Topic awaiting preservation: The Emaculat Revelation (Page 3 of 3)

^ Your point, Gideon?

Fact is, something is missing from the original documents used to create the NT. And we have no idea, what it is (thus the "Q" source name).

I should think that is somewhat disconcerning, especially in a book like the bible.

The Q source, and the evidence for the Q source is based on statistical analysis of the NT by many biblical scollars. You are able to run the text through a computer and it will spit out a whole lot of line numbers and passages that share common characteristics. It is very similar to the software that teachers use to determine if something you have written plagerises someone elses work.

It is not so much that there is circumstansial evidence, there is mathematical based evidence that go to prove that the unknown source exists. The math done to determine this is probabalistic, but using the statistics and careful observation (i.e. many biblical scholors studying the bible and having forums on the issue) put a whole lot of weight on the existance of the unknow source.

Dan @ Code Town

I honestly don't think it's all that big a deal, personally.

With the number of documents excluded from the bible, the number of known forgeries that are in the bible, the often random ascribing of an identity to documents whose real authorship is unclear, something like this 'q source' which seems to really just be common root for two of the gospels doesn't stand out.

There were a wide variety of gospels in use before the council decided on the four that would comprise the NT. Certainly many of them shared common sources or were half-copied from each other. And certainly most of them were not written by the authors they were attributed to.

It certainly does put the bible in a different light than most christians like to see it, when all these factors are combined.

It shows, among other things, that the selection of the bible texts was very much a political issue, and there were in fact many "parties" with interests at stake in the process.

IT was very far from being one unified christianity with one unified set of texts...



(Edited by DL-44 on 02-18-2005 13:55)

^ And on that I agree.

Amen.

If the mathematics is correct (I will assume it is) then what? It sounds like you are saying that the mathematics proved that there is a correlation between Matthew and Luke, and the unknown source. So? If there is a correlation between beer and ice cream sales does that mean that when people buy beer, they are influenced to buy ice cream (and the other way around)? Not really. There is a confounding factor in that situation. That is one reason why I am a little leary about taking this text as a good copy. Mainly because there is no certain date, it has no known author, and it has not been in the Bible.

The Bible has been around for almost 2000 years, and it has not changed since the canon was decided upon. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech, however good, however inspired, however close to the Bible's text it is, is not included in the Bible. That is because the Bible is already set. It does not change. If it did, we would probably be having another "Holy Crusade" right now.

It was set a long time ago by the churches. Many scholars got together and decided upon which texts could be allowed in the Bible. There was a strict rubric. Contrary to popular belief, inspired reading is one of the last, not first things that were checked. This gospel probably did not adhere to the rigorous rubric that the other four did pass.

Hey DL, if I wrote an essay about what God wants in my life, and asked for it to be included in all the prints of the Bible, it would probably get excluded. Would that be wrong or smart? As for forgeries, where is that? If you have found some I would love to take a look at them.


There were a wide variety of Gospels, but how many of them were true, and how many of them stacked up to already agreed upon doctrine? That last one is a key in dismissing many Gospels.

If it were a political issue, they did a rather bad job of it, I think. The Jews especially in the OT. But the NT choices would be really bad for many who wanted to do things that were against original doctrine.

Christianity has always and never been unified. All Christians are unified under Christ, but there are as many views on Christian behavior as there are stars in the sky.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

It sounds like you are saying that the mathematics proved that there is a correlation between Matthew and Luke, and the unknown source. So?

---

And that is the real problem with you, Gideon. You just simply ignore (or throw out) anything that doesn't fit into your version of the faith. You ignore it here - but you forget, that this comes from those who have heavily researched and studied the bible! And then you turn around, and accept the word of those who don't have nearly as much credentials concerning Creationism.

And then you lash out at us, for saying that those who have sponsered your belief in Creationism are not serious scientists. Well, well.

I call you for what you are - a hypocrite.

And no amount of apologizing will change that.

You need to take a real, long look at what really is evidence, and what you accept as factual. Not that you will, but you need to.

quote:

---

Hey DL, if I wrote an essay about what God wants in my life, and asked for it to be included in all the prints of the Bible, it would probably get excluded. Would that be wrong or smart?

