This comment was from CW Nahumck on the post Rush Limbaugh Sh**ts The Bed.
Here’s the thing with living within a society. We all have to pay for things that we find morally or religiously objectionable.
If my religious beliefs are such that I am a pacifistic, and can give you evidence of my faith traditions long standing beliefs of pacifism, then, according to this same logic of religious objection, I should never have to pay taxes, since a portion of every penny goes to the Military and supports the governments active participation in the killing of other, which my faith would say is a sin. (I don’t hold this belief, and am thankful for those who serve in the military).
Part of being in society means that other people will make choices that I will disagree with. For example, Rush’s ability to speak. This is not about religious freedom, its about control. Fluke was not allowed to speak. She didn’t have a voice. That is control. Your religious freedom does not equal my responsibility to follow your rules. You have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. You have the right (with some restrictions as specified by SCOTUS) to say whatever you want. But I have the right not to listen, to not be forced to listen.
If you are in community, then we are equals. Which means that I’ll do things that you don’t like, and you’ll do things that I don’t like. Its part of being a citizen. Welcome, enjoy your stay.
–
photo: enough42 / flickr
About the Editors
“If my religious beliefs are such that I am a pacifistic, and can give you evidence of my faith traditions long standing beliefs of pacifism, then, according to this same logic of religious objection, I should never have to pay taxes, since a portion of every penny goes to the Military and supports the governments active participation in the killing of other, which my faith would say is a sin.”
I see your point but your analogy is not quite accurate. An accurate analogy would be if the government suddenly ordered you to you personally purchase lethal weapons to be immediately used to kill for individual soldiers, not via tax payments, but paid directly to weapons manufacturers.
I’m not arguing for or against this issue, just correcting your analogy.
There has to be a natural limit to how far one’s religious beliefs affect other people. There is no absolute right to religious belief that trumps all other rights and responsibilities. At some point defense of a particular religious doctrine can go too far. Maybe that point hasn’t been reached here, but that point does exist.
Imagine someone taking a religious stand against the theory of evolution. That’s common enough in the American education system. What if a religious organization took a similar anti-evolution stand in the medical system as well? Our use of antibiotics and the flu vaccine are based on an application of the theory of natural selection. That’s how we explain the recent appearance of drug-resistant strains of various diseases. That’s why you’re supposed to take the full course of antibiotics, because apparently Darwinism seems to be true. We have evolutionary theory built into the med school curriculum, the pharmaceutical industry, and our treatment of infectious diseases.
If religious organizations need to be consistent, then some of them will need to divest themselves of antibiotics, vaccines, and any medical staff who have been taught the theory of natural selection as part of their biology education. After all, we have to respect people’s spiritual conscience, right?
I suppose they would also be within their religious rights to deny prenatal care to a woman who’s pregnant out of wedlock. No sense in being forced to accept other people’s sinful lifestyles, right?
wellokaythen
You’re right. There should be limits. In this case, the point is somebody doesn’t want to pay for your BC due to religious beliefs. Pay for it yourself–it’s cheaper than Fluke alleges, or get somebody else to pay for it who doesn’t mind.
Strikes me that this isn’t pushing any allowable limit very hard.
From what I can tell, this issue, statistically affects approximately 0% of the population, as it only affects women who actually work for the church who use prescription BC.
I mean, really, if you choose to work for a church, it shouldn’t come as a suprise that they aren’t going to want to openly pay someone to violate whatever religious tenets have.
It’s true that they are likely busily violating them in other ways behind closed doors but that’s another matter.