NationStates Jolt Archive

Without reading the post, yes.

The Muslim leaders in a certain German state have argued so, on the basis of their religious law.

The link is Der Spiegel - hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology or American journalism.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,467360,00.html

In another regional case, the judges had to decide whether a class excursion was mandatory for a Muslim girl. In their ruling of 2002, they parroted the language of a fatwa issued two years previously. The former chairman of the Islamic Religious Community in Hesse had stipulated that a Muslim woman not accompanied by a mahram, a male blood relative, must not stray more than 50 miles from her home - because this is the distance a caravan of camels can travel in 24 hours.

Camels are something of an anomaly on the German autobahn these days. Sympathetic judges nonetheless recommended sending the 15-year-old brother along as a mahram. Given her fear of losing her headscarf or violating other religious laws, the schoolgirl’s condition, they argued, was comparable to that of a “partially mentally handicapped person.” She therefore needed somebody to accompany her; otherwise, she should not be forced to take part in the trip, they reasoned.

Are there any community leaders whom you respect, who argue that women are comparable to "partially mentally handicapped" persons?

Ah, yes, because a few religious nutsoes in Germany seem to feel this way it must mean all of the "EBIL MUSLIMS" feel this way. Surely that would be just as foolish as judging all Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church, no?

For that matter, I fail to see why they could even think she was "partially mentally handicapped" in the first place anyway. It makes no sense and seems more like innate cultural sexism on the part of those few leaders rather than anything to do with Islam.

I wouldn't call it 'partially mentally handicapped'. I would call it, "Another victim of religious dogma'. Though the symptoms are remarkably similar. :p

The Muslim leaders in a certain German state have argued so, on the basis of their religious law.

The link is Der Spiegel - hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology or American journalism.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,467360,00.html



Are there any community leaders whom you respect, who argue that women are comparable to "partially mentally handicapped" persons?You've misinterpreted what the judge has tried to explain. Edit: because it was the judge who called her 'partially mentally handicapped' and not the Muslim with the fancy job title.

...

I think I can be bothered to continue. What he means is that the girls indoctrination is so extreme that this particular girl has the equivalent of a mental disability or a mental illness.

You've misinterpreted what the judge has tried to explain.

...

I think I can be bothered to continue. What he means is that the girls indoctrination is so extreme that this particular girl has the equivalent of a mental disability or a mental illness.

EO misinterpret?!? :eek: Say it ain't so! ;)

The Muslim leaders in a certain German state have argued so, on the basis of their religious law.

The link is Der Spiegel - hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology or American journalism.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,467360,00.html



Are there any community leaders whom you respect, who argue that women are comparable to "partially mentally handicapped" persons?

No. The closest I can think of would be Pat Robertson, or Bill McCartney the founder of the Promise Keepers. But none that I respect.

Ah, yes, because a few religious nutsoes in Germany seem to feel this way it must mean all of the "EBIL MUSLIMS" feel this way. Surely that would be just as foolish as judging all Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church, no?

Show me where I said all of them.

These are particular community leaders in a particular place.

If you took the care to read the whole article, they are describing multiple similar problems in multiple areas in Germany.

I am asking if you have any community leaders that you respect who believe such nonsense.

Keep your deliberate distortions of my posts out of the thread.

You've misinterpreted what the judge has tried to explain.

...

I think I can be bothered to continue. What he means is that the girls indoctrination is so extreme that this particular girl has the equivalent of a mental disability or a mental illness.

No, I think you missed it.

The people argued before the judge that she was "comparable" to a person with a mental disability because she had to obey her religious rules. The judge just went along with it. (German judge, Muslim advocate).

EO misinterpret?!? :eek: Say it ain't so! ;)I know. I think hell just froze over.

No, I think you missed it.

The people argued before the judge that she was "comparable" to a person with a mental disability because she had to obey her religious rules. The judge just went along with it. (German judge, Muslim advocate).You suck at reading comprehension.Given her fear of losing her headscarf or violating other religious laws, the schoolgirl’s condition, they argued, was comparable to that of a “partially mentally handicapped person.”There is no reference to who this 'they' are in this sentence. We therefore go back to the previous sentence to examine which plurality of people was refered to. In this case it was 'judges'.Sympathetic judges nonetheless recommended sending the 15-year-old brother along as a mahram.

You suck at reading comprehension.There is no reference to who this 'they' are in this sentence. We therefore go back to the previous sentence to examine which plurality of people was refered to. In this case it was 'judges'.

I assumed that the "they" was the person who originally argued that she be limited to a range of a camel's journey.

You know how many camels there are in Germany. I assumed that the idiotic arguments belonged together, and that judges in Germany (optimistic of me I guess) don't have their collective heads up their asses.

You're not even trying anymore Eve. It's like everytime you make a new thread to boast conserative morale you only convince me how stupid the ideal really is. At least Corny is intellegent, this is just half hearted effort. I'm undecided as to what you are exactly: extremely misguided or a joke.

