You make too much of my “Like”.
I cannot read @Faizal_Ali 's mind. I liked it, because I see conservative Christianity as a source of immorality. But I don’t intend that to apply individually. It is not up to me to judge the morality of individuals.
However, I’m puzzled by your objection. Isn’t it standard Christianity, that all humans have moral failings?
I’m glad you say that, but it sure sounded to me as if Faizal Ali was in effect judging the morality of all individuals within the camp “conservative Christians.” Read his statement again:
Not “some” conservative Christians, or “many”, or even “most”, but just “conservative Christians” without qualification. Do you see the problem with the statement? That’s why I was surprised that you gave the statement a “Like”. I would have thought you would have preferred a less sweeping, more nuanced statement.
Well, yes, but I’m not sure what your point is. Faizal Ali wasn’t saying, “Conservative Christians, like all human beings, have moral failings.” He said they were “immoral people.” Surely you can see the difference between saying that even good people sometimes show moral failings, and saying that someone is “an immoral person” without qualification. Faizal Ali’s statement was clearly meant to be contrastive: “conservative Christians” are immoral people, unlike some others who don’t share the (presumably depravity-inducing) doctrines of conservative Christians. It’s group branding.
It would be nice if someone other than myself, someone who shares Faizal Ali’s atheism, would “call” him on this, and admonish him not to do that. Should I infer from the silence of the other atheists here that they agree that “conservative Christians [without qualification] are immoral people”? And if I said that “atheists are immoral people”, would that statement be allowed to pass here without comment, the way Faizal’s statement passed without comment?
I agree.
Now, perhaps you could provide examples where anything remotely resembling this has actually been said in a public school class?
And if you were paying attention, you would have understood that the discussion was not lack of access to abortion. I was providing a real-world example to correlate with the hypothetical example of JW’s using legislation to restrict access to a medical procedure (blood transfusions).
However, if you are suffering any concerns that Christian extremists in the US have not had similar success in jeopardizing the lives of women, allow me to put your mind at ease:
Uh, right. It was not the hospital but the entire government that was being run by bigoted Catholics imposing their religion on patients, without regard to the patients’ lives.
Which, again, is exactly analogous to the situation I was discussing with @Tim:
You need to read more carefully. The question had nothing to do with that, but asked whether Islam as a religion encourages its followers to be violent. One can disagree with that statement and still oppose Islamic terrorism. I can explain why if you need me to.
Actually, no, it doesn’t. “Republicans” just means Republicans, with no specific proportion denoted.
Yes, that is also unacceptable. But we cannot let the 2:1 ration between Dems and GOP to go unnoticed.
Suppose “only” 1/3 of respondents said that Black people are intellectually and morally inferior to white people, or agreed w/ some similar sentiment. Would you find that acceptable? I wouldn’t.
Not in normal English usage. If someone says “women prefer co-operation to competition”, the sense is either that this is true of all women, or that it is generally true of women, i.e., true for most women. And if someone says, “Republicans don’t like government interference in the economy,” the sense is either that no Republicans like such interference, or that most Republicans don’t like it. The absence of qualifying words such as “some”, “many”, “a few”, etc. is understood to denote universality, or at least generality.
Yes, one can, and I understood that perfectly well. As happens so often, you think I’m too slow to follow simple points, when actually, my mind moves on rather quickly to more advanced points. In this case, in your triumphant statement of the obvious, you’re overlooking a third possibility, which is that Islam, at times, has encouraged its followers to be violent, yet that its followers do not always respond to such encouragement, but in many cases live peacefully, and that most Republicans have no problems with Muslims living in the USA when they take the latter course, but fear only the jihadist elements within the Islamic world, and hope to keep them out of the United States.
And if you don’t believe that Islam has ever encouraged violence, tell that to the peoples of the near East, north Africa, Spain, southern France, the Balkans, India, etc. whose lands were overrun by Muslim invaders for a few centuries, as those invaders obeyed the impulse to spread Islam around the world by the sword. And if you don’t believe that this tendency to violence still recurs in modern times, I would suggest that you read the thoroughly documented study, Silenced, by Paul Marshall and Nina Shea (Oxford University Press).
I am not saying that all Muslims today, or even the majority of them, are violent – I think most Muslims are peace-loving; but the perception of Republicans (and not only Republicans) that Islam seems to condone violence in a wide range of contexts, is based on real behavioral data. That some Republicans go too far in their reaction to this data, I freely admit. I’ve indicated many times that I don’t endorse the more extreme views held by some Republicans regarding a whole range of issues. I certainly don’t support any blanket judgment that Islam is evil, or that Muslims are evil (I leave blanket judgments, such as “conservative Christians are immoral”, to others here), and I see no reason why Muslims (of the non-jihadist variety) can’t make good citizens. But I do understand the causes that have led to fear and suspicion regarding the Muslim religion.
