Walgreens Allows Pharmacists To Not Dispense Drugs They Object To

[quote name='camoor']I guess that I believe both the company and the pharmacist are at fault. The "just following policy" excuse doesn't hold much water with me.[/QUOTE]

But is it the employees responsibility to read up on federal and state laws when an employer clearly states that it's ok? You can make an argument that killing a person should be obvious, but denying medicine that you believe is ending a life is different.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But is it the employees responsibility to read up on federal and state laws when an employer clearly states that it's ok? You can make an argument that killing a person should be obvious, but denying medicine that you believe is ending a life is different.[/QUOTE]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The woman brought her prescription for medicine to the pharmacist in good faith that it would be filled in a timely manner.

US law dictates that these pills are legal.

It seems to me that there was a tacit agreement between the customer and the pharmacy that was broken by Walgreens, and this could have had dire consequences (IE an unwanted pregnancy). I blame both the man behind the counter for not grasping the concept of how a store operates (IE you sell the merchandise in the store to people who want to purchase it) and the poorly written / thought-out store policy.
 
[quote name='camoor']You said you wanted a mature debate. Why don't you start following your own advice.[/QUOTE]

I get tired of your empty attacks. So when I ask that you actually cite some kind of fact instead of personal attacks I get more attempts to label me as a christian as if that would strenghten your argument. If you have such a big problem with what happened, then you might want to try a little bit of the rationality you tried to fault me for using. Place the blame where it belongs (on Walgreens), find this supposed law they are breaking, and hold them accountable. If it turns out there is no such law (and since no one has actually pointed it out, I suspect there isn't), then try addressing how to get such a law drafted by fostering a discussion about the personal constitutional rights that are at stake (for the customer and the salesperson) with at least a somewhat unbiased attitude. Bringing up arguments that have already been made and rebutted without bringing anything enw to the table besides your vitriolic attempts at character assassination forces everyone to rehash these things unnecessarily.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I get tired of your empty attacks. So when I ask that you actually cite some kind of fact instead of personal attacks I get more attempts to label me as a christian as if that would strenghten your argument. If you have such a big problem with what happened, then you might want to try a little bit of the rationality you tried to fault me for using. Place the blame where it belongs (on Walgreens), find this supposed law they are breaking, and hold them accountable. If it turns out there is no such law (and since no one has actually pointed it out, I suspect there isn't), then try addressing how to get such a law drafted by fostering a discussion about the personal constitutional rights that are at stake (for the customer and the salesperson) with at least a somewhat unbiased attitude. Bringing up arguments that have already been made and rebutted without bringing anything enw to the table besides your vitriolic attempts at character assassination forces everyone to rehash these things unnecessarily.[/QUOTE]

Does this have anything to do with a christian pharmacist refusing to sell prescription medicine to customers? No? Then let's get back to the arguement. This is the last time I'm responding to a personal attack from you in this thread as well.
 
Pardon me for thinking that this thread would amount to more than a religion bashing thread. When people said they were worried about a bad precedent being set, I thought they were showing a real interest in making sure things like this shouldn't happen again. Apparently, I was wrong in thinking people were interested in reading or posting real solutions, since my last post was obviously off topic. I won't sidetrack your argument any longer.
 
[quote name='camoor']Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The woman brought her prescription for medicine to the pharmacist in good faith that it would be filled in a timely manner.

US law dictates that these pills are legal.

It seems to me that there was a tacit agreement between the customer and the pharmacy that was broken by Walgreens, and this could have had dire consequences (IE an unwanted pregnancy). I blame both the man behind the counter for not grasping the concept of how a store operates (IE you sell the merchandise in the store to people who want to purchase it) and the poorly written / thought-out store policy.[/QUOTE]

But does u.s. law dictate they must be sold? What I've seen of evidence in this thread it probably does, but isn't completely clear in this case and is somewhat open to interpretation.

That being said, ignorance of the law is an excuse when it actually comes down to it, true they could charge them the same, but in practice it is often a valid excuse, especially on less obvious things. But when the employer is telling you it's okay, you're going to be hard pressed to go after the employee, and I doubt you'd get very far in court.

Though they had the correct understanding of how the store operates, since they could refuse to sell it and they did.

Though, on a side note, you really should cut down on the religion attacks, that's an opinion best kept to yourself. It does nothing but rob credibility, and make you look like a radical. You just look like the opposite of the type of people you're arguing against, different but no better. When you hear a person complaining about the agenda of "Radical atheists and pagans", or refer to those atheists evolutionary scientists (remember chunk?), don't you just dismiss them?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But does u.s. law dictate they must be sold? What I've seen of evidence in this thread it probably does, but isn't completely clear in this case and is somewhat open to interpretation.