Muslims are evil!

*hits the panic button*

I assumed that the "they" was the person who originally argued that she be limited to a range of a camel's journey.Indeed, your bias has lead you to make an assumption when confronted with a poorly constructed paragraph, instead of re-reading to see what the writer was really trying to say.
You know how many camels there are in Germany. I assumed that the idiotic arguments belonged together, and that judges in Germany (optimistic of me I guess) don't have their collective heads up their asses.The reason for the religious law is stupid/outdated/whatever. For instance we use automobiles now, and not camels.

However, the journalist has latched on to the fact that there are very few camels in Germany (I think Germany might have quite a few camel farms though - I seem to remember that idiot of a woman, Janet Street Porter, went over to Germany to investigate the health benefits of camel milk). The writer then goes on to presume that the logic behind judges' reasoning is that you don't find camels on Autobahns. Either that or he/she/it is attempting to be humourous. But regardless, that there are no camels on German autobahns has nothing to do with the judges' reasoning.

edit: It seems I suck at sentence construction currently. I must have used all my energy up on essays. :(

Keep your deliberate distortions of my posts out of the thread.

You're right. I'm just so used to you babbling on about the evil Muslims that I just inserted it without thinking. How dare I? :rolleyes:

Get real, Eve. You only posted this to make Muslims look bad and you know it. The Infinite Dunes shows your bias for what it is.

These are particular community leaders in a particular place.

I am asking if you have any community leaders that you respect who believe such nonsense.


We've got a few community leaders here like that, but I don't respect them. It's amazing how many suckers they can get though.

You get many types of nutso community leaders these days from all across the board. Some are funny (I bet LG has a clique of his own), some are unfunny (Jehova's witness), and some should be shot in the back and buried.

You know, I'm thinking this whole Muslim thing isn't really about religion. I mean, look at what happened in Pakistan with the cricket (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1028125)...the people in that region are just naturally very angry, I think.

Are there any community leaders whom you respect, who argue that women are comparable to "partially mentally handicapped" persons?

Many American leaders advocate this view of women to varying extents. For instance, many of our leaders (including our president) insist that female human beings are not capable of making rational, moral choices in regards to their personal medical care the way that male human beings are capable of doing. We have laws in place which reflect the belief that other people (primarily wealthy white males) need to make such choices for women, since women cannot be trusted to make the "right" choice on their own.

You know, I'm thinking this whole Muslim thing isn't really about religion. I mean, look at what happened in Pakistan with the cricket (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1028125)...the people in that region are just naturally very angry, I think.

There you go generalizing... (ooh, what a BAD pun...)

Many American leaders advocate this view of women to varying extents. For instance, many of our leaders (including our president) insist that female human beings are not capable of making rational, moral choices in regards to their personal medical care the way that male human beings are capable of doing. We have laws in place which reflect the belief that other people (primarily wealthy white males) need to make such choices for women, since women cannot be trusted to make the "right" choice on their own.

Exactly.

Are there any community leaders whom you respect, who argue that women are comparable to "partially mentally handicapped" persons?
Well, I know one whom you respect and who views women as incapable of making informed rational choices about their own bodies:
George W Bush.
He is anti-prochoice now, isn't he?

Many American leaders advocate this view of women to varying extents. For instance, many of our leaders (including our president) insist that female human beings are not capable of making rational, moral choices in regards to their personal medical care the way that male human beings are capable of doing. We have laws in place which reflect the belief that other people (primarily wealthy white males) need to make such choices for women, since women cannot be trusted to make the "right" choice on their own.

I always thought you were an Aussie.

Hum... must have badly misread something somewhere.

:(

You've misinterpreted what the judge has tried to explain. Edit: because it was the judge who called her 'partially mentally handicapped' and not the Muslim with the fancy job title.

...

I think I can be bothered to continue. What he means is that the girls indoctrination is so extreme that this particular girl has the equivalent of a mental disability or a mental illness.
Just as I've always thought; religion is indeed a mental handicap, no matter the religion itself. That's a good point, and after reading the article I am inclined to agree with your interpretation.

Gimme some of that old time religion....

I always thought you were an Aussie.

Hum... must have badly misread something somewhere.

:(
Cool! I've always wanted to go to Australia. My parents went, and my dad got to hold a wombat. :D

So... does this thread still have any point, since it's been misinterpreted?

So... does this thread still have any point, since it's been misinterpreted?To boost my ego?

Is there anyone on the planet, male or female, who isn't partially mentally handicapped? :p

To boost my ego?
Bah, what you've accomplished here is like beating George W. Bush at strategy games. :p

Is there anyone on the planet, male or female, who isn't partially mentally handicapped? :p

I'm not mentally handicap... just moderately insane, 'they' say. After all, I ethnically cleansed my computer of any HP products... *gets a slightly crazed look in her eye*

So... does this thread still have any point, since it's been misinterpreted?

