Quote:
Originally Posted by SydneyK
I see what you're saying, and I agree that it's not realistic. But I have been in a doctor's office as a married adult woman and been denied birth control pills because of my doctor's Catholic faith (she's no longer my doctor). This isn't just an abstract argument to me - people of varying professions tend to project their faith onto those they serve, and I find it troublesome.
|
My question would be whether she was projecting her faith onto you or was she refusing to violate her own beliefs by prescribing birth control. Was she saying you could not have birth control, or was she saying she would not provide it? While the immediate result was the same, it seems to me that there's a difference. I'd say she didn't make any decision for you -- she made a decision for herself about what she would and wouldn't do, and then you made a decision in response that you'd find a different doctor who would prescribe birth control pills.
I see what you're saying as well -- I do think it's problematic when people want the law to reflect their religious (or other) beliefs when there isn't wide consensus. (For example, belief that murder is wrong may be based on religious values, but that belief is all but universal.) But I think the choices of elected officials not letting religious values enter into their considerations at all on one hand, and imposing their beliefs on others on the other hand, aren't the only options. There's a wide path in the middle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito
The problem is that everybody is motivated and shaped by his or her religious beliefs,without exception. (I'm counting atheism here because most atheists have some sort of belief system, even if it isn't one with a higher power.) Part of the reason we have the style of government we do is so that we can have those making the decisions have a variety of worldviews, not just one.
|
Yep, and so they can have world views that reflect the people who elect them.
Threaded Mode