That being said, ignorance of the law is an excuse when it actually comes down to it, true they could charge them the same, but in practice it is often a valid excuse, especially on less obvious things. But when the employer is telling you it's okay, you're going to be hard pressed to go after the employee, and I doubt you'd get very far in court.

Though they had the correct understanding of how the store operates, since they could refuse to sell it and they did.
[/QUOTE]

I guess we'll have to agree that there's a difference between your position and mine. I believe ignorance of the law is not an excuse, especially in such an obvious case such as this. The economy and freedoms of the US are based on the concept of honest trade, if a store clerk cannot grasp the concept then they should be replaced. If they cause harm by witholding medicine then they should be held legally accountable.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Though, on a side note, you really should cut down on the religion attacks, that's an opinion best kept to yourself. It does nothing but rob credibility, and make you look like a radical. You just look like the opposite of the type of people you're arguing against, different but no better. When you hear a person complaining about the agenda of "Radical atheists and pagans", or refer to those atheists evolutionary scientists (remember chunk?), don't you just dismiss them?
[/QUOTE]

I guess I believe that we need a little of the old Thomas Paine / Thomas Jefferson spirit back in this country. People need to wake up, too many are being lulled to sleep by stories, mythological tales labeled as literal truth by dogmatic and fundamentalist religious authorities.

America is a democracy, a capitalistic democracy. I admit that I do have an emotional response when I see the rights of consumers being trampled by powerful religious groups and the corporate policies of big corporations. Perhaps you are correct that it would be to my arguement's advantage to deny this, but after the success of Fox News and George W's political career, it seems that people are being swayed by not only the message but the passion by which it is delivered. And you will get no sly George W winks from me, I come by my passion honestly.
 
[quote name='camoor']I guess I believe that we need a little of the old Thomas Paine / Thomas Jefferson spirit back in this country. People need to wake up, too many are being lulled to sleep by stories, mythological tales labeled as literal truth by dogmatic and fundamentalist religious authorities.

America is a democracy, a capitalistic democracy. I admit that I do have an emotional response when I see the rights of consumers being trampled by powerful religious groups and the corporate policies of big corporations. Perhaps you are correct that it would be to my arguement's advantage to deny this, but after the success of Fox News and George W's political career, it seems that people are being swayed by not only the message but the passion by which it is delivered. And you will get no sly George W winks from me, I come by my passion honestly.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think it is that the republican/religious fundamentalist party appears to be so strong right now? Is it just the public being lulled by the supposed strength srength of conviction they argue in their platform? What is it they have that the democrats don't?
 
[quote name='atreyue']Why do you think it is that the republican/religious fundamentalist party appears to be so strong right now? Is it just the public being lulled by the supposed strength srength of conviction they argue in their platform? What is it they have that the democrats don't?[/QUOTE]

I think the Republican party has the strength of their convictions and bold new ideas. I don't agree with many of their closely held ideals, but I do acknowledge that they are coming up with plans of action that they believe will solve problems.

The Democrats currently have little message beyond criticizing the blunders of the Republican party. IMO this is the chief issue that the Democratic party must address in coming years.

The religious fundamentalists have little real political power. Bush throws them a bone every once in a while (IE Shaivo) but what political goals do these actions really accomplish?

The real damage occurs when the religious right starts to think that their beliefs are somehow mandated by the government / election results, and they do dangerous things like withold time-sensitive medications from patients in the name of their god.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think the Republican party has the strength of their convictions and bold new ideas. I don't agree with many of their closely held ideals, but I do acknowledge that they are coming up with plans of action that they believe will solve problems.

The Democrats currently have little message beyond criticizing the blunders of the Republican party. IMO this is the chief issue that the Democratic party must address in coming years.

The religious fundamentalists have little real political power. Bush throws them a bone every once in a while (IE Shaivo) but what political goals do these actions really accomplish?

The real damage occurs when the religious right starts to think that their beliefs are somehow mandated by the government / election results, and they do dangerous things like withold time-sensitive medications from patients in the name of their god.[/QUOTE]

I agree with everything you've said here. I can't help but think that this whole attitude is the backlash of policies in previous administrations that were a little too liberal, although I'd be hard-pressed to point out exactly which ones. Even though this country was founded on christianity and christian ideals, I don't see any reason for it to stay that way, necessarily. If the door on this age of religious terrorism is to be closed, I think that a system of ethics/morals that tries to balance the needs of the individual with those of the group as a whole has to be established.