Well, we could continue to discuss how little difference there is in the attitudes toward women between many Muslims and many Christians...

Bah, what you've accomplished here is like beating George W. Bush at strategy games. :pYeah, well, no one else did it. So that means I'm better than you. :p

Well, we could continue to discuss how little difference there is in the attitudes toward women between many Muslims and many Christians...
Or we could discuss which is cooler:
wearing a cape
or
wearing a bowler hat

Well, we could continue to discuss how little difference there is in the attitudes toward women between many Muslims and many Christians...

Got a link that shows Christians believe that women are equivalent to partially mentally handicapped people?

Got a link that shows Christians believe that women are equivalent to partially mentally handicapped people?

See Bottle's post above--abortion law in the US seems to suggest exactly that.

See Bottle's post above--abortion law in the US seems to suggest exactly that.

I don't think it's comparable.

Anything remotely like restricting unaccompanied women to within a camel's ride of their home?

You see, we're looking for that medieval level of ridiculousness.

I don't think it's comparable.

Anything remotely like restricting unaccompanied women to within a camel's ride of their home?

You see, we're looking for that medieval level of ridiculousness.
Just because you don't like the comparison, that doesn't make the comparison any less valid. Both involve males claiming that women are incapable of making decisions for themselves as regards their own bodies. The difference is one of degree, not kind.

Just because you don't like the comparison, that doesn't make the comparison any less valid. Both involve males claiming that women are incapable of making decisions for themselves as regards their own bodies. The difference is one of degree, not kind.

Degree is of vast importance. And the comparison is not valid.

Degree is of vast importance.

Not to what we are talking about.

Either you believe that women are full human beings with the same rights and responsibilities as male human beings, or you don't.

Degree is of vast importance. And the comparison is not valid.

The comparison is absolutely valid--both are cultures dominated by men who believe that women are incapable of making certain decisions for themselves. And the closer you get to the extremes in both religions, the more similarities you get. Is there a significant difference between the Pentecostal argument that women shouldn't cut their hair and should only wear dresses as a sign of modesty and the fundamentalist Muslim claim that women should never let their hair or skin show to any man but a husband or male relative? Not to me.

Gee, I'm a Pentecostal, and we don't have anything at the Assemblies of God that says that women should not cut their hair or only wear dresses.

That sounds more like Primitive Baptist to me.

Read what Nazz said. "The closer you get to the extremes in both religions..."

If you compare MODERATE Christians to extreme ends of the Muslim spectrum, then you're going to get a skewed picture. If you compare moderate Pentecostals to radical Muslims, then yes, the Pentecostals will look more moderate. Gee whiz.

But if you compare the people who are at the extreme ends of both religions, then they are extremely similar. Moderate Christians are about as patriarchal as moderate Muslims (which is to say, pretty patriarchal, but not enough to bother the average Joe). Extreme Muslims are about as patriarchal as extreme Christians.

The comparison is absolutely valid--both are cultures dominated by men who believe that women are incapable of making certain decisions for themselves. And the closer you get to the extremes in both religions, the more similarities you get. Is there a significant difference between the Pentecostal argument that women shouldn't cut their hair and should only wear dresses as a sign of modesty and the fundamentalist Muslim claim that women should never let their hair or skin show to any man but a husband or male relative? Not to me.

Gee, I'm a Pentecostal, and we don't have anything at the Assemblies of God that says that women should not cut their hair or only wear dresses.

That sounds more like Primitive Baptist to me.

We have women pastors who lead churches.

Get your facts straight before you make comments.

The Muslim leaders in a certain German state have argued so, on the basis of their religious law.

The link is Der Spiegel - hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology or American journalism.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,467360,00.html

Are there any community leaders whom you respect, who argue that women are comparable to "partially mentally handicapped" persons?

Those idiots are wholly mentally handicapped.

A large part of the abortion law in my country is based on the reasoning that women are not fit to make their own life decisions when they are pregnant. All involved were at the time highly respected leaders in their respective areas - none suffered any particular or significant loss of public respect as a result of advocating and/or endorsing such a point of veiw.

I don't think it's comparable.

Anything remotely like restricting unaccompanied women to within a camel's ride of their home?

You see, we're looking for that medieval level of ridiculousness.

I would view modern medicine's view of the female body as medieval.

Since women's genitalia are considered unclean, especially when the uterus is cleaning itself, we have these products that are supposed to keep women's vaginas clean, but often lead to things like toxic shock syndrome. Or the commonly acceoted idea that pregnancy and childbirth are equivalent to a disease or injury. Don't get me started on a healthcare system that effectively removes women's controls over their bodies when they are giving birth in hospitals. Do you have any idea how many unnecessary episiotomies are done each year?

Yes, I do find that attitude medieval.

I would view modern medicine's view of the female body as medieval.

Since women's genitalia are considered unclean, especially when the uterus is cleaning itself, we have these products that are supposed to keep women's vaginas clean, but often lead to things like toxic shock syndrome. Or the commonly acceoted idea that pregnancy and childbirth are equivalent to a disease or injury. Don't get me started on a healthcare system that effectively removes women's controls over their bodies when they are giving birth in hospitals. Do you have any idea how many unnecessary episiotomies are done each year?

Yes, I do find that attitude medieval.

That's a better point than was made by others.

I have often wondered why women are "talked into" Cesareans when they have perfectly functional vaginas for delivering babies.

That's a better point than was made by others.

It's the exact same point with a tiny bit more explanation.

Ah, yes, because a few religious nutsoes in Germany seem to feel this way it must mean all of the "EBIL MUSLIMS" feel this way. Surely that would be just as foolish as judging all Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church, no?

For that matter, I fail to see why they could even think she was "partially mentally handicapped" in the first place anyway. It makes no sense and seems more like innate cultural sexism on the part of those few leaders rather than anything to do with Islam.


In my opinion the muslim leaders in a certain german state are the ones who are mentally handicapped. Oh and these mentally handicapped muslin leaders need to stay out of America with this nonsense because I will send you packing personally, if I hear you saying that here ... believe it!

It's the exact same point with a tiny bit more explanation.

Nope.

Such powerful opposing logic!
Hey, show a little gratitude...Eve Online likes to make sure that even mentally-disadvantaged females can follow the conversation, so he keeps things nice and simple.

Nope.

Such powerful opposing logic!

Such powerful opposing logic!

I think what I'm pointing out is the deliberate derision in your post, accompanied by the misstatements about Pentecostals.

That was missing in the more elaborate post.

I think what I'm pointing out is the deliberate derision in your post, accompanied by the misstatements about Pentecostals.

That was missing in the more elaborate post.

What part of extreme is hard to understand? Have you looked at the situation of women in any society that has had a patriarchal setup and a strong religious base? You end up with women being subjugated and having their rights set up as inferior to those of men. Hell this fair country of ours didn't even think women needed to vote until halfway through the last fucking century.

We're really advanced, aren't we?

What part of extreme is hard to understand? Have you looked at the situation of women in any society that has had a patriarchal setup and a strong religious base? You end up with women being subjugated and having their rights set up as inferior to those of men. Hell this fair country of ours didn't even think women needed to vote until halfway through the last fucking century.

We're really advanced, aren't we?

IIRC the UK and I think also the US did not even recognise a married womans right to own posessions, even posessions that were hers before the marriage, until a little over 100 years ago.

IIRC the UK and I think also the US did not even recognise a married womans right to own posessions, even posessions that were hers before the marriage, until a little over 100 years ago.

Oy, we're a fucking bastion of civil liberties for women, aren't we?

Is it a myth or really ture that pharmacists in the US used to be able to refuse to sell a woman contraceptions (including Condoms) if they were not married?

Or is that just a crazy myth?

Is it a myth or really ture that pharmacists in the US used to be able to refuse to sell a woman contraceptions (including Condoms) if they were not married?

Or is that just a crazy myth?
Not only is that true, but it happens today. Pharmacists refuse to provide medications to women simply because the pharmacist doesn't believe women should get to use those medications. This includes birth control pills and Plan B (which, as must constantly be restated, is NOT "the abortion pill"). There are current efforts to pass laws that would ensure pharmacists have the right to refuse to serve female customers in this manner without fear of punishment or firing. In other words, we have a current fight to make sure that it is completely legal to discriminate against women and deny them access to legal medications.

Not only is that true, but it happens today. Pharmacists refuse to provide medications to women simply because the pharmacist doesn't believe women should get to use those medications. This includes birth control pills and Plan B (which, as must constantly be restated, is NOT "the abortion pill"). There are current efforts to pass laws that would ensure pharmacists have the right to refuse to serve female customers in this manner without fear of punishment or firing. In other words, we have a current fight to make sure that it is completely legal to discriminate against women and deny them access to legal medications.

Sadly, it goes beyond that, there are laws proposed that would allow hospitals to get away with not telling women who have been raped that such medication even exists, let alone refuse to provide it. Gah, sometimes when I think about this ... :headbang:

Not only is that true, but it happens today. Pharmacists refuse to provide medications to women simply because the pharmacist doesn't believe women should get to use those medications. This includes birth control pills and Plan B (which, as must constantly be restated, is NOT "the abortion pill"). There are current efforts to pass laws that would ensure pharmacists have the right to refuse to serve female customers in this manner without fear of punishment or firing. In other words, we have a current fight to make sure that it is completely legal to discriminate against women and deny them access to legal medications.

In the UK a pharmacist can refuse to proscribe the morning after pill, however I am not sure if they can refuse to fill a proscription for it. (the mornign after pill is available both on proscription from a doctor and also on demand from the pharmacist with different rules about dispensing and prices - cheaper with a doctors proscription) I worked in a pharmacy through university and while they looked for a replacement for the pharmacist who had moved elsewhere they went though a sucession of locums who refused to give out the mornign after pill - about 5 in all. When the permanant one started I asked her on the first day if she gave it out (so I could tell customers without holding things up) and she said "of course. why wouldn't I?" I told her about the last 5 locums and her response was along the lines that such people have no business working in the profession and she could not believe it was still allowed in this day and age.

The cannot refuse to provide the regular pill.

Do you know if it was also true about condoms?

In the UK a pharmacist can refuse to proscribe the morning after pill, however I am not sure if they can refuse to fill a proscription for it. (the mornign after pill is available both on proscription from a doctor and also on demand from the pharmacist with different rules about dispensing and prices - cheaper with a doctors proscription) I worked in a pharmacy through university and while they looked for a replacement for the pharmacist who had moved elsewhere they went though a sucession of locums who refused to give out the mornign after pill - about 5 in all. When the permanant one started I asked her on the first day if she gave it out (so I could tell customers without holding things up) and she said "of course. why wouldn't I?" I told her about the last 5 locums and her response was along the lines that such people have no business working in the profession and she could not believe it was still allowed in this day and age.

The cannot refuse to provide the regular pill.

Do you know if it was also true about condoms?

Condoms I wouldn't know, though I imagine those would be included under rules for "following one's conscience." They get away with this because most people won't stand up and make a sufficient fuss when refused. And if the need for the morning-after pill is great enough, I guess most people will just leave (after perhaps a few choice words) and find somewhere else they can get it.

The whole thing sucks, and Bottle's put it more eloquently than I could.

A little off the authors intended subject aren't we?

A little off the authors intended subject aren't we?Welcome to NSG.

Not only is that true, but it happens today. Pharmacists refuse to provide medications to women simply because the pharmacist doesn't believe women should get to use those medications. This includes birth control pills and Plan B (which, as must constantly be restated, is NOT "the abortion pill"). There are current efforts to pass laws that would ensure pharmacists have the right to refuse to serve female customers in this manner without fear of punishment or firing. In other words, we have a current fight to make sure that it is completely legal to discriminate against women and deny them access to legal medications.

This is just half the story. I am of the opinion that a medical practitioner is entitled to refuse to do something when s/he thinks that s/he can't do or if it is against his/her beliefs. Taking this away would be a perfect example of coercion and trampling upon the rights of the medical practitioner.

HOWEVER (I'm not done yet), that medical practitioner MUST refer the patient to somebody who has no qualms about the procedure. In this way, the wishes and the rights of the patient are still respected, they are in no way discriminated, and we do not give undue burden to medical practitioners when a conflict of belief arises.

This is just half the story. I am of the opinion that a medical practitioner is entitled to refuse to do something when s/he thinks that s/he can't do or if it is against his/her beliefs. Taking this away would be a perfect example of coercion and trampling upon the rights of the medical practitioner.

HOWEVER (I'm not done yet), that medical practitioner MUST refer the patient to somebody who has no qualms about the procedure. In this way, the wishes and the rights of the patient are still respected, they are in no way discriminated, and we do not give undue burden to medical practitioners when a conflict of belief arises.
Of course the medical practitionor could ahve always chosen a profession that did not require them to be in such a position as an integral part of their job.

Can a soldier join the army as an infantryman and then refuse to fight people based on their religious beliefs (assuming voluntary joining, not conscription)? The made the choice on joining - if they have beliefs that prevented them from doing the job they should not have joined.

Also - in many places there are no other nearby pharmacies/doctors and/or the other pharmacists and doctors share the same belief - thus collectively denying the patient the care they want.

Of course the medical practitionor could ahve always chosen a profession that did not require them to be in such a position as an integral part of their job.

Can a soldier join the army as an infantryman and then refuse to fight people based on their religious beliefs (assuming voluntary joining, not conscription)? The made the choice on joining - if they have beliefs that prevented them from doing the job they should not have joined.


Taking on a job should not have to mean that you have to surrender the rights inherent in you.

And there is such a thing as conscientious objection, my friend, even in medical fields. I think you might be confusing discipline and obedience for coercion :) .

Also - in many places there are no other nearby pharmacies/doctors and/or the other pharmacists and doctors share the same belief - thus collectively denying the patient the care they want.
Might be true, but not all would follow their belief. I am in the land of Catholics, but I know lots of them who wouldn't follow Catholic teaching not to give out artificial contraceptives.

This is just half the story. I am of the opinion that a medical practitioner is entitled to refuse to do something when s/he thinks that s/he can't do or if it is against his/her beliefs. Taking this away would be a perfect example of coercion and trampling upon the rights of the medical practitioner.

HOWEVER (I'm not done yet), that medical practitioner MUST refer the patient to somebody who has no qualms about the procedure. In this way, the wishes and the rights of the patient are still respected, they are in no way discriminated, and we do not give undue burden to medical practitioners when a conflict of belief arises.
I believe in holding medical professionals to at least the same minimum standards as, say, waiters.

In my country, a waiter does not get to refuse to serve steak to women simply because it is against their personal moral code. We require waiters to serve male and female patrons, black and white patrons, Christians and atheists, and we fire waiters who refuse to serve certain people. This is not "coercion," because the waiter was hired to perform a job and they are refusing to perform that job.

A pharmacists is hired to provide medications as directed by doctors and patients. The pharmacist is charged to refuse service only for medical reasons. In other words, if a pharmacist notices that a patient has prescriptions for two medications that will interact in a dangerous manner, the pharmacist is supposed to object and consult with the doctor immediately, instead of just feeding the patient what may be dangerous or even lethal drugs.

Now, lots of drugs have harmful side effects, yet a patient will choose to take them and their doctor will agree that it is an acceptable course of treatment. For instance, my aunt had to take medications to treat her cancer which caused her to effectively become infertile. Infertility is a serious medical problem, and her pharmacist was acting appropriately when he asked her if she was fully aware of this risk when he first filled her prescription. However, the pharmacist is NOT empowered to over-rule the physician and patient on these matters. The pharmacist would have been totally, completely, 100% out of line if he refused to provide her medications because he personally disagreed with her choice to take it.

If a person has a moral objection to providing legal medications at the direction of doctors and the request of patients, then that person should not be a pharmacist. If a person chooses to take a job as a pharmacist, then they must be prepared to fulfill the responsibilities of that job. ALL THE TIME. Not just when they feel like it. Not just when they like it. But all the time. They don't get to pick and choose which responsibilities they will fulfill. If they fail to fulfill their responsibilities, they deserve to be fired.

Taking on a job should not have to mean that you have to surrender the rights inherent in you.

You don't have a right to be employed as a pharmacist. Nobody is obligated to give you a job or to let you keep a job that you refuse to perform. If you don't want to do the job, you are completely free to not do it...just don't expect to receive a paycheck if you aren't going to do your job. That's not coercing you or oppressing you in any way.


And there is such a thing as conscientious objection, my friend, even in medical fields. I think you might be confusing discipline and obedience for coercion :) .

Nobody is forcing pharmacists to hand out 'scripts against their will. They are free to quit, if they don't want to do the job. That is what a person of real principle would do. What some losers are doing is refusing to do their job but insisting that they still get paid. That's not "conscientious objection," that's self-righteous BS.

This is just half the story. I am of the opinion that a medical practitioner is entitled to refuse to do something when s/he thinks that s/he can't do or if it is against his/her beliefs. Taking this away would be a perfect example of coercion and trampling upon the rights of the medical practitioner.

HOWEVER (I'm not done yet), that medical practitioner MUST refer the patient to somebody who has no qualms about the procedure. In this way, the wishes and the rights of the patient are still respected, they are in no way discriminated, and we do not give undue burden to medical practitioners when a conflict of belief arises.

First aid workers cannot refer their patients to others on the basis of personal beliefs.

Members of the society has the right to their personal beliefs and an obligation to fullfill their responsibilities to the society. Medical practitioners may believe that a treatment, say abortion, is morally wrong, and they are entitiled to campagining for criminalising it.

That does not mean they can deny providing it when it is legal.

--snip--

I think you are dwelling so much on that first point you have made.

The medical practitioner HAS to REFER that person to somebody else (in the immediate vicinity) who is willing to perform the procedure. I don't see being referred to another person who can do it probably better and without objection a violation of your rights.

But you can't do this just when you just feel like it. It's not just at whim. It is not done to every job somebody is faced with. You have to have good reasons why before you can do this. I think there is some misrepresentation here, but I understand. We are speaking from different sides. ;)

(BTW, it is nobody's job to do things against their will. And think of it another way. If we fire folks just because of their beliefs and leave those who subscribe to a certain set of beliefs, then surely that is discrimination. In a time where diversity is being promoted and tolerated, why is unnecessary conformity being enforced in certain sectors/professions?)

First aid workers cannot refer their patients to others on the basis of personal beliefs.

Because in doing so will directly infringe on the vital right to life, without which all other rights cannot be enjoyed.


Members of the society has the right to their personal beliefs and an obligation to fullfill their responsibilities to the society. Medical practitioners may believe that a treatment, say abortion, is morally wrong, and they are entitiled to campagining for criminalising it.

That does not mean they can deny providing it when it is legal.

Then if somebody does that, then s/he is being hypocritical. S/He criticizes something that s/he him/herself does.

Also, legality does not mean everyone must do it. If it says that "abortion is legal," it just means that it is permitted. When they say that "nude dancing is legal", should your restaurant be forced to have nude dancing just to satisfy those who want it? I think not.

I think you are dwelling so much on that first point you have made.

The medical practitioner HAS to REFER that person to somebody else (in the immediate vicinity) who is willing to perform the procedure. I don't see being referred to another person who can do it probably better and without objection a violation of your rights.

But you can't do this just when you just feel like it. It's not just at whim. It is not done to every job somebody is faced with. You have to have good reasons why before you can do this. I think there is some misrepresentation here, but I understand. We are speaking from different sides. ;)

(BTW, it is nobody's job to do things against their will. And think of it another way. If we fire folks just because of their beliefs and leave those who subscribe to a certain set of beliefs, then surely that is discrimination. In a time where diversity is being promoted and tolerated, why is unnecessary conformity being enforced in certain sectors/professions?)

I think the issue is that, if it were to be possible to "refer", then it is also poissible to say that "sorry, no one in the country is willing to do this".

(BTW I shoudln't have put abortion as an example eh...)

I think the issue is that, if it were to be possible to "refer", then it is also poissible to say that "sorry, no one in the country is willing to do this".

(BTW I shoudln't have put abortion as an example eh...)

I understand those scenarios. It is easy to use a referral system when in the hospital, clinics, or in population centers, but when you go to the rural communities where you are the only medical practitioner, things would change. It'll be a case-to-case basis, on whether which carries more weight: the practitioner's right to self-determination, to the patient's right to health services.

My point is that it should never be a hard-and-fast rule that patient's wants are to be given preponderance or that practitioner's rights take precedence.

It depends on the case. I reacted because I believed that the practitioner's rights are being forgotten and are being deemed nonexistent.

PS: I am off to bed now. My head and eyes hurt now, and it's 1:40AM here.

The medical practitioner HAS to REFER that person to somebody else (in the immediate vicinity) who is willing to perform the procedure. I don't see being referred to another person who can do it probably better and without objection a violation of your rights.
And as stated - very often there is not someone in the immediate vicinity. Your assumption that there *might* be someone about is simply not good enough.


(BTW, it is nobody's job to do things against their will. And think of it another way. If we fire folks just because of their beliefs and leave those who subscribe to a certain set of beliefs, then surely that is discrimination. In a time where diversity is being promoted and tolerated, why is unnecessary conformity being enforced in certain sectors/professions?)
You should not take a job as a waiter in a steakhouse if you are a vegan and want to refuse to serve people meat.
You should not take a job as chief engineer on a nuclear submarine if you oppose nuclear power and refuse to run the engines.
You should not choose to join the army in a combat role if you are not prepared to carry out functions inherent in the role of a soldier.
You should not choose a career as a pharmacist if you are not prepared to fill a doctors proscription.
You should not take a job as a teacher if you are not prepared to teach the subjects required.
You should not take a job as a doctor if you are not prepared to treat black/white/asian/whoever people

These are all inherent in the careers mentioned - and there are countless others. Nobody is forcing you into the career (assuming no conscription) and in choosing it you are taking the responsibility to perform the duties relevent to it.

Ah, yes, because a few religious nutsoes in Germany seem to feel this way it must mean all of the "EBIL MUSLIMS" feel this way. Surely that would be just as foolish as judging all Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church, no?

For that matter, I fail to see why they could even think she was "partially mentally handicapped" in the first place anyway. It makes no sense and seems more like innate cultural sexism on the part of those few leaders rather than anything to do with Islam.

islam is not a religion but a cult. A cult for mentally handicapped who need a rule for everything.

Islam is the problem, not 'a few' religious nutsos.

Islam has committed 7000+ terrorist attacks in the last 6 years. Other religions combined don't even add up to a few 100.

islam is not a religion but a cult. A cult for mentally handicapped who need a rule for everything.

Islam is the problem, not 'a few' religious nutsos.

Islam has committed 7000+ terrorist attacks in the last 6 years. Other religions combined don't even add up to a few 100.:fluffle: You're funneh.

trollin' trollin' trollin'
trollin' trollin' trollin'
trooooolllllhiiiiiiddee



:(

:(But all he needs is love. If you fluffle him enough then he'll stop. No wait, I might be thinking of muffle. With like a pillow or something.

Oh wait; Islam has anachronistic veiwes upn women that are irreconcilable to post-feminist western societies? My word, whatever next?

But all he needs is love. If you fluffle him enough then he'll stop. No wait, I might be thinking of muffle. With like a pillow or something.

All he needs is love? What are you, some pinko-commie fellow-travelling Islamofascist freedom-hating ... uhm ... like that that John Lennon feller? Huh? Are ya?

:D

:(

truth hurts don't it?

islam is the cause, I repeat, islam is the cause of those peoples behaviour.

Ever properly read the Qu'ran?

truth hurts don't it?

islam is the cause, I repeat, islam is the cause of those peoples behaviour.

Ever properly read the Qu'ran?

Yes, I have. I found no mention of suicide bombers or terrorism.

I would like you to back up these numbers with a source, please.

