Faith and Politics

As a 'believer' {though most would say 'lapsed'}, I was a little upset at Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs take after creationists and Intelligent Design, in those cases where it's been approved for teaching in schools. I think it's all Bobby Jindal's fault because the FIRST time I recall reading an LGF diatribe on ID was when Jindal approved it for La.

I dont consider LGF going after ID proponents anywhere near as important as when he went on an anti-NeoNazi crusade, naming some Euro-conservatives as despicable for joining up with the skinheads, Vlams Belaang, and BNP.

So when I read 'Bush's HHS may redefine beginning of Life', I was wondering if there actually was some RWCC to subvert individual rights. Sorta like if Roe v Wade was reheard on the supposed grounds of 'Abortion anytime is murder' {The Roe decision was a bad one in terms of legal precedent, not that issue}.

But lo/behold HHS' ponderings arent about taking away choice, it's about allowing choice for physicians and hospital administrators.

So Liberals who might get all worked up about this, as they have about pharmacists who refuse to issue 'Plan B' {morning after} pills, should think twice about who has freedom of choice and who doesnt.

Just as I believe REASONABLE prayer options in schools are okay, so it is the right of any who hold to certain beliefs to practice them. As long as options remain for those who dont share in those beliefs.

Personally, I think religionizing the 'Origins of Man' is a crock. Not only that, it detracts from the core of Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious teaching. It's obvious to me that ID IS Creationism in new clothes, and it's obvious to me that an embryo not yet implanted in the uterus doesn't have a soul. To say it does smacks dangerously close to those who believe in reincarnation.
Religion as opposed to faith, is a human construct and subject to all sorts of weird ideas... like say, it's okay for a believer to exercise God's will and punish infidels and those who sin against their beliefs. In my past exposure I have never seen this justified by any of God's core teachings.

Yet I hold firm for those who may want to practice certain beliefs in their chosen vocation. Having to select another doctor, hospital or pharmacist is NOT stifling an individual patient's right of choice.

This is indeed tricky. Common sense, it seems to me, precludes harm to a living breathing sentient {and those who would be, outside the womb} being, unless that being is a threat to others' well being. But that's not the issue here, the issue is "Does the medical professional have the right to practice his beliefs".

It's a shame that government has to get involved at all to protect anyone's freedom of choice but that has been necessary in the past, and it seems it is necessary here. In this issue, the patient is not the 'victim', the health care provider is the victim who must be protected.