The Religious Roots of a New Progressive Era

Of course. Did you not read my many and long posts on education, criticizing the modern university for not allowing a variety of opinions? I don’t think I’m being discriminated against merely because voices disagree with me. Nor has that ever been the conservative Christian complaint about modern trends. The worries are about things much deeper than disagreement.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that in some town where the only clinic or hospital that performed abortions had only two doctors, and the one doctor (who performed the abortions because he believed in them) was away, or sick, etc. Suppose that someone needing an abortion right away came in and demanded that the other doctor, who was a devout Catholic and thought abortion murder, perform the abortion. And suppose a court ordered the doctor to do it, on the grounds that the woman has a right to an abortion and the state has the obligation to supply it, and the doctor should have braced himself for this possibility when he agreed to work in a state hospital. This would be a case where conservative Christians would say that society is slanted against those of Christian faith.

I’m not saying this has ever happened, but conservative Christians fear it might happen in the current atmosphere. After all, we already had one poster here who argued vehemently that someone opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds should be forced to issue same-sex marriage licenses against his conscience, or lose her job; would that same commenter say that the doctor should be forced to perform the abortion against his conscience? After all, the logic is the same: in a public institution, the right of the public to service trumps the scruples of the employee. Can you see why Christians might live in fear of potential court decisions like that? And can you see why they would connect such court decisions with general trends of argument coming from university professors, journalists, etc., who could be described as secular humanist?

In the end, fundamentalists aren’t upset that an atheist can go on a blog site and say there is no God or that the Bible is all lies. After all, such people are excellent targets for evangelism! No, they are afraid that if current trends continue, it will be in some cases illegal to act in accord with Christian principles, or that they might lose their jobs if they refuse to act counter to Christian principles. And if the shoe were on the other foot, if it were a secular humanist who felt threatened, who thought he might have to lose his job for standing on what he believes, you would sympathize with his fears. But you seem to have no sympathy for the fears of Christians. You seem to be one-sided, unable to reach out and feel the pain of all kinds of human beings, as opposed to the pain of just one type. That’s my objection.

But criticism of God or religion, in itself? No, that’s no threat to my rights at all. I welcome it. Why do you think I reply to the critics of religion here? Do you see me trying to get an injunction to shut PS down, to protect people in cyberspace from hearing atheism? Let the debate go on. But let the debaters realize that there are rational grounds for the fear that some Christians feel. Many Christians do fear that in the society of the future, secular humanists will be able to live out their lives without compromise, whereas Christians are going to have to give up some of their principles in order to keep their jobs or get promotions or whatever.

As for your other point, that it’s wrong to force non-Christians toward religious belief or practice using the power of the state, I completely agree, so we have nothing to debate there.

You’ve been complaining about it for multiple posts now.

That goes back to the article I cited earlier.

Those are self-inflicted fears with no basis in reality. People are dreaming up fantasies of themselves being persecuted.

I see you complaining about people voicing criticisms of religion. Just look at this thread.

Interesting - @Eddie here equates the granting of a marriage license with murder. This says a whole lot more than @Eddie, even with his voluminous posts, intended to.

5 Likes

So you are equating abortion with murder. Interesting !

1 Like

And “my particular Christian ideal” with religion in general(such as Islam), and many other Christian sects. Also just because the Church of England doesn’t figure as prominently in politics in Great Britain, as perhaps evangelicals do in the US, doesn’t mean there aren’t pernicious Christian influences worth spending a lot of your time resisting and combating. And of course, one has to wonder how exactly one measures the “proper” proportionality of anti-religious statements in relation to those religious influences.

1 Like

No, @Eddie is. Focus, @Giltil, focus.

5 Likes

Wrong again. Some Christians are afraid it will be come illegal to act against their narrow personal interpretations of “Christian principles.” There is no universal set of “Christian principles” all Christians accept. For example there are plenty of devout Christians who have no problem with same sex marriages so SSM isn’t a universal Christian principle. How would you feel about a Christian state employee who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because the Christian employee thinks interracial couples are “unChristian”? Or a Christian DMV employee who refused to issue drivers licenses to women because his religious views were that women should remain in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant?

1 Like

No, @Eddie is not, at least in the quote you used.

1 Like

No, just rebutting those criticisms of religion, which is a different thing.

No. What I equated was the legal and constitutional reasoning you used in the marriage license case, and the legal and constitutional reasoning in my hypothetical doctor-who-doesn’t-want-to-perform-an-abortion case. I constructed the example using exactly the same legal principles you appealed to: civil servant working in a public institution, client of that institution wants to use its services, civil servant doesn’t want to perform said service because he thinks it’s immoral, client says his personal moral judgments are completely irrelevant and he should perform the service or get another job. The only thing I added was: What if this case went to a judge, and the judge ordered the doctor to perform the abortion, because otherwise the woman’s right to a timely abortion would be denied? On the principles you enunciated, the judge would be right to rule this way, and the doctor should have to perform the abortion, or give up his post. Are you now backing down on those principles? If not, would you give the doctor an “out” and still let him keep his job? If so, on what principle?

I concur. It seems a pretty standard principle? You do what is in the job description or you choose to find another profession.

1 Like

A judge can’t order a doctor to perform an abortion. A judge can rule it legal to fire the doctor if the doctor refuses to provide a patient service the doctor already agreed to when accepting the job.

1 Like

But Eddie does think abortion is murder, doesn’t he? So by corollary he is equating issuing a marriage license with something he actually thinks is murder.

1 Like

It’s not up to you – a non-Christian – to rule on what counts as an authentic Christian principle. Christians have to make that decision themselves. And if a Christian doctor does decide that abortion is murder, and should not be done, then that Christian doctor, if ordered by a judge to either perform the abortion or lose his job, would be forced to either lose his job or break faith with his God – a choice which no physician should have to make in a country which says it is neutral toward religious faith.

1 Like
  1. @Eddie, you plainly equated the granting of a marriage license with murder. This could be taken as insight into how you think Christian society should treat homosexuals.

  2. The clerk granting marriage licenses is an elected government official. Your hypothetical doctor is not (at least, if we are talking about the United States). This is an important distinction.

1 Like

More of the usual, mechanical, black-and-white thinking that is so typical around here.

I’ll remember these words of yours, and at some time in the future, if you ever find yourself in an agonizing moral conflict such as I’ve described, where you have to choose between losing your lab position and violating your conscience, I’ll remind you of them.

Yes please do, by all means.

There are no public hospitals in the USA with doctors as salaried employees?

So Christian principles are arbitrary?

Paid directly by the taxpayer, as is the case with the persecuted clerk? The VA, maybe. But I don’t think anyone goes to the VA for an abortion. Military hospitals, for sure. I may be wrong, but I rather suspect that a military doctor’s religious convictions take a back seat to their duties as members of the armed services.

The law allows women full control of their pregnancies. What is wrong with that?

1 Like