I wonder what exactly the hole is in the liberal democratic party's rhetoric that allowed things to deteriorate to this point. Is it too much of a focus on individualism within the democracy and not enough individualism from an economic standpoint?

Is there room to take the point of views of both of the participants in this case into consideration and find a satisfactory answer? Does anyone know if Walgreens' policy exists as allowance to its employees or as a concession?
 
[quote name='atreyue']I agree with everything you've said here. I can't help but think that this whole attitude is the backlash of policies in previous administrations that were a little too liberal, although I'd be hard-pressed to point out exactly which ones. Even though this country was founded on christianity and christian ideals, I don't see any reason for it to stay that way, necessarily. If the door on this age of religious terrorism is to be closed, I think that a system of ethics/morals that tries to balance the needs of the individual with those of the group as a whole has to be established.
[/QUOTE]

Considering only (if I remember correctly) 2 of the 10 commandments are law (a third, lying, is legal except for purgury), and that many of the founding fathers were deists, I don't see how you can say it was founded on christianity. You could argue that christianity is so pervasive in society, especially then, that everything was/is based on it to some extent, but I can't see it going beyond that.

Though, considering clinton made the party more moderate, I wouldn't contribute it to an increasing in liberalism among democrats. The extensive network of talk radio, direct mailing and other means of reaching sympathetic minds, has contributed greatly to republican success. America being a conservative, religious country also played into their hands, since the nation, as a whole (civil rights movement and forced desegregation, abortion, internationalism, environmentalism etc.), began moving away, in various ways, from many of the beliefs of conservatives, christians, and rural residents. It isn't to hard to get them to believe they are under attack and need to fight back. It's something that has been building up and, more recently, has finally been harnessed. The democrats haven't done this.
 
[quote name='camoor']Nazi prison guards were allowed to kill Jews under the terms of their employment.[/QUOTE]

I really wish that people actually paid heed to Goodwin's law.
 
[quote name='atreyue']
Is there room to take the point of views of both of the participants in this case into consideration and find a satisfactory answer? Does anyone know if Walgreens' policy exists as allowance to its employees or as a concession?[/QUOTE]

I can see a very good reason for this allowance when it is used properly. Sometimes doctors perscribe the wrong medication, for example a medication know to cause problems to people with low blood pressure to an individual with low blood pressure. With this conession the pharmasist can refuse to distribute the pill without the pharmacy itself being responsible.

That being said if a pharmaist does not wish to distribute the morning after pill perhaps he should spend his time campaigning to have it remove from the pharmacy rather than going on a personal one man crusade, there is nothing worse than a store where 4 out of 5 employees will sell you something but the 5th will not. At least if the store doesn't carry them (as many stores in my state do not) people will go to the locations that do rather than wasting everyone's time.
 
Well I brought it up two pages ago, but its relevant again now. It seems Walgreen's policy is similar to several state laws that protect the right of the pharmacist to refuse dispensation of medicine that goes against their moral beliefs.

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds,
Click to expand...

This is from an article Judyjudyjudy posted back on page 2, where the same thing has happened at other pharmacies. So it's not something exclusive to Walgreens.
 
[quote name='camoor']Of course soldiers are employed.[/QUOTE]

If you call forced enrollment at gunpoint "employment", then so be it.
 
[quote name='camoor']Nazi prison guards were allowed to kill Jews under the terms of their employment.[/QUOTE]

Ooh, you got me. Those things are completely analagous :roll:
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Considering only (if I remember correctly) 2 of the 10 commandments are law (a third, lying, is legal except for purgury), and that many of the founding fathers were deists, I don't see how you can say it was founded on christianity. You could argue that christianity is so pervasive in society, especially then, that everything was/is based on it to some extent, but I can't see it going beyond that.[/QUOTE]

