient presents with acute appendicitis, and you
> say "Sorry, my religion reveres the human appendix and
> it would be a sin for me to remove it," and the patient dies.

A better example would be an SDA doctor whose religion
is opposed to blood transfusions and who refuses to do
them when its likely the patient would die without one.

> Whether it's a violation of law would depend on local legislation,

Nope.

> and I doubt that a religious defense would hold if there
> were applicable laws prohibiting refusal of medical service.

Its more complicated when its just the refusal
of a particular type of medical service.

> It certainly would be a violation of medical ethics.

Those arent cast in stone.

> And it would subject the doctor and the hospital to civil liability.

Sure.

>> I think it's very telling that some people would call for the
>> pharmacist in question to be fired.  I could understand if the
>> pharmacist was from the Shankill Road and the customer
>> was from the Falls Road and the pharmacist told the customer
>> "we don't serve your kind here," but that's not at all what happened.

> Would you call for the firing of the ER doctor who
> refused to remove the appendix?  If not, why?

> The pharmacist's and the ER doctor's situations are
> not exactly equivalent, but close enough that the
> answers are not necessarily obvious and unequivocal.
John Mazor - 13 Nov 2004 04:43 GMT
> >> > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> Nope.

No?  What does it depend on, then?

> > and I doubt that a religious defense would hold if there
> > were applicable laws prohibiting refusal of medical service.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Those arent cast in stone.

Right.  Neither is law.  So what?
Rod Speed - 13 Nov 2004 08:31 GMT
>> >> > > Even if it is their Constitutional right to do so, eh?
>> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>>
>> Nope.

> No?  What does it depend on, then?

Basically the common law.

>> > and I doubt that a religious defense would hold if there
>> > were applicable laws prohibiting refusal of medical service.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
>> Those arent cast in stone.

> Right.  Neither is law.  So what?

So you claim about 'it certainly would be
a violation of medical ethics' is irrelevant.
Rod Speed - 12 Nov 2004 20:00 GMT
>> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging
>>>> to hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.

>>> What if their belief was that people should seek
>>> healing through prayer and not medicine?  Is it
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>> to do your job because of some religious belief you
>>> hold is fraught with peril for any number of professions.

>> Gets complicated tho, most obviously with abortions.

>> If you do consider that its just killing the potential human
>> for the convenience of the parents who didnt bother with
>> adequate contraception, surely even you arent seriously
>> attempting to claim that doctor has to abort it when its legal.

> Not the same situation.

Corse it is, its just another example of a professional choosing
to be selective about what he does, from what is legal to do.

> If it is an abortion clinic

Abortions arent just done in abortion clinics.

> and one doctor decides he won't do them
> anymore, that doctor should find another job.

Sure, but its not that simple when it isnt an abortion clinic.

He's legally and morally entitled to just say that he
doesnt do abortions when the woman hasnt bothered
with adequate contraception and doesnt want more kids.

Ditto in spades with circumcision
when its done for religious reasons.

> He should not stand there turning people away from
> a place that has a policy of performing abortions.

Separate issue entirely to when its not an abortion clinic.

>> Same with genital mutilation like circumcision too.

>> Just because some fool jew or moslem claims that
>> some damned god requires it be done, are you seriously
>> suggesting that a doctor has to do it when its legal ?

>> Of course not.

> Again, not the same situation at all.

Even you should be able to do better than that pathetically hoary old line.

>>> It is an open invitation to discrimination based on religious beliefs

>> Gets sillier by the minute.

>>> (not to mention slacking on the job).

>> You dont even know that its an employee
>> doing it rather than the owner of the shop.

> Yes, I do know it is an employee.

No you dont.

> Owner of a shop creating a stated policy of not
> filling birth control prescriptions is fine (providing
> it is legal and meets the terms of their license).
> Employees should not  take it into their own
> hands to decide whether they will provide
> certain services based on religious convictions.

You dont even know that its an employee
doing it rather than the owner of the shop.
baron48 - 14 Nov 2004 20:57 GMT
> >> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote
>  
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Corse it is, its just another example of a professional choosing
> to be selective about what he does, from what is legal to do.

Yes, but how they are going about it is totally different.

> > If it is an abortion clinic
>
> Abortions arent just done in abortion clinics.

True, but you don't go to your pediatrician to get one
(at least I hope you don't ).

> > and one doctor decides he won't do them
> > anymore, that doctor should find another job.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> doesnt do abortions when the woman hasnt bothered
> with adequate contraception and doesnt want more kids.

If his/her employer has hired him to do abortions, he/she
should find a new job if he/she doesn't want to do them.

> Ditto in spades with circumcision
> when its done for religious reasons.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Separate issue entirely to when its not an abortion clinic.

Pharmacies dispense medicine.  Abortion clinics do abortions.
Both offer a service that should be fulfilled by the employee
without his/her morals entering into it.

> >> Same with genital mutilation like circumcision too.
>  
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> No you dont.

Yes.  Go read the article.

> > Owner of a shop creating a stated policy of not
> > filling birth control prescriptions is fine (providing
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> You dont even know that its an employee
> doing it rather than the owner of the shop.

Yes.  Go read the article.

-Tom
Rod Speed - 14 Nov 2004 21:33 GMT
>> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>>>> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging
>>>>>> to hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.