---

Ok, remember my earlier diagram? Time to refer to that again.
I can't even fathom what you think this has to do with anything whatsoever.

quote:

---

As for forgeries, where is that? If you have found some I would love to take a look at them.

---

I'll have to look around to recall which books in particular, but it is pretty widely accepted by biblical scholars that several books are forgeries. Ok, so some christians like to refer to them as "pseodonymous writing" instead of the real term "forgery", but it all means the same thing in the end.

quote:

---

If it were a political issue, they did a rather bad job of it, I think. The Jews especially in the OT. But the NT choices would be really bad for many who wanted to do things that were against original doctrine.

---

No idea what you're saying here.

It was very clearly a political situation. Each group wanting their version of christianity to come out on top. The ones who managed to do so made the choices as to what was to be considered christianity.

As for "original doctrine" - do you realize what a contradiction this is?

We are talking about the group of people who decided what "original doctrine" would be. They couldn't possibly go against something that didn't exist in any solid form until they themselves made it so....

quote:

---

It was set a long time ago by the churches. Many scholars got together and decided upon which texts could be allowed in the Bible.

---

Yeah...you may recall that I informed you of that before....and you have several times told me that it was not true.

Interesting that you now are somehow trying to use it to show me I am wrong again.....?

I also, once again, fail to see any relevenace to this disucssion. Nobody has suggested that any modern writings should be added. We are talking about the ones that were around at the time which were not included, and of course the ones that were that we now know to be forgeries.

We are talking about the fact that a group of people did in fact sit down and DECIDE the details of what christianity would be.

Something that you have repeatedly denied ever happened. Until just now, where you're all of a sudden telling us that it is what heppened, but ignoring any of the details.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And that is the real problem with you, Gideon. You just simply ignore (or throw
out) anything that doesn't fit into your version of the faith.

---

No Webshaman, I threw that particular idea out because it wasn't mathematically sound. It had nothing to do with my faith.

I understand that it comes from people who pour through the Bible. But any newly found books are just that: newly found books. I am not saying that there could be neat stuff in there. It could be a great, inspired book like the Shepherd of Hermas is supposed to be. But it is not canonical. That is the main point. There was a reason that it was not included in the Bible. Do you know what that reason is? I think that before these people start showing off their new discovery, however neat it is, they should figure out why it was not originally included in the Bible. Maybe that will shed more light on what the book is about.

And Webshaman (Sangreal will love this if he reads it) you need to remember that when you call me a hypocrite and point your finger at me, at least three point right back at you. I would prefer if you could leave name calling and insults out of your posts, since it only makes you look bad.

Webshaman, I have taken a long look at the evidence. I still am. But the day my opinions and ideas and theories stop changing is the day I die. I have come to many conclusions about myself and the world around me and the God above/beside/within (Father/Son/Holy Spirit) me.

DL, it means that even if I write something that is inspired and meets all the credentials for a Biblical Book, even if it only violates one of the standards, it should not be included in the Bible. Even if it passed all the tests, it would be difficult to add that new book to the Bible. It would be possible, just a long and grueling process.

As for the forgeries please find some. I would love to look through them.

The "original doctrine" I was refering to was the Old Testament texts of history, law, and prophecy. Those were the main make or break point of most NT books.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Yeah...you may recall that I informed you of that before....and you have several
times told me that it was not true.

---

Sorry, you are right that was a word slip up. I meant to use agreed.

You said that they decided upon the issue. I have researched that they only agreed with what the already existant church body had decided. It was not a musky, secretive little meeting. It was open (as open as it could be under the Roman Empire), and probably a really big deal for most people. The people brought the books and the scholars looked at them and compared them to the already agreed upon base of Christianity.

The relevance is, DL, that any books found still has to pass all the tests. If it doesn't, then it obviously should not be included in the Bible. All modern writings already fail. You kinda pointed that out. But the point is that like wise many ancient writings fail too. Does that make them bad books? No. It just means that they are not Bible material.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

I have researched that they only agreed with what the already existant church body had decided.

---

But there simply was no "already existant church body".

It was a very splintered, varied collection of sometimes drastically different church bodies. All using very different collections of scripture to promote and affirm their religion.

quote:

---

the scholars looked at them and compared them to the already agreed upon base of Christianity.

---

There was no "already agreed upon base of Christianity".