Regarding Catholicism and abortion in the USA, the question is extremely complicated, both theologically and administratively. On the administrative side, the US, unlike other civilized countries, does not make sure that all areas of the country are fully serviced by state-funded, non-denominational hospitals, but has allowed a situation where in some areas, the only hospitals nearby are Catholic ones. And on the theological side, there are circumstances where the Church allows medical practitioners to perform life-saving procedures where it can be foreseen that those procedures will likely destroy a developing fetus. E.g.:
“The classic case of a difficult pregnancy to which this principle can be applied is the pregnant woman who has advanced uterine cancer. The removal of the cancerous uterus will result in the death of the baby but it would be permissible under the principle of double effect.”
I do not propose to get into an argument about the Catholic teaching on abortion here (I will remind readers here what the title of this discussion is – see top of page). I will therefore not respond to criticisms of the Catholic position, but for more information on the principle of double effect, see Clarifying “Double Effect” | George Weigel | First Things
Well, you sure took a roundabout way of confirming that I am correct: Republicans believe that Islam encourages violence among its followers. And from your earlier comments, it is clear by this you mean this is true of all Republicans or that it is generally true of Republicans. Whether that belief is justified was not what was being discussed.
And, yet again, you unwittingly confirm exactly what I was claiming. That is exactly the problem, that the Church puts itself in the position of deciding what medical practitioners may or may not do based on theological issues. Not on medical science and what is in the best interest of the patient as determined by the health care practitioner and the patient herself. And the Church does this even if neither the patient or doctor is Catholic.
This is exactly the sort of situation you are decrying in your example in which public school teachers impose secular humanism on their students. Only in that situation someone’s very life does not immediately hang in the balance. Plus your situation seems to be entirely imaginary, whereas I have already provided specific examples of the situation I am describing.
Yes, but a lot of people that claim to be Christian don’t apply the word to their lives, they just point their finger at others, which is in itself a moral failing.
If you are unhappy with the care at a Catholic or Christian hospital you should go to a Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu or Secular Humanist hospital. Good luck finding one.
There are plenty of secular hospitals, but I guess you forgot to include those.
Are you saying it is acceptable for a hospital to refuse care to a patient on the basis of religion?
Do you think people have time do consider the religious affiliation of a hospital when they are being transported there by ambulance in an emergency?
Suppose your child was in an accident and the ER doctor said “Your child has lost a lot of blood and will soon die. A blood transfusion would save him, but this is a Jehovah’s Witness hospital so we don’t do those here. I’m sure there is another hospital somewhere that will do it, however.” Would that be acceptable?
Do Jehovahs witnesses hospitals refuse blood transfusions? Is there such a thing as a Jehovahs witness hospital, and is this a normal way of operating?..Yeah, I would say take my child elsewhere, probably going to die if I leave them in your care seeing as you don’t really understand medicine.
No. But it is a normal way of operating in Catholic hospitals when a woman requires a life saving abortion.
In such a situation, the child will probably die before you can get him to another hospital. And it’s not that they do not understand medicine. The doctor told you the child will die without a transfusion. They are just prioritizing theology over medicine.
OK, I guess I liken it to someone complaining about the quality of a free meal. It wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t for the kindness of the people behind it. I don’t really understand the conflict of a “life-saving abortion” for a believer to be honest. If the procedure has potential of saving either life it should be considered and the probabilities of success weighed for both the mother and fetus. I don’t know enough of the specifics, and sounds like a one-off low probability scenario.
What exactly are the reasons for a life-saving abortion? How many are denied per year?
Are Catholic hospitals free?
I would say the same about someone who complains about the DMV…Don’t get a license, or zip it, or drive illegally…you have many options in life.
For instance, this kind of contrary argument for the sake of arguing is annoying to me, I have a choice to stop responding…
So I guess that depends on whether you believe hospitals are essential services and it is a responsibility of the state to ensure that these are available to all on an equal basis. I’m Canadian, so maybe that colours my view of the issue. But I have hard time believing that Americans believe that there should be no standards of care for hospitals, and it should be up to the adminstrators of the facility to do whatever they want
Certainly. A believer should be able to make this decision, and it is conceivable that a devout Catholic would rather die than have an abortion, just as JW’s not uncommonly choose death over transfusion.
But that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about someone else making a decision regarding your health care based on their beliefs and not yours. Do you understand the difference?
It’s not. The most recent data I could find is that 3% of abortions in the US are for reasons of maternal health:
Yeah, that is a very Canadian view (my sister lives in Edmonton)…I would say that many Americans wish we had similar healthcare. I don’t know enough about the industry to make an educated response, but I would prefer universal secular healthcare to privatized religious healthcare for sure. There are many things broken in this world, I believe medicine (and science) needs to operate independent of religious doctrine, but that means there would be less hospitals.
Many Republicans do. So do many Democrats, even if not as many. And in your own country, I am sure there are members of all political parties who hold this view.
I’m sorry, but you were implicitly addressing that, because your tone of discussion regarding the Republicans was one of righteous indignation. Among many other judgmental words and phrases you used, you spoke of their belief as being “unacceptable.” Yet precisely if their belief is justified, then your righteous indignation and your cry of “unacceptable” is unwarranted. Your judgmental attitude implies that you think the belief of many Republicans (and others) is not justified. You may be right, or you may be wrong, but please don’t pretend that you weren’t implying that the opinion was both odious and erroneous.