>>>>> What if their belief was that people should seek
>>>>> healing through prayer and not medicine?  Is it
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>>>> to do your job because of some religious belief you
>>>>> hold is fraught with peril for any number of professions.

>>>> Gets complicated tho, most obviously with abortions.

>>>> If you do consider that its just killing the potential human
>>>> for the convenience of the parents who didnt bother with
>>>> adequate contraception, surely even you arent seriously
>>>> attempting to claim that doctor has to abort it when its legal.

>>> Not the same situation.

>> Corse it is, its just another example of a professional choosing
>> to be selective about what he does, from what is legal to do.

> Yes, but how they are going about it is totally different.

Irrelevant to the question being discussed, whether
they should be allowed to be selective about what
they get involved in, from what is legal for them to do.

>>> If it is an abortion clinic

>> Abortions arent just done in abortion clinics.

> True, but you don't go to your pediatrician to get one

Irrelevant.

> (at least I hope you don't ).

Some do with gynos.

>>> and one doctor decides he won't do them
>>> anymore, that doctor should find another job.

>> Sure, but its not that simple when it isnt an abortion clinic.

>> He's legally and morally entitled to just say that he
>> doesnt do abortions when the woman hasnt bothered
>> with adequate contraception and doesnt want more kids.

> If his/her employer has hired him to do abortions, he/she
> should find a new job if he/she doesn't want to do them.

Sure, but thats just a subset of the question being
discussed, the professional that is licensed to do that
sort of work, who may or may not be an employee at all.

And even with the employee, there's a difference between
those using abortion as an alternative to bothering with
contraception and an abortion say when contraception has failed.

>> Ditto in spades with circumcision
>> when its done for religious reasons.

>>> He should not stand there turning people away from
>>> a place that has a policy of performing abortions.

>> Separate issue entirely to when its not an abortion clinic.

> Pharmacies dispense medicine.  Abortion clinics do abortions.

Duh. And both can choose to be selective.

A pharmacy can choose to not dispense what is used by
drug addicts, and an abortion clinic can choose to not be what
is used by those who dont bother with contraception at all.

And abortions arent just done in abortion clinics, like I said.

> Both offer a service that should be fulfilled by the
> employee without his/her morals entering into it.

Thats as mindlessly simplistic as claiming that a doctor
employed by a hospital just do circumcisions done for
religious reasons, abortions when they are what is
used instead of any contraception at all, etc etc etc.

Or something as irreversible as genital mutilation of
fools who have decided that their sexual organs dont
match what sex they claim that they 'really' are.

Or the even more bizarre examples of fools that
want some limb amputated for no good reason.

Virtually all doctors, both employees and the self
employed just refuse to do what is legal in that case.

>>>> Same with genital mutilation like circumcision too.

>>>> Just because some fool jew or moslem claims that
>>>> some damned god requires it be done, are you seriously
>>>> suggesting that a doctor has to do it when its legal ?

>>>> Of course not.

>>> Again, not the same situation at all.

>> Even you should be able to do better than that pathetically hoary old line.

>>>>> It is an open invitation to discrimination based on religious beliefs

>>>> Gets sillier by the minute.

>>>>> (not to mention slacking on the job).

>>>> You dont even know that its an employee
>>>> doing it rather than the owner of the shop.

>>> Yes, I do know it is an employee.

>> No you dont.

> Yes.  Go read the article.

Dont need to. Its just ONE situation where a particular
pharmacist chooses to not supply a particular prescription.

And completely irrelevant to the general question being discussed.
baron48 - 15 Nov 2004 22:22 GMT
> >> Sure, but its not that simple when it isnt an abortion clinic.
>  
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> discussed, the professional that is licensed to do that
> sort of work, who may or may not be an employee at all.

The person in question worked at CVS.  He was an employee.
That is the only thing I'm discussing.  You can't force
a business to sell something it doesn't want to sell, but
you sure as heck can force employees to do things they
don't want to do.

> And even with the employee, there's a difference between
> those using abortion as an alternative to bothering with
> contraception and an abortion say when contraception has failed.

If society and the business in question do not make that
distinction, the employee sure as heck should not.

> > Pharmacies dispense medicine.  Abortion clinics do abortions.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> drug addicts, and an abortion clinic can choose to not be what
> is used by those who dont bother with contraception at all.

Sure, but the pharmacy in question did not have such a policy.

> And abortions arent just done in abortion clinics, like I said.

Irrelevent.

> > Both offer a service that should be fulfilled by the
> > employee without his/her morals entering into it.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Or the even more bizarre examples of fools that
> want some limb amputated for no good reason.

The doctor should complain or go somewhere else if
he/she does not like the job.  Society and hospital
decide what services will be provided.

> Virtually all doctors, both employees and the self
> employed just refuse to do what is legal in that case.

It's generally not legal and against most hospitals' policies,
but if the doctor were employed by a sex change clinic or
what ever, he/she needs to do the job they were hired for
assuming it is legal.

> Dont need to. Its just ONE situation where a particular
> pharmacist chooses to not supply a particular prescription.
>
> And completely irrelevant to the general question being discussed.

No, it is the whole point of our discussion.  You are off
arguing something that I agree with you on.  The only
question here is whether the employee should do the job
asked of him/her by the employer in the situation of
a phamacist dispensing legally prescribed birth control
pills.

-Tom
Rod Speed - 15 Nov 2004 22:40 GMT
>> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>> Sure, but its not that simple when it isnt an abortion clinic.

>>>> He's legally and morally entitled to just say that he
>>>> doesnt do abortions when the woman hasnt bothered
>>>> with adequate contraception and doesnt want more kids.

>>> If his/her employer has hired him to do abortions, he/she
>>> should find a new job if he/she doesn't want to do them.

>> Sure, but thats just a subset of the question being
>> discussed, the professional that is licensed to do that
>> sort of work, who may or may not be an employee at all.

> The person in question worked at CVS.  He was an employee.

Irrelevant to the more general question of pros having to do what
is legal, even when they dont like the morals/ethics involved in that.

> That is the only thing I'm discussing.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you might or might not mindlessly attempt to restrict
the discussion to in your latest pathetic attempt at a troll, in spades.

> You can't force a business to sell something it
> doesn't want to sell, but you sure as heck can
> force employees to do things they don't want to do.

Irrelevant to the more general question of pros having to do what
is legal, even when they dont like the morals/ethics involved in that.

>> And even with the employee, there's a difference between
>> those using abortion as an alternative to bothering with
>> contraception and an abortion say when contraception has failed.

> If society and the business in question do not make
> that distinction, the employee sure as heck should not.

An employee is irrelevant to the more general question
of pros having to do what is legal, even when they dont
like the morals/ethics involved in that.

>>> Pharmacies dispense medicine.  Abortion clinics do abortions.

>> Duh. And both can choose to be selective.

>> A pharmacy can choose to not dispense what is used by
>> drug addicts, and an abortion clinic can choose to not be what
>> is used by those who dont bother with contraception at all.

> Sure, but the pharmacy in question did not have such a policy.

Irrelevant to the more general question of pros having to do what
is legal, even when they dont like the morals/ethics involved in that.

>> And abortions arent just done in abortion clinics, like I said.

> Irrelevent.

Nope.

>>> Both offer a service that should be fulfilled by the
>>> employee without his/her morals entering into it.

>> Thats as mindlessly simplistic as claiming that a doctor
>> employed by a hospital must do circumcisions done for
>> religious reasons, abortions when they are what is
>> used instead of any contraception at all, etc etc etc.

>> Or something as irreversible as genital mutilation of
>> fools who have decided that their sexual organs dont
>> match what sex they claim that they 'really' are.

>> Or the even more bizarre examples of fools that
>> want some limb amputated for no good reason.

> The doctor should complain or go somewhere
> else if he/she does not like the job.

Or just do what almost all of them currently do,
be selective about what they will and will not do.

Hardly any will actually deliberately mutilate
some fool that has decided that it would be
cool to have one less arm or leg etc.

The only thing that varys is the specifics of what particular
doctors refuse to do. More and more are refusing to do
circumcisions that are done purely for religious reasons now.

> Society and hospital decide what services will be provided.

Wrong. As always.

>> Virtually all doctors, both employees and the self
>> employed just refuse to do what is legal in that case.

> It's generally not legal

Wrong. As always.

> and against most hospitals' policies,

Irrelevant to whether the doctors generally refuse
to do it, regardless of the hospital policy in that.

> but if the doctor were employed by a sex change
> clinic or what ever, he/she needs to do the job
> they were hired for assuming it is legal.

Pity about the ones that arent employed
in such narrowly focussed clinics and hospitals.

>> Dont need to. Its just ONE situation where a particular
>> pharmacist chooses to not supply a particular prescription.

>> And completely irrelevant to the general question being discussed.

> No, it is the whole point of our discussion.

Wrong. As always.

> You are off arguing something that I agree with you on.
> The only question here is whether the employee should
> do the job asked of him/her by the employer in the situation
> of a phamacist dispensing legally prescribed birth control pills.

Wrong. As always.

There's a lot more involved than just that particular specific example.

You get to like that or lump it.
AbsolutelyCertain - 15 Nov 2004 22:50 GMT
> >> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Irrelevant to the more general question of pros having to do what
> is legal, even when they dont like the morals/ethics involved in that.

Irrelevant to the overriding issue:  The contract between employer and
employee.

> > That is the only thing I'm discussing.
>
> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
> irrelevant. What you might or might not mindlessly attempt to restrict
> the discussion to in your latest pathetic attempt at a troll, in spades.

Translation:  The conversation has strayed from the narrow course you
prefer, and you will now wave your arms and stamp your feet in order to get
what you want.

> > You can't force a business to sell something it
> > doesn't want to sell, but you sure as heck can
> > force employees to do things they don't want to do.
>
> Irrelevant to the more general question of pros having to do what
> is legal, even when they dont like the morals/ethics involved in that.

There is a contract between employer and employee.

> >> And even with the employee, there's a difference between
> >> those using abortion as an alternative to bothering with
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> of pros having to do what is legal, even when they dont
> like the morals/ethics involved in that.

There is a contract between employer, and employee.

> >>> Pharmacies dispense medicine.  Abortion clinics do abortions.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Irrelevant to the more general question of pros having to do what
> is legal, even when they dont like the morals/ethics involved in that.

There is a contract between employer, and employee.

> >> And abortions arent just done in abortion clinics, like I said.
>
> > Irrelevent.
>
> Nope.

Off topic.  A drugstore is not a clinic.

> >>> Both offer a service that should be fulfilled by the
> >>> employee without his/her morals entering into it.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Or just do what almost all of them currently do,
> be selective about what they will and will not do.

Only when their "selectiveness" is worth terminating the contract between
employer and employee.

> Hardly any will actually deliberately mutilate
> some fool that has decided that it would be
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> doctors refuse to do. More and more are refusing to do
> circumcisions that are done purely for religious reasons now.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha.  Your famous circumcision rant again?

> > Society and hospital decide what services will be provided.
>
> Wrong. As always.

A drugstore is not a hospital.  It's a store.

> >> Virtually all doctors, both employees and the self
> >> employed just refuse to do what is legal in that case.
>
> > It's generally not legal
>
> Wrong. As always.

A drugstore is not a hospital.  It's a store.

> You get to like that or lump it.

You're a funny little man, Rod.
baron48 - 16 Nov 2004 16:06 GMT
> >> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote
>  
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Irrelevant to the more general question of pros having to do what
> is legal, even when they dont like the morals/ethics involved in that.

We are not discussing "the more general question."  Sorry, try
again.

-Tom
khobar - 16 Nov 2004 16:18 GMT
> > >> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> -Tom

If you are talking about the CVS case specifically: an official with the
drugstore chain said its pharmacists do not have to fill such prescriptions
if it is against their religious beliefs.

And since the CVS case is in Texas and abortion is in the thread, it should
be noted that "under Texas law, no doctor, nurse, staff member or employee
of a hospital or health care center may be forced to participate in an
abortion."

Paul Nixon
Bertie the Bunyip - 16 Nov 2004 16:22 GMT
>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<2vspivF2q13qkU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> or employee of a hospital or health care center may be forced to
> participate in an abortion."

How do you explain Bush taking the state then?

Bertie
baron48 - 17 Nov 2004 04:51 GMT
> > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>  news:<2vspivF2q13qkU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> of a hospital or health care center may be forced to participate in an
> abortion."

Those decisions are being made by the employer and/or the state
which is where they should be made.

-Tom
khobar - 17 Nov 2004 06:26 GMT
> > > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >  news:<2vspivF2q13qkU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> Those decisions are being made by the employer and/or the state
> which is where they should be made.

Not entirely true. The Supreme Court can affirm an individual's choice over
the State and/or employer.

Paul Nixon
baron48 - 17 Nov 2004 22:09 GMT
> > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>  news:<EMpmd.101402$kz3.69695@fed1read02>...
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> Not entirely true. The Supreme Court can affirm an individual's choice over
> the State and/or employer.

They can rule on the constituitionality of laws governing
choices (or lack there of).  That is yet another proper
forum for deciding these things.

-Tom
khobar - 17 Nov 2004 22:29 GMT
> > > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >  news:<EMpmd.101402$kz3.69695@fed1read02>...
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> choices (or lack there of).  That is yet another proper
> forum for deciding these things.

Yes, they can do that too.

Paul Nixon
baron48 - 18 Nov 2004 17:09 GMT
> > They can rule on the constituitionality of laws governing
> > choices (or lack there of).  That is yet another proper
> > forum for deciding these things.
>
> Yes, they can do that too.

In theory that is all they do (though it appears they
occassionally decide Presidential elections :-) ).

-Tom
Rod Speed - 16 Nov 2004 18:39 GMT
>> >> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>> Irrelevant to the more general question of pros having to do what
>> is legal, even when they dont like the morals/ethics involved in that.

> We are not discussing "the more general question."

Wrong. As always.
Bob Ward - 13 Nov 2004 01:48 GMT
>Not the same situation.  If it is an abortion clinic
>and one doctor decides he won't do them anymore, that
>doctor should find another job.  He should not stand
>there turning people away from a place that has a policy
>of performing abortions.

The doctor isn't the person greeting people or taking appointments.
baron48 - 14 Nov 2004 21:02 GMT
> >Not the same situation.  If it is an abortion clinic
> >and one doctor decides he won't do them anymore, that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The doctor isn't the person greeting people or taking appointments.

The doctor ultimately decides whether it will happen or not
(at least by him/her), but you bring up an important point.
What do you do with receptionists who won't take appointments
for something they are morally opposed to?  There's a lot of
people involved in providing most any product or service.  If
everyone starts applying their own moral view of the World
to everything they do on the job, not much is going to get done.

-Tom
Rod Speed - 14 Nov 2004 21:34 GMT
>> >Not the same situation.  If it is an abortion clinic
>> >and one doctor decides he won't do them anymore, that
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> everyone starts applying their own moral view of the World
> to everything they do on the job, not much is going to get done.

More mindless silly stuff.

There are in fact few that do have a moral view that particular
things are immoral with something like contraception. So plenty
would still get done, because its so uncommon.
baron48 - 15 Nov 2004 22:09 GMT
> >> >Not the same situation.  If it is an abortion clinic
> >> >and one doctor decides he won't do them anymore, that
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> There are in fact few that do have a moral view that particular
> things are immoral with something like contraception.

There are many people in the US who think the Pill
is immoral.

> So plenty
> would still get done, because its so uncommon.

The reason it is uncommon is because people fear punishment
that might be metered out.  Take away the fear of punishment
and many people will act much differently.  Best keep a lid
on it.

-Tom
Rod Speed - 15 Nov 2004 22:44 GMT
>> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> baron48@hotmail.com (baron48) wrote

>>>>> Not the same situation.  If it is an abortion clinic and one doctor
>>>>> decides he won't do them anymore, that doctor should find
>>>>> another job.  He should not stand there turning people away
>>>>> from a place that has a policy of performing abortions.

>>>> The doctor isn't the person greeting people or taking appointments.

>>> The doctor ultimately decides whether it will happen or not
>>> (at least by him/her), but you bring up an important point.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>> everyone starts applying their own moral view of the World to
>> everything they do on the job, not much is going to get done.

>> More mindless silly stuff.

>> There are in fact few that do have a moral view that particular
>> things are immoral with something like contraception.

> There are many people in the US who think the Pill is immoral.

f.ck all pharmacists, particularly when its a married
couple that have decided that they have enough kids.

>> So plenty would still get done, because its so uncommon.

> The reason it is uncommon is because people
> fear punishment that might be metered out.

Wrong. As always.

> Take away the fear of punishment and
> many people will act much differently.

Wrong. As always.

> Best keep a lid on it.

Wrong. As always.
AbsolutelyCertain - 15 Nov 2004 22:52 GMT
> f.ck all pharmacists

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!
baron48 - 16 Nov 2004 16:02 GMT
> >> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>> baron48@hotmail.com (baron48) wrote
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> Wrong. As always.

Hehe.  Thank you for the opportunity to give you
another debate arse wuppin.

-Tom
Rod Speed - 16 Nov 2004 18:40 GMT
>> >> baron48 <baron48@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >>>> baron48@hotmail.com (baron48) wrote
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>>
>> Wrong. As always.

> Hehe.  Thank you for the opportunity
> to give you another debate arse wuppin.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed deviant fantasys, child.
nobody special - 11 Nov 2004 21:33 GMT
>> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to hear
>> that
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> then ok for them to dispense no medicine of any
> kind?

Then they'll likely be fired, which I also have no problem with if they knew
their employer's policy going in.

> The birth control pill is a legal drug with
> prescription

Yep, certainly true.

> and therefore, a pharmacist who won't
> dispense it is not doing their job

That's a matter for their employer to determine.  If you as a customer take
issue with the pharmacist's stand (as well as their employer), then take
your business elsewhere.

>  and likely losing
> future business for their employer.

Yep, and that's something that the employer needs to consider.

> If you have a
> problem with what is required by a paticular profession,
> best choose something else.

Part of being a professional means that you must consider the ethical
implications of what you dispense, and how it's used.  Many pharmacists
refuse to dispense drugs for euthanasia, and should not be forced to do so.
I know prison pharmacists who will not participate in lethal injections.
Just because they are a pharmacist does not mean that they are obligated to
dispense medications which will be used in a manner they consider unethical.
As a matter of fact, they're obligated to intervene in many cases.

> Saying you are not going
> to do your job because of some religious belief you
> hold is fraught with peril for any number of professions.

What's far more dangerous is to have a profession who dispense (no pun
intended) with moral considerations as they do their job.  Ethics is an
integral part of any health care profession.

> It is an open invitation to discrimination based on
> religious beliefs (not to mention slacking on the
> job).

Nonsense, though maybe I should think of some religious excuse that
precludes me from messy compounding.  :-/
rxempress - 11 Nov 2004 22:39 GMT
Maybe they should practice in a Christian Scientist pharmacy
Rod Speed - 11 Nov 2004 22:25 GMT
> Maybe they should practice in a Christian Scientist pharmacy

Or just be selective about what they will sell.

I wouldnt knowingly sell alcohol to an alcoholic, even tho that is legal.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 10:53 GMT
>> Maybe they should practice in a Christian Scientist pharmacy
>
>Or just be selective about what they will sell.
>
>I wouldnt knowingly sell alcohol to an alcoholic, even tho that is legal.

Then you better close down your liquor store!
Rod Speed - 12 Nov 2004 20:02 GMT
>>> Maybe they should practice in a Christian Scientist pharmacy
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Then you better close down your liquor store!

No way.
Joel M. Eichen - 11 Nov 2004 23:19 GMT
>Maybe they should practice in a Christian Scientist pharmacy

Good one .........

Or a church where they abuse children .... WAIT! We got that one
already!

Joel
baron48 - 12 Nov 2004 16:34 GMT
> >> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to hear
> >> that
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Then they'll likely be fired, which I also have no problem with if they knew
> their employer's policy going in.

The place in question had obviously been filling birth
control prescriptions before.

> > The birth control pill is a legal drug with
> > prescription
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> issue with the pharmacist's stand (as well as their employer), then take
> your business elsewhere.

Yes, but employees should not be making the decision.
If they don't like it, find another job.  Whether your
presciption gets filled or not should not be based on
an employee's religious convictions.  The employer should
be well with in their rights to fire someone who does
this.

> >  and likely losing
> > future business for their employer.
>
> Yep, and that's something that the employer needs to consider.

But people will jump in and say you are discriminating against
the employee for his/her religion.  If the employee chooses to
do this, they should accept the consequences (one being possible
termination of employment).  It is not religious discrimination
to fire someone for not doing their job.

> > If you have a
> > problem with what is required by a paticular profession,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> implications of what you dispense, and how it's used.  Many pharmacists
> refuse to dispense drugs for euthanasia, and should not be forced to do so.

These people are not forced to fill birth control presciptions.  They
can quit if they don't like their employer's policies.  If it is your
employers policy is to fill a particular prescription and it is legal to
do so, the you best do it.  If you don't like it, the way to handle it
is to lobby to outlaw the drug of find an employer who agrees with you.  
It is not just randomly decide you are not going to do what your
employer wants.

> I know prison pharmacists who will not participate in lethal injections.
> Just because they are a pharmacist does not mean that they are obligated to
> dispense medications which will be used in a manner they consider unethical.
> As a matter of fact, they're obligated to intervene in many cases.

They should not complain when they get fired for not doing their
job though.  You do not have a right to impose your own personal
morals or ethics on someone else.  If you don't like the way society
is then you should lobby organizations tasked with making these
types of decisions.

> > Saying you are not going
> > to do your job because of some religious belief you
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> intended) with moral considerations as they do their job.  Ethics is an
> integral part of any health care profession.

Yes, and is it ethical to try to prevent someone from getting
a medicine that was prescribed by their doctor?  The pharmacists
job it to educate how to take a medicine and make sure there are
not dangerous side effects with other drugs you are taking.
Moral/ethical/safety decisions about the birth control pill
have been decided already and society is ok with it and the
employer has accepted whatever risk there is in dispensing it.
There is no valid reason why a pharmacist should not dispense
it even if he/she is morally against it.  It is not his/her call
to make.

> > It is an open invitation to discrimination based on
> > religious beliefs (not to mention slacking on the
> > job).
>
> Nonsense, though maybe I should think of some religious excuse that
> precludes me from messy compounding.  :-/

That is exactly the kind of stuff you will end up with.

-Tom
Joel M. Eichen - 11 Nov 2004 23:17 GMT
>> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to hear that
>> people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>then ok for them to dispense no medicine of any
>kind?  

Why not just open the pills, dump out the active ingredient, and put
in sugar? Why not open the package and punch small holes in the
prophylactics?

Joel

>The birth control pill is a legal drug with
>prescription and therefore, a pharmacist who won't
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>-Tom
Bertie the Bunyip - 11 Nov 2004 23:32 GMT
>>> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging to
>>> hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> in sugar? Why not open the package and punch small holes in the
> prophylactics?

Dubya has space for you on his cabinet.

Bertei
baron48 - 14 Nov 2004 21:13 GMT
> Why not just open the pills, dump out the active ingredient, and put
> in sugar?  Why not open the package and punch small holes in the
> prophylactics?

Birth control terrorism?  Effective birth control has
completely revolutionized society in a way that many find
morally offensive to say the least.  I would say it is high
on the list of things that some religious fundamentalists
would like to see gotten rid of some how.

-Tom
Rod Speed - 14 Nov 2004 21:42 GMT
>> Why not just open the pills, dump out the active ingredient,
>> and put in sugar?  Why not open the package and punch
>> small holes in the prophylactics?

> Birth control terrorism?  Effective birth control has
> completely revolutionized society in a way that many find
> morally offensive to say the least.  I would say it is high
> on the list of things that some religious fundamentalists
> would like to see gotten rid of some how.

They have attempted it, mostly with legislated controls
that require prescriptions and prevent stuff like the
morning after pill being sold as freely as asprins.

Some countrys where the fundys have more control
over the law even make it hard to buy condoms etc.
Spartakus - 11 Nov 2004 22:49 GMT
"nobody special" <nospam@4methanks.com> wrote...

> So long as they're acting within the law, it's very encouraging
> to hear that people are taking stands on their beliefs.

Pharmacists are required by law to fill any legitimate prescription
they are handed that is written by a licensed physician, and
pharmacies are required by law carry all the drugs and devices that
are in their state's formulary.

Pharmacies are not retail outlets where the owners get to pick and
choose what "merchandise" will be sold.  Pharmacies are
state-regulated businesses which exist to serve the needs of doctors
and their patients.  If a pharmacist is unwilling to accept this
mandate, he should surrender his pharmacy license and get out of the
business altogether.
nobody special - 11 Nov 2004 23:06 GMT
> "nobody special" <nospam@4methanks.com> wrote...
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> mandate, he should surrender his pharmacy license and get out of the
> business altogether.

Are you in Canada or something?  This is not at all true in the US.
Joel M. Eichen - 11 Nov 2004 23:20 GMT
>Are you in Canada or something?  This is not at all true in the US.

Are you in the U.S.?
Bertie the Bunyip - 11 Nov 2004 23:30 GMT
>>Are you in Canada or something?  This is not at all true in the US.
>
> Are you in the U.S.?

Are you in the U.A.E.?
nobody special - 12 Nov 2004 00:13 GMT
>>Are you in Canada or something?  This is not at all true in the US.
>
> Are you in the U.S.?

The original article spoke of a pharmacist in the US, so non-US laws would
not apply to that situation.  Other nation's (or state's) laws could
certainly add to the discussion though.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 10:54 GMT
>>>Are you in Canada or something?  This is not at all true in the US.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>not apply to that situation.  Other nation's (or state's) laws could
>certainly add to the discussion though.

True,

For example how would that work in Papua New Guinea?
Spartakus - 12 Nov 2004 14:20 GMT
"nobody special" <nospam@4methanks.com> wrote...
> "Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote...

> > Pharmacists are required by law to fill any legitimate prescription
> > they are handed that is written by a licensed physician, and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> > mandate, he should surrender his pharmacy license and get out of the
> > business altogether.

> Are you in Canada or something?  This is not at all true in the US.

Are you in some sort of faith-based reality?  This is very much true in the U.S.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 15:30 GMT
>> Are you in Canada or something?  This is not at all true in the US.
>
>Are you in some sort of faith-based reality?  This is very much true in the U.S.

What pharmacy?

We will be over .......
nobody special - 13 Nov 2004 16:17 GMT
> "nobody special" <nospam@4methanks.com> wrote...
>> "Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote...
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Are you in some sort of faith-based reality?  This is very much true in
> the U.S.

No, it's not.  Do you really believe that any pharmacy you walk in to has a
stock of all approved drugs and devices?  There is no such legal
requirement.

But since you're so certain... please cite the US state and law which
mandates carrying all drugs and devices in a "state formulary" (which isn't
what you obviously think it is).  That's not at all true in my state or in
any adjoining that I know of.  If I don't want to carry COX-2 inhibitors
because I believe there are unwarranted risks, I am not required to.
Professionally, I should not dispense it were I to believe that the case.
Customers might look at me strangely when I explain that I don't stock it,
but I'm doing nothing illegal.  If I don't want to carry Oxycontin because
I'd rather not be robbed by an addict, I don't have to.

Note that many states have legal protections for pharmacists who choose not
to dispense items based on ethical decisions.  Typically, this includes a
requirement that the pharmacist provide a referral to some other
pharmacy/pharmacist.  These provisions shoot down your fallacious statement
that pharmacists are required to fill any "legitimate" prescription they are
handed.  They are not required to do so.
Joel M. Eichen - 11 Nov 2004 23:20 GMT
>"nobody special" <nospam@4methanks.com> wrote...
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Pharmacies are not retail outlets where the owners get to pick and
>choose what "merchandise" will be sold.  

Thanks for the information ... some of the usenet folks think the cops
also pick and choose what laws they like and what laws they hate
......

>Pharmacies are
>state-regulated businesses which exist to serve the needs of doctors
>and their patients.  If a pharmacist is unwilling to accept this
>mandate, he should surrender his pharmacy license and get out of the
>business altogether.
Rod Speed - 12 Nov 2004 02:31 GMT
>>"nobody special" <nospam@4methanks.com> wrote...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Thanks for the information ... some of the usenet folks think the cops
> also pick and choose what laws they like and what laws they hate

Some do in fact do just that. Most obviously with domestic shitfights.

>>Pharmacies are
>>state-regulated businesses which exist to serve the needs of doctors
>>and their patients.  If a pharmacist is unwilling to accept this
>>mandate, he should surrender his pharmacy license and get out of the
>>business altogether.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 10:55 GMT
>> Thanks for the information ... some of the usenet folks think the cops
>> also pick and choose what laws they like and what laws they hate
>
>Some do in fact do just that. Most obviously with domestic shitfights.

Yup, that's a tough one all around though ......

Joel
Rod Speed - 12 Nov 2004 20:06 GMT
>>> Thanks for the information ... some of the usenet folks think the cops
>>> also pick and choose what laws they like and what laws they hate

>> Some do in fact do just that. Most obviously with domestic shitfights.

> Yup, that's a tough one all around though ......

There's plenty of others too tho, most obviously with the consumption
of alcohol by minors etc, particularly in the wowser states.

Even the Amish have some rather novel approaches
to that sort of thing, letting the kids try it etc.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 22:42 GMT
>>>> Thanks for the information ... some of the usenet folks think the cops
>>>> also pick and choose what laws they like and what laws they hate
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Even the Amish have some rather novel approaches
>to that sort of thing, letting the kids try it etc.

We had a fantastic story here about the Amish kids (18-20) and the
Hell's Angels Bikers teaming up in drug deals ....

Sounds like fiction but it was true.

Joel
Rod Speed - 12 Nov 2004 23:30 GMT
>>>>> Thanks for the information ... some of the usenet folks think the cops
>>>>> also pick and choose what laws they like and what laws they hate
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>Even the Amish have some rather novel approaches
>>to that sort of thing, letting the kids try it etc.

> We had a fantastic story here about the Amish kids (18-20)
> and the Hell's Angels Bikers teaming up in drug deals ....

> Sounds like fiction but it was true.

Yeah, there was one hell of an interesting doco on the Amish,
Devil's Playground, where the kids at 16 get to decide if they
want to be Amish themselves, and as part of that process are
allowed to see what they think of the real world, including trying
drunken partys etc, mostly out in the open.

One of those in the doco had gotten involved in drugs
too, and is likely the situation you are referring to.

Interesting approach in many ways. They're clearly nothing like
as closed minded as many tend to assume that they must be.

It didnt do a very good job of explaining why its fine to have
anything to do with the real world in the sense of flogging
outdoor furniture to the heathen, but not to drive cars etc tho.

Looks rather like they are more anti techno luddites than anything else.
PaPaPeng - 12 Nov 2004 22:20 GMT
>Pharmacies are not retail outlets where the owners get to pick and
>choose what "merchandise" will be sold.  Pharmacies are
>state-regulated businesses which exist to serve the needs of doctors
>and their patients.  If a pharmacist is unwilling to accept this
>mandate, he should surrender his pharmacy license and get out of the
>business altogether.

Rather than get into a catfight with religious fundamentalists there
should be a law and a Professional Code of Conduct that clearly states
that if a particular pharmacy or pharmacist will not accept or
dispense certain prescriptions it should state so clearly in their
License and in prominent signs displayed in the place of business.
Then such pharmacies and pharmacists will attract their own cliental
of people who share their beliefs and practices. The rest of us will
be spared their proselytizing.
Rod Speed - 12 Nov 2004 22:43 GMT
>> Pharmacies are not retail outlets where the owners get
>> to pick and choose what "merchandise" will be sold.
>> Pharmacies are state-regulated businesses which exist to
>> serve the needs of doctors and their patients.  If a pharmacist
>> is unwilling to accept this mandate, he should surrender
>> his pharmacy license and get out of the business altogether.

> Rather than get into a catfight with religious fundamentalists there
> should be a law and a Professional Code of Conduct that clearly
> states that if a particular pharmacy or pharmacist will not accept
> or dispense certain prescriptions it should state so clearly in their
> License and in prominent signs displayed in the place of business.

Not really practical in practice.

Most obviously with say circumcision where there are valid
medical reasons to do it, but where a medical practitioner
can choose to not get involved in doing what the most stupid
fundys in a particular 'religion' want done to their kids etc.

Similarly with contraception where some arent interested in
getting involved with providing it so some can screw around
as much as they like without any risk of an unwanted brat etc.

Just not feasible to distinguish between providing contraceptives
for those who want to screw around with impunity, and for those
who have just decided that they have enough kids already etc.

> Then such pharmacies and pharmacists will attract their
> own cliental of people who share their beliefs and practices.

Its nothing like that simple in practice.

> The rest of us will be spared their proselytizing.

You dont even know that its just about proselytizing.

And it gets even more complicated with countrys that choose to
allow the prescription of drugs for addicts, like methadone etc.

A pharmacist should be allowed to decide that he doesnt
want to get involved in that, even when its legal, because
he doesnt agree with that particular approach to drugs etc.

Its never going to be practical to have everything up on signs.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 22:43 GMT
>>Pharmacies are not retail outlets where the owners get to pick and
>>choose what "merchandise" will be sold.  Pharmacies are
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>dispense certain prescriptions it should state so clearly in their
>License and in prominent signs displayed in the place of business.

No need for that. The pharmacist is clearly identifiable by the tin
foil hat on his head.

Joel

>Then such pharmacies and pharmacists will attract their own cliental
>of people who share their beliefs and practices. The rest of us will
>be spared their proselytizing.
Shawn Hearn - 12 Dec 2004 15:26 GMT
> >Pharmacies are not retail outlets where the owners get to pick and
> >choose what "merchandise" will be sold.  Pharmacies are
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> of people who share their beliefs and practices. The rest of us will
> be spared their proselytizing.

Not a good idea. The example of birth control pills is one reason why a
pharmacist should do his or her job and butt out of the customer's moral
issues. You may not be aware of it, but birth control pills do get
prescribed for reasons other than contraception. For example, I have
a close relative who takes them to relieve symptoms of severe PMS.
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Dec 2004 17:29 GMT
>Not a good idea. The example of birth control pills is one reason why a
>pharmacist should do his or her job and butt out of the customer's moral
>issues. You may not be aware of it, but birth control pills do get
>prescribed for reasons other than contraception. For example, I have
>a close relative who takes them to relieve symptoms of severe PMS.

True, especially if the "moralist pharmacist" is substituting aspirin
for the b/c pill!

You just scrpae off the      B a y e r          on each pill.

(As per God's instructions, of course)

Joel
aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com - 13 Dec 2004 05:08 GMT
do asprin come in mon/tue/wed/thur packaging ?
The Dixie Clits - 11 Nov 2004 23:51 GMT
> Druggists refuse to give out pill
>
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
> Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to
> abortion."

If a pharmacist ever did that to me I'd beat him to a pulp with his own
bible!!!
Max - 12 Nov 2004 00:25 GMT
> "It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose
> between their consciences and their livelihoods," says Matt Sande of
> Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to
> abortion."

so i'm wondering... what's to stop a pharmacist from then saying  
"sorry, gluttony is a sin -- no diet pills for you"  or "religious
delusions are not a symptom of schizophrenia, they're a divine
intervention -- no crazy drugs for you" etc etc?

There isn't.  It's all just a matter of degree once they open the door
of selectively fulfilling their professional duty.

.max

Signature

the part of <betatron@earthlink.net>
was played by maxwell monningh  8-p

AbsolutelyCertain - 12 Nov 2004 03:41 GMT
> > "It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose
> > between their consciences and their livelihoods," says Matt Sande of
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> There isn't.  It's all just a matter of degree once they open the door
> of selectively fulfilling their professional duty.

This is from an article in the publication Pharmacy Times:

"Patients who bring legally valid and therapeutically appropriate
prescriptions to their pharmacy expect to have them filled. They do not
expect to be left to the whim of a pharmacist who decides on an ad hoc basis
whether to fill their prescriptions. The pharmacist who decided to refuse
filling of a legally valid and therapeutically appropriate prescription
would be held liable for harm to the patient under a patient expectation
model of professional standards."
Joel M. Eichen - 12 Nov 2004 10:57 GMT
>so i'm wondering... what's to stop a pharmacist from then saying  
>"sorry, gluttony is a sin -- no diet pills for you"  or "religious
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>There isn't.  It's all just a matter of degree once they open the door
>of selectively fulfilling their professional duty.

YUP. Hypertension?

"God hath ordaineth hypertensioneth to punisheth youeth."

Just what we need ,,, religious kooks mucking up the medical
profession!
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.