Point ceded.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though, considering clinton made the party more moderate, I wouldn't contribute it to an increasing in liberalism among democrats. The extensive network of talk radio, direct mailing and other means of reaching sympathetic minds, has contributed greatly to republican success. America being a conservative, religious country also played into their hands, since the nation, as a whole (civil rights movement and forced desegregation, abortion, internationalism, environmentalism etc.), began moving away, in various ways, from many of the beliefs of conservatives, christians, and rural residents. It isn't to hard to get them to believe they are under attack and need to fight back. It's something that has been building up and, more recently, has finally been harnessed. The democrats haven't done this.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't saying that the democrats are responsible for the current state of affairs for the nation. I'm just curious as to whether or not a particular party policy is responsible for the current state of the democratic party. And did people really need to be convinced that they needed to fight back? Teenage pregnancy, extremely high divorce rates, single family homes, etc. are all depressingly normal for Americans in this day and age. I think that there are still a lot of people who remember that things weren't like this before and are trying to figure out what went wrong with the world now that they are witnessing a generation raised with the selfish values that they themselves embraced. It seems that the republicans are trying (or at least appearing to try) to redress this issue, even if they are going about it the wrong way. Meanwhile the Democrats seem to ignore the underlying social problems of the nation. Why is the party afraid to take a stand on the real issues, or do you guys think tha they are right to ignore them?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I can see a very good reason for this allowance when it is used properly. Sometimes doctors perscribe the wrong medication, for example a medication know to cause problems to people with low blood pressure to an individual with low blood pressure. With this conession the pharmasist can refuse to distribute the pill without the pharmacy itself being responsible.

That being said if a pharmaist does not wish to distribute the morning after pill perhaps he should spend his time campaigning to have it remove from the pharmacy rather than going on a personal one man crusade, there is nothing worse than a store where 4 out of 5 employees will sell you something but the 5th will not. At least if the store doesn't carry them (as many stores in my state do not) people will go to the locations that do rather than wasting everyone's time.[/QUOTE]

I realize it probably wasn't too clear, but when I talked about allowances vs. concessions I was asking if they decided to give this to their employees or their employees demanded this priviledge of the company. I do agree with what you said, though.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I realize it probably wasn't too clear, but when I talked about allowances vs. concessions I was asking if they decided to give this to their employees or their employees demanded this priviledge of the company. I do agree with what you said, though.[/QUOTE]

I understand what you meant, I simply wanted to state that it seemed like one of those arrangements which was beneficial to both parties.
 
[quote name='atreyue']
I wasn't saying that the democrats are responsible for the current state of affairs for the nation. I'm just curious as to whether or not a particular party policy is responsible for the current state of the democratic party. And did people really need to be convinced that they needed to fight back? Teenage pregnancy, extremely high divorce rates, single family homes, etc. are all depressingly normal for Americans in this day and age. I think that there are still a lot of people who remember that things weren't like this before and are trying to figure out what went wrong with the world now that they are witnessing a generation raised with the selfish values that they themselves embraced. It seems that the republicans are trying (or at least appearing to try) to redress this issue, even if they are going about it the wrong way. Meanwhile the Democrats seem to ignore the underlying social problems of the nation. Why is the party afraid to take a stand on the real issues, or do you guys think tha they are right to ignore them?[/QUOTE]

Teen pregnancy is something that democrats and liberals are trying to limit, problem is we got all these people who don't want to teach kids about safe sex, maybe you've heard of them? Those same people also don't seem to want teens to be able to have access to these emergency pills that stop pregnancy, or abortions.

Divorce rates are not a concern I have, people get married and find out it was a bad idea, it's better they go their separate ways than stay together. If there's a kid more of an effort should be made, but if the relationship isn't working it isn't worth it. There's a family down the street that has stayed together for their kids, the father has repeatedly said (to my mother) that he can't stand his wife, and his wife has said similar things. You can hear them shouting every other night or so about 12 houses away when you stand outside my house. That's not a healthy environment for a kid. Besides, the same people who want to lower divorce rats often don't want people to live together before marriage, the same thing that would allow people a better understanding of what they are getting into.

Single parent families often go back to the unwanted or teen pregnancy issue. Something you could do is institute job training, improve schools, increase access to higher education, put more of an emphasis on rehabilitation in prison (since it isn't uncommon that the father has been imprisoned and didn't actually leave the kids). Also, to improve conditions of such families, you could have free daycare and more monetary aid so the single parent isn't forced to spend all day working (often more than 1 job), essentially leaving the kid either in someone elses care all day, or on the streets throughout the day when they are older.

I think your wondering of "why don't we focus on the real issues" reflects your own personal biases and concerns. Abortion, gay rights (and civil rights overal), the environment, access to education, poverty, sex education etc. are all real issues, some even effecting what you've mentioned. As far as I'm concerned, many of the issues republicans are focusing on are non issues. You just have to realize, those same non issues are very important to some other people.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Ooh, you got me. Those things are completely analagous :roll:[/QUOTE]

Haha, I retracted that point 10 posts ago. Get with the times elprincