Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?

[DaveC426913]

1957? Anything in the last couple decades?

What??

It's like saying has the government enforced laws against muggings and murder recently? Yes. The penalties are the deterrent. And they are effective.

If the penalties were not in-place - acting to deter would-be muggings and murders - we would be living as savage tribes, pillaging the surrounding villages, stealing their food and women. And I don't say that with hyperbole. That is what civilized law prevents.

Do you think the rate of crime would not increase if law were removed?
Do you think discrimination would go away if there were no laws to keep it in check?

Did the big guy at the office desk next to you knock you down and steal your watch? No. It's illegal, and he knows it.

The fact that we don't see every Tom, Dick and Harry mugging or murdering (or discriminating against someone) every single day is not a sign that the government is not enforcing the laws, it's the sign that they are. Every day in every way.

Do you think the country just runs itself?

 

[DaveC426913]

Minor
Fairly recent

No. Every day in every way. The fact that an incident makes the news is the tiniest tip of the iceberg of what doesn't make the news. And that is just hte tiny ti of a hugfe ugly iceberg that would eixst if the laws were not there in the first place.

 

[Jeeves]

That's a truism. Nothing can be prevented prior to it occurring.

Then why are you spending $$$billions on Homeland Security? And quite a lot less on vaccinations? In fact, that's the very definition of prevention.

How is that a compelling argument?

Of what? You said:

Arguably they should not come into conflict. Because if there is a potential conflict from taking the doctor's oath, you should not be able to swear on it in the first place.

That presupposes prevention of conflict of beliefs, which nobody knows will happen in time to stop them swearing the oath - in the first place.

Do, please, stop going around in circles!

 

[Write4U]

Then why are you spending $$$billions on Homeland Security? And quite a lot less on vaccinations? In fact, that's the very definition of prevention.

Of what? You said:
That presupposes prevention of conflict of beliefs, which nobody knows will happen in time to stop them swearing the oath - in the first place.

Do, please, stop going around in circles!

While the original doctor's oath rests on religion, the modern version is "first do no harm" (to the patient).

IMO, if a woman is about to give birth, she is the doctor's primary patient, not the unborn child.
If there is a risk that proceeding with delivery of the baby endangers the mother's life, the doctor's first responsibility is to "do no harm" to the mother, she is his/her patient.

 

[Michael 345]

No. Every day in every way. The fact that an incident makes the news is the tiniest tip of the iceberg of what doesn't make the news. And that is just hte tiny ti of a hugfe ugly iceberg that would eixst if the laws were not there in the first place.

Agree. Was forgetting the law being obeyed is the law being enforced

 

[Write4U]

The original Hippocratic oath;

The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards.

The language was modified in 1960;

In the 1960s, the Hippocratic Oath was changed to require "utmost respect for human life from its beginning", making it a more secular obligation, not to be taken in the presence of God or any gods, but before only other people. When the Oath was rewritten in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, the prayer was omitted, and that version has been widely accepted and is still in use today by many US medical schools:[28]

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Modern_versions_and_relevance

 

[DaveC426913]

In fact, that's the very definition of prevention.

Deterrence is a form of prevention. Which is what the threat of having one's license removed is.

That presupposes prevention of conflict of beliefs, which nobody knows will happen in time to stop them swearing the oath - in the first place.
Do, please, stop going around in circles!

I think, perhaps, the initial argument has been overlaid with too many 'yeah but's to make sense any more. I'm gonna just drop it.

 

[Goldtop]

What??

It's like saying has the government enforced laws against muggings and murder recently? Yes. The penalties are the deterrent. And they are effective.

If the penalties were not in-place - acting to deter would-be muggings and murders - we would be living as savage tribes, pillaging the surrounding villages, stealing their food and women. And I don't say that with hyperbole. That is what civilized law prevents.

Do you think the rate of crime would not increase if law were removed?
Do you think discrimination would go away if there were no laws to keep it in check?

Did the big guy at the office desk next to you knock you down and steal your watch? No. It's illegal, and he knows it.

The fact that we don't see every Tom, Dick and Harry mugging or murdering (or discriminating against someone) every single day is not a sign that the government is not enforcing the laws, it's the sign that they are. Every day in every way.

Do you think the country just runs itself?

I was never referring to murders, muggings, whatever... I was referring to enforcing discrimination laws. One of more publicized acts of discrimination was the baker and the gay cake issues. Did that get enforced in any way? Or, any other acts of discrimination?

 

[DaveC426913]

I was never referring to murders, muggings, whatever... I was referring to enforcing discrimination laws. One of more publicized acts of discrimination was the baker and the gay cake issues. Did that get enforced in any way? Or, any other acts of discrimination?

So let me get this straight. You think the the visible tip of the iceberg is the iceberg? That what gets on the news stories is the whole of reality?

You don't think that the reason the iceberg tip sticks a hundred feet out of the ice is because it is resting on the other 9/10s?
You don't think that perhaps these case are in the news because they are topical, relevant and a big problem?

 

[Bowser]

Could you run a sting operation on a confessions box?

That's a scary thought, isn't it? If the government could impose itself on the confessional, what's to stop them from sitting at your dinner table?

 

[Write4U]

That's a scary thought, isn't it? If the government could impose itself on the confessional, what's to stop them from sitting at your dinner table?

They already have in the medical and political world:

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was reportedly told not to use seven specific words and phrases in its federal budget-proposal documents.
• Materials with the words, "vulnerable," "entitlement," and "diversity" were returned to the agency for "correction," according to a senior staffer at the CDC's Office of Financial Services.
• Bans on the words and phrases "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based," and "science-based" were communicated "verbally," according to the staffer.
• The Trump administration has sought to change how it communicates about issues it views primarily through an ideological lens, including matters related to LGBTQ people and climate change.

• http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...-words-and-phrases-from-cdc-documents-2017-12

 

[DaveC426913]

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was reportedly told not to use seven specific words and phrases in its federal budget-proposal documents.
• Materials with the words, "vulnerable," "entitlement," and "diversity" were returned to the agency for "correction," according to a senior staffer at the CDC's Office of Financial Services.
• Bans on the words and phrases "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based," and "science-based" were communicated "verbally," according to the staffer.
• The Trump administration has sought to change how it communicates about issues it views primarily through an ideological lens, including matters related to LGBTQ people and climate change

Orwell is pounding on the lid of his box, saying "I told you so. Double plus ungood."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

 

[Bowser]

They already have in the medical and political world

So that justifies more government intrusion on your personal life? Do we really want to have to look over our shoulder before we speak?

 

[billvon]

In your example above, you state the assumption being made (argued by others) to connect cause and effect.
But for the the cases in question - where someone refused service - it is accused that has explicitly said because it's against my religion.

?? In the case of Dahmer he explicitly said that he had no morality because he was an atheist. “If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" So the accused said specifically that it was his lack of religion that enabled his immoral acts.

Should we take this as proof that atheists have no morality, and no sense of social responsibility?

 

[billvon]

So that justifies more government intrusion on your personal life?

Depends on the issue, of course. If they intrude on your personal life to protect the life, liberty and property of others, then generally that's a good tradeoff (and a tradeoff that the Constitution specifically enables.)

Do we really want to have to look over our shoulder before we speak?

Maybe, if you are prone to yelling "FIRE!" in crowded theaters.

 

[Write4U]

Depends on the issue, of course. If they intrude on your personal life to protect the life, liberty and property of others, then generally that's a good tradeoff (and a tradeoff that the Constitution specifically enables.)

Maybe, if you are prone to yelling "FIRE!" in crowded theaters.

Can't use that as evidence anymore
"Your honor our case is based on evidence from 300 witnesses"
"Sorry, the term "evidence based" does no longer exist, so your case is dimissed.

 

[Michael 345]

That's a scary thought, isn't it? If the government could impose itself on the confessional, what's to stop them from sitting at your dinner table?

Nooooo
Welcome to my table anytime and hope they bring suitable wine
Sting operations are conducted when there is a suspicion of a crime being committed

If it becomes law that confessions of committing a crime must be reported (it should never have not been a crime) the police bug the box, hear the confession, allow some time for the priest to report, if he does not, arrest him

If the confession was about child abuse he should be charged with child abuse, put on the sex offenders register, and when released from a lengthy prison sentence be required to report daily to police, no passport etc etc

 

[Bowser]

If it becomes law that confessions of committing a crime must be reported (it should never have not been a crime) the police bug the box, hear the confession, allow some time for the priest to report, if he does not, arrest him

If that's the excuse to listen in on private conversations, it could very well be your own in the future. In the U.S. we have so many laws that no one knows exactly how many there are. It's hard to imagine a person can go through life without breaking a few.

 

[Michael 345]

listen in on private conversations,

As soon as a conversation becomes planing a crime no longer private

 

[Jeeves]

Nor do you appear to understand the philosophical principles of Christianity. Which is fine; as an atheist, there's no reason for you to do so.

That's literally true. I'll just have to assume, then, that Jesus never said all that guff about turning the other cheek, vengeance being God's or "Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me." Or if he did say any of it, he was only joshin'. What he really meant was: Pick out the bits you like to go apeshit over and ignore the rest.
Well, then it's all good.