Islam has committed 7000+ terrorist attacks in the last 6 years. Other religions combined don't even add up to a few 100

And just so that everything is perfectly clear:

News reports often create the impression that Islam is a source of terrorism. Note, though, that suicide attacks are a relatively new, alien element in the history of mainstream Islam. The Koran rejects suicide, and classical Islamic legal texts consider it a serious sin. True, a fighter who dies for faith or another noble cause is held in great esteem in both legal and cultural tradition, and those who die on the path of God are promised immediate recompense. Individuals or Islamic sects have used political assassinations (including an 11th-century Shiite sect in Northern Iran, the corrupted nickname of which is the origin of the term "assassin"). Those fighters, however, did not commit suicide attacks. Also, suicide attacks and other forms of terrorism have been carried out by people belonging to other established religions, too, and by individuals professing no religious faith at all. Timothy McVeigh's heinous terrorist attack on American soil, for instance, cannot be linked to organized religion.

Alan B. Krueger is a professor of economics and public policy at Princeton University. Jitka Malecková is an associate professor of Middle Eastern studies at Charles University, in Prague. (http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i39/39b01001.htm)

The study linked above was in a thread a few days ago. I liked it because it was refreshingly non-partisan.

The study linked above was in a thread a few days ago. I liked it because it was refreshingly non-partisan.

refreshingly non-partisan? You mean stunningly revisionist.

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.'”

The Ayatollah Khomeini

"Allah, may he be praised, said… ‘Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for internal strife [Fitna] is worse than killing.’"

The Qur’anic verse quoted by the Abu Hafs Al-Masri Brigades in explaining the murder of 202 Madrid train commuters

"We killed them outside their land, praise be to Allah. Today, we kill them in the midst of their own home.

O Allah, revive an entire nation by our deaths. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr.

To the Garden of Eden, our first house. We shall meet in the eternal Paradise with the prophets, honest people, martyrs and righteous people. They are the best of companions. Praise be to Allah. Allah's peace, mercy and blessings be upon you. "

Ahmad al-Haznawi, Flight 93 Hijacker

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment
of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

The Qur'an:

Sura (2:191) - And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]


Sura (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority." This speaks directly of killing Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').


Sura (4:74) - Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.


Sura (4:89) - They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks


Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement


Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them


Sura (9:5) - So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them


Sura (9:29) - Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!


Sura (9:111) - Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.


Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.


Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill.


Ishaq: 327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”


Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."


Islam, changing lives for the deader!

You will find maybe 1 or 2 verses in the bible like that, but the Quran literally contains hundreds, and other islamic texts also. The Qu'ran contains way more threats and commands to kill than even Mein kampf does.

There may be moderate muslims, but there sure as heck aint no moderate islam. Moderate islam is that something like moderate Nazism?

Islam is not a religion, but a cult of death. Muhammad was no prophet but a murderer, rapist, warmonger etc... and Allah is just a figment of psycho Mo's imagination.

Islamic terrorist attack count since 9/11: 7780

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm


Yes, because we all know that a site created by anonymous bloggers that is dedicated to attacking Islam, Muslims, and anyone who thinks of Muslims as human is totally non-partisan, and is much more reliable than a professor of Islamic studies .

refreshingly non-partisan? You mean stunningly revisionist.

You didn't read it, did you?

Islam, changing lives for the deader!

You will find maybe 1 or 2 verses in the bible like that, but the Quran literally contains hundreds, and other islamic texts also. The Qu'ran contains way more threats and commands to kill than even Mein kampf does.

Actually, I found a site that lists over 850 examples of cruelty in the Bible.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Does this mean that Christianity is a cause of terrorism? According to your logic, it does.

Islamic terrorist attack count since 9/11: 7780

I do not believe this number. Back it up with a source.

*Snip*
Did you actually read the article before posting? I found it quite easy to understand what was written.
So... does this thread still have any point, since it's been misinterpreted?
We could make one... We could attack the judges for arguing such stupidity back in 2002 and shout "Boo!" and go "Hiss!"
Islam is the problem, not 'a few' religious nutsos.:rolleyes:
islam is the cause, I repeat, islam is the cause of those peoples behaviour.
Islam is the cause of why the judges said what they did? How so, pray tell?
Ever properly read the Qu'ran?
Ever read the article in the OP?
There may be moderate muslims, but there sure as heck aint no moderate islam. Moderate islam is that something like moderate Nazism?
Oh dear, the level of ignorance is simply staggering.

Islam is not a religion, but a cult of death. Muhammad was no prophet but a murderer, rapist, warmonger etc... and Allah is just a figment of psycho Mo's imagination.
So I take it that you're an active atheist.

Islamic terrorist attack count since 9/11: 7780
Utter bullshit.

The Muslim leaders in a certain German state have argued so, on the basis of their religious law.

The link is Der Spiegel - hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology or American journalism.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,467360,00.html

Are there any community leaders whom you respect, who argue that women are comparable to "partially mentally handicapped" persons?

Well, in all honesty, due to her religious brainwashing, that young girl may seem to be in a state equivalent to "partial mental handicap." That's what I hate about authoritarian religions or philosophies, they make their victims believe that they deserve restrictions.