In a Catholic hospital, what treatments are allowed should be governed by Catholic theology. If you don’t want be treated by doctors and nurses who hold to Catholic theology, go to a secular hospital, or a Jewish hospital, or whatever hospital has values that match your own values. And if there is no secular hospital nearby for you to go to, that is a massive indictment of the health care system of the US federal government and the individual states. They should cough up the money for a proper, universal health care system, a secular system to which everyone has access. Catholics, Jews, etc., if they want private hospitals, paid for by their own community’s resources, can have them. But no American should have to go to a Catholic, Jewish or any other sectarian hospital to get care due to lack of public hospitals in the area. The answer is not to force Catholic hospitals and doctors and nurses to violate their religious consciences; it’s to create an adequate system.
Almost never does anyone’s life hang in the balance. And in the few cases where it does, there are some special allowances even within Catholic theology, as I pointed out. But in any case, if the systems were properly structured, it would not matter, any more than it would matter that a JW’s life hangs in the balance sometimes if transfusions are refused. If the patients voluntarily submit to Catholic care as believing Catholics, they know the risk that entails in extremely rare cases, cases about as likely as getting struck by lightning. JWs also know the risk regarding refusal to accept blood transfusions. If you need a blood transfusion, don’t go to a hospital owned and operated by JWs. Tell the ambulance to take you to the public hospital. People have the right to put themselves at medical risk for their faith. The state should stay out of it, and the best way for the state to stay out of it is provide adequate secular, public, tax-paid hospitals in easy geographical reach of all citizens, then let people choose whether they want to go to the public hospitals or to faith-based hospitals, just as it provides secular public schools, but leaves citizens free to purchase education from private, faith-based schools if they wish.
In a properly set up system, the default destination of any licensed ambulance driver should be to the public, secular hospital, unless the patient (or his family, if he is unconscious etc.) specifically requests to be driven to a faith-based institution. So the patient, if he or she says nothing, will end up at a hospital where emergency abortions and transfusions are accessible.
No not “some hospital somewhere, possibly an hour or more’s drive away, you’ll have to look it up yourself”; but “the public hospital is at the corner of Water St. and Main St., a 13-minute drive from here, and we are phoning ahead now to let them know you are coming,” would be acceptable. The problem is that in parts of the US, the public secular hospitals are sometimes much farther away than that. Changing that should be a priority for US health care administrators and politicians.
I see that as a comment on the group, not as a comment on all members of the group.
You can regard it that way if you like, but not all readers will take it that way. And so, in the interest of clarity, ambiguity should be avoided. As a former (?) math professor you must appreciate the need for exactness of expression. It costs very little effort to put in short words like “many” or “most” or “some” or “over half of the” (Republicans), and as that simple device can avoid the expenditure of hundreds or thousands of words quarreling over what people said vs. what they meant, that is what should be done.
Faizal Ali’s original charge, given the context here, i.e., his repeated and quite aggressive attacks on conservative Christian faith, would lead many readers here to suppose that he meant to include all or virtually all conservative Christians under the heading “immoral.” If you’re interested in intellectual clarity and good communication, you’ll encourage him to be more exact in the particular anti-Christian and anti-religious statements he employs in the future.
I agree, to an extent, when this situation involves elective treatment and primary care. But that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about life-threatening emergencies, in which the patient would most likely be brought by ambulance to the nearest hospital. If a hospital is not able to provide life-saving treatment in such situations, it should not be running an emergency department or maternity ward, where such situations are likely to arise.
For once we agree. 
We are not talking about people making personal medical decisions based on their own personal beliefs. Rather we are talking about people being denied treatment they need because of the religious beliefs of hospital administrators (in these situations the medical staff usually want to provide the treatment, but fear losing their jobs if they do.)
OK, but that situation does not seem to exist universally in America, particular in smaller communities. So until it does, the priority should be providing health care, rather than protecting the religious sensibilities of hospital administrators. Hospitals are places of healing, not of worship.
When the life of the mother is at stake. This was the situation I found myself in 28 years ago. If we were at the Catholic Hospital (St. Peter’s) instead of the secular hospital (Monmouth Medical) I would have neither a wife nor a son.
What I’m resisting is the idea that non-Catholic members of the public have a right to the services of a Catholic hospital, and that Catholic hospitals have an obligation to provide services to non-Catholics, especially services that they would never provide to Catholics. Where do these rights and obligations come from?
If the Catholic hospital is receiving public funding to operate – e.g., federal or state funding, or even county or city funding – then the case could be made that it is to be regarded as part of the public health care system, and has certain obligations because of that. But if the Catholic hospital is self-funding – if it covers its costs wholly through donations from churches, businesses, and individuals, from raffles and bake sale profits and lotteries, from interest on large bequests left to it, from fees it charges to patients, and from profits it makes if it runs a little cafeteria or coffee shop, etc. – then I don’t see why it has any obligation to admit any non-Catholic or that any non-Catholic has a right to demand that it perform services not usual to it.