Simply did not exist.

quote:

---

No. It just means that they are not Bible material.

---

According to the "winning party" anyway. Many of the books that did not make it into the bible, even those delcared heretical, remained in use for long periods of time among various groups of christians. Their were many gospels. Some more widely read than some of those that did make it into the bible.

You need to understand that it was in fact a matter of different groups vying for control. One group acheived it. They decided what was "orthodox" (meaning 'right thinking' more or less).

Their view was *not* an "already agreed upon" view. It was one of many.

And as in the other thread, this is my final word on the subject. I am certain it will be wasted typing, but clarification was needed.

So long.

quote:

---

And Webshaman (Sangreal will love this if he reads it) you need to remember that when you call me a hypocrite and point your finger at me, at least three point right back at you.

---

You are full of shit, boy. I caught you with your pants down (and so has DL for that matter and others here, multiple times).

Find 'em, and post 'em. Show me these three fingers (for everytime I point out one of yours, you need to provide proof of three of mine - now get busy). And I don't mean "take them out of context" - as you can see with Sangreal's quoting of what I said, it was in no way, shape, or form a hypocrisy.

quote:

---

I would prefer if you could leave name calling and insults out of your posts, since it only makes you look bad.

---

As to whether or not it makes me look bad - pointing out the truth here may be painful, but in this case, necessary. As such, it is not name calling or insults - it is the truth here. You have put yourself in a postion that is hypocrical. I pointed that out (with the evidence). You assert that I am three times a hypocrite as you, but provide no evidence of such - just a vague reference to a post from Sangreal, which turned out not to be what he thought (and he was made aware of that). Again, you are the one here that is engaging in name calling and insults, not I. I may choose hard words to explain this, but soft, gentle words have no weight with you, as DL has so eloquently proved, time and again.

quote:

---

No Webshaman, I threw that particular idea out because it wasn't mathematically sound.

---

Oh, I see...the high school student is telling us that Mathematicians who have devouted their life to mathmatics are wrong! Based on...faith?
Where is your evidence? Come, provide us with some mathematical proof that you are right, and that they are wrong.

Oh wait! We already proved and pointed out, that you cannot even add. No wonder that there is no mathematical proof coming from you showing this "mathematical unsoundness".

You see, if you are going to talk the talk, then you damned well better be able to walk the walk.

(Edited by WebShaman on 02-20-2005 12:55)

The Qumran Chronicles (dead sea scrolls to you Gid) appear to show just what DL was stating...that at the time there were warring factions, each one determined to have it's version of the religion take precedence.

So xianity was born in blood and the nastiest, meanest one won. No wonder this faith of "love and understanding" is historically bathed in blood and remains so to this day.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

(Edited by Ehtheist on 02-20-2005 17:03)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

There was no "already agreed upon base of Christianity". Simply did not
exist.

---

Judism. The Jewish books.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

But there simply was no "already existant church body".It was a very
splintered, varied collection of sometimes drastically different church bodies.
All using very different collections of scripture to promote and affirm their
religion.

---

Do you know that you just contradicted yourself?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

According to the "winning party" anyway.

---

IF there were many parties fighting for control, then you would be right.

Wow Webshaman, slow down, deep breath. Shew. That whole pointing thing I was refering to was an idiom that Sangreal's grandmother used to use. I never said that I can find many contradictions in your posts. It was just something I wanted you to keep in mind before ou started spouting off names and insults. Usually the one doing the insulting is the one the is in the worst shape. That is all, sheesh.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

As such, it is not name calling or insults - it is the truth here.

---

So when you insult me in this thread it is not really an insult? It is truth? I am sure that I have been quilty of being a hypocrite many times. I struggle with it every day. But at least this highschool student is man enough to admit his faults. I try and better myself. I am no dead duck.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Again, you are the one here that is engaging in name calling and insults, not
I.

---

If you can please bring to my attention any insults I have made to you I will publically apologize for them. I can even write you a nice little apology letter if you like. But please do bring them to my attention. I don't like waiting in the dark.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Oh wait! We already proved and pointed out, that you cannot even add.

---

1+1=2, 2+2=4, 3+3=6, 4+4=8, 5+5=10, 6+6=12, 7+7=14, 8+8=16, 9+9=18, 10+10=20 ... How much farther need I go?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Where is your evidence? Come, provide us with some mathematical proof that you
are right, and that they are wrong.

---

The mathematics is a statistical interpretation of the data. So far, I have not had the pleasure of seeing the proofs personally, since they were not on the site, but if I did, I might have more reason to believe it one way or the other. Statistically speaking, correlation between two variables does not always point to a definite conclusion. There could be confounding variables in the data.

(Some college statistic classes do come in handy once in a while.)

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Ohh my..hahahaha this is better than Yannah...

at least his grammatical superiority makes posts worth reading.

Gid you are one big nut around here

quote:

---

Judism. The Jewish books.

---

Which has not the slightest thing to do with what we're talking about. What was decided was what would comprise the new testament. Please pay attention...

quote:

---

Do you know that you just contradicted yourself?

---

Uh.......nope. No contradiction there

quote:

---

IF there were many parties fighting for control, then you would be right.

---

Yes, I know. And as there were many groups fighting for control, that would make me "right". Please learn your history.

*shakes head sadly*

DL has not contradicted himself. And he is right.

And this is a big waste of time, conversing with Gideon on this subject. It is like trying to explain color to the blind.

Gid, if you read the dead sea scrolls ( I don't know if they hav a translation in single syllable words), you will find DL's contention about fragmented tribes warring for supremecy substantially upheld.

While insulting is a fine art and can be quite humerous when practiced well...I am reminded of Churchill and I think it was Lady Astor...she commented if he were a gentlman he would not smoke in the presence of a lady. His riposte was "madame, if you were a lady, you would not mention it". She responded "Sir, if you were my hsband, I should poison you". To which he replied 'Madame, if I were your husband, I would take it".

However, as much fun as that is, if one allows the comments of another to be hurtful to them one merely empowers the silly sod who made the comment. This is even more true where no 'insult' was intended, but nevertheless perceived by the beholder.

Others do not insult us, we allow ourselves to feel slighted...some people even make what appears to be a career out of being insulted.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Fascist Fundamentalists

The religious right is a serious source of concern over erosion of personal rights.

We fought long and hard for women to have the right to control their own bodies, a fight the RR have not stopped. Fortunately here in Canada we have the RR pretty much damped down, though they raise their heads out of the primordial ooze from time-to-time, only to get stomped back down.

Now, in the excited states, RR pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control becaue "it offends their religious views".

This, of course, is completely unacceptable.

These people have no right to force their narrow religious views on others, as has been proven many times in the past.

If they don't want to dispense legal medications they should find another line of work. if they refuse to, they should be fired.

This is just one of the most obvious reasons I despise the religious and their "Higher Purpose Persons" and holier-than-thou attitudes.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Aren't pharmacists privately run? (Perhaps in socialist Canada there is no such thing, I really don't know) But why shouldn't pharmacists be able to run their shops as they see fit in this regard? If you have a government run pharmacy then I quite agree they should not withhold legal drugs.

Making birth the birth control pill illegal is an erosion of personal rights but isn't it also true when forcing private pharmacies to carry drugs they don't want to carry?

But isn't this really a struggle between the RR and people with your views? Don't you want your secular world view forced on everyone else just as many in the RR want theirs to be? Are you interested in true pluralism, or having your "correct" view of things prevail?

How are you any different from them other than the obvious fact that you are radically secular and they are radically religious?

What good is it having you ram your narrow views down my throat as opposed to them? Eh?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I believe the issue boils down to the right to choose.

And in many cases both of you are correct.

1) A person can make the choice not to offer someone else birth control. (Party A)
2) A person who wishes to use birth control they are well within their rights to purchase it. (Party B)

However, neither party A or party B has any right to impose their views on the other. In this way, party B has no right to force party A to carry or sell birth control. And, party A has no right to deny party B from taking an alternate means to purchase birth control.

However, a pharmacist is not just a person. They are a gatekeeper, and as such they give up certain rights in order to be allowed their position. One of the rights they lose is the ability to allow moral ideology to affect their decisions within their profession.

Lets look at some other parallels to this situation.

* An ambulance crew decides not to transport an individual because they have an infectious disease.
* A police officer decides not to assist an individual being robbed because of their skin color.
* A firefighter decides not to perform a rescue because of the victims sex.
* A pharmacist decides not to offer birth control because of their religion.

They are all parallel, and they are all equally wrong. These individuals are not afforded the luxury of allowing their personal moral issues to interfere with their job.

Ultimately they can make professional decisions based on their moral ideologies, the ambulance crew can decide not to transport someone, the police officer can deny assistance, the firefighter can choose not to perform a rescue, and the pharmacist can opt to discontinue offering birth control. However, once they decide not to perform the function of their position because of their moral obligations, they have also made the choice to abandon their position, and if they do not resign of their own free will, they must be removed by an outside force.

Those who would can not meet the responsibilities of a given position can not and should not be allowed to carry on in said position.

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 03-29-2005 19:24)

If the pharmacist is a non government worker then she should be able to choose not to sell certain types of drugs. The other examples you give, Dan, are all government provided services.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Wouldn't a pharmacist generally be an employee of a larger organization, like Wal-Mart, which determines which drugs it will carry? In such a case it is the right of the private establishment to make a choice and very rarely the individual contact's. It would be illegal, however, to carry any product and restrict its sale to any class of citizen not based on medical reasons. For a pharmacy to carry Birth Control X only for Muslims and refuse to sell it to any other individual based solely upon religion is illegal and quite wrong. The only legal way to enforce your beliefs is to boycott the product, not discriminate whilst carrying the product.

(Edited by Nada`King on 03-29-2005 21:51)

quote:

---

They are all parallel, and they are all equally wrong. These individuals are not afforded the luxury of allowing their personal moral issues to interfere with their job.

---

They are *very* far from paralell...to the point of making your statement pretty much absurd.

The first three examples you post are examples where a person who's obligation to citezens is very clear, and aer extreme examples involving the possible immediate loss of someone's life.

Now, there are two possible examples of the problem at hand -

1) the pharmacist in question is an individual working for a company. The company sells birth control pills, but the pharmacist refuses to dispense them.
The employee in question would certainly be subject to diciplanary action based on company policy, and the company could potentially be the subject of litigation based on discrimination. Might not get far, but I'm sure plenty of lawyers would be willing to give it a go.

2) The pharmacy does not carry medications that it considers immoral, including birth control.

I am not familiar enough with the applicable laws to really say, but I don't see any way (or any justification) to force them to carry such things.

The convenience store down the road is not required to sell the brand of soda that I like (or to sell soda at all...).

How is it justifiable to say that the drug store the next block over must carry and dispense whatever medication someone may want?

For any group to force the concept on society, or for legislation to be passed based on these people's views of birth control is plain wrong.

For a government to force their views on a store and make them sell certain things is equally wrong.

The pharmacist is not refusing to serve a customer based on the customer's religion - they are refusing to sell a product that they finid morally wrong.

And that's ok....

http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About_APhA&CONTENTID=2654&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm

http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About_APhA&CONTENTID=2410&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm

Nothing here about denying service due to religious groundss. Seems to me each pharmacist who does, violates their professional code of ethics.

If they want to work somewhere where they don;t have to desal with thses issues, then start a xian pharmacy and make it cear at the door that free-thinking realists are not welcome.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/earlyshow/health/main683753.shtml

Coming soon to a pharmacy near you, religious bigotry.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Wait a second... are we talking primarily about the so called "morning after pill" here? That's not a contraceptive. Doctors are not compelled to perform abortions and I think the same should apply to pharmacists. And that seems to fall perfectly in line with that code of ethics you linked to, Ehthiest.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Nothing here about denying service due to religious groundss. Seems to me each pharmacist who does, violates their professional code of ethics.

---

Completely ludicrous.

Ever heard the phrase "pick your battles"?

This is not a battle with any purpose other than pushing your own agenda in the same that you are condemning them for doing the same.

(btw - nothing in that code about being forced to sell a product you find morally wrong either...)

Hardly ludicrous at all.

These are professionals (allegedly) and it is their profession to dispense medications in a safe and responsible manner.

It is not part of their professional responsibility to decide who gets it and who doesn't and why.

BTW, in BC the morning-after pill is non-prescription. I believe the only reason it is prescriptive in the US is because of the strong religious lobby.

If I have an agenda at all it is not to deny anyone their religious beliefs, no matter how foolish, but to preserve the rights of the rest of us not to be put upon by these narrow and antiquated views.

In the US, those rights are very much in jeopardy under the current theocracy, IMNSHO.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Bottom line: if I own a business, I can decide not to sell certain products at my sole discretion.

That's the point: they're not (according to your presentation of the story) refusing to sell a product to certain people.

They are refusing to sell a certain product at all.

And they have every right to do so.

Yes, if you run a business that is not a government sponsored position. You may say that a pharmisist is not government sponsored, but if you take a simple peak over the counter you will see a nice license granted to the pharmicist by the state/province granting them the right to dispense medications.

You as a web designer and graphic artist are afforded your right to sell products and not sell certain products, you do not need a license granted to you by the government for your position. You are not a govenment authorized gatekeeper, a pharmicist is.

You might think this is absurd, that is fine and you opinion.

However, I feel that if I am being denied a legal product that I feel will have a positive effect on my life (and have a prescription for) by the only people who are authorized by the government to dispenese it, I find that wrong.

Were a pharmicist to deny a party to purchase their nitro, zoloft or penicillin I do not think we would even have a two sided arguement here. There are groups who feel it is wrong to offer medical treatment to individuals should they be allowed to be the ones in charge of controlling the supply of medications? No, of course not.

As for picking your battles. This might be an important issue to pay attention to, I can't judge from where I stand. Most times you will only learn what was really important were when studying the history of the situation. Furter, we all know that there are many here who get polarized on most discussions, that is ok, our discussions here are far from a battle. If we all stop talking then we have really lost.

Dan @ Code Town

Agreed DL, if you decide not to sell a product that is you business. But, when the pharmacy in which you work as the product available, you as an individual have no right to deny that product to a legitimate purchaser strictly on religious grounds, or colour or gender for that matter.

If the pharmacist has that sort of narrow attitude, they may ask someone else to serve the client. If there is no one else and the product is behind the counter (where it has no business being-should be next to the condoms), then they MUST serve or resign or get fired.

It is really very simple. If you offer a product for sale, you cannot legally refuse to sell it to a legitimate buyer.

Can't handle the reality of life? Then get thee to a nunnery...but take lots of condoms.

BTW, the morning-after pill is not an abortificant. If a woman who is already pregnant takes it, it will not affect the womb or the foetus. It is essentially a super birthcontrol pill which has the same effect as a condom.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

but if you take a simple peak over the counter you will see a nice license granted to the pharmicist by the state/province granting them the right to dispense medications.

---

Restaurants and Bars also have such licenses...but they are still not required to sell a product that they do not wish to sell.

quote:

---

If there is no one else and the product is behind the counter (where it has no business being-should be next to the condoms), then they MUST serve or resign or get fired.

---

That I certaily agree with. It's what I mentioned in my first response.

We had a parallel situation briefly here in BC last year. Certain marriage commissioners refused to perform same-gender marriages.

It was surprising how many found their paycheques held greater authority with them than their "moral/religious" objections.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/01/birth.control.governor.ap/index.html

Good example of why individual opinions don't matter so much. The law still does work from time to time, in spite of knee-jerk reactions stating the opposite

Or, better put:

quote:

---

? Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it ?
? Thomas Jefferson , 1801
First Inaugural Address. March 4, 1801.

---

(Edited by DL-44 on 04-02-2005 05:52)

^Amen to that!

I don't know if this is all a religious battle, bud. I think it is more about the pharmacist not wanting to give death to a not-yet-born-baby. He/She may just not want to be resposible for that. Which in that case I would agree that he/she could resign or what not. But then, some like to be the pillars of justice and go against the grain. They may think: I could have stopped them if I had stayed on the job, I could have saved a life. Then they get the guilt thing again.

BTW, do you know much about Lucretius, or did you just like his quote?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Good article DL, thanks, gives one hope.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

DL-44:

quote:

---

Restaurants and Bars also have such licenses...but they are still not required to sell a product that they do not wish to sell.

---

Yep, but Bar tenders do not make the Hippocratic Oath.

Regarding the article on CNN.com. In France, it works like that. And more, minors can go to a doctor and/or a pharmacists and ask for birth control prescription or a morning-after pill and they can NOT refuse it nor inform the parents ( thanks to the medical secret ).



(Edited by poi on 04-04-2005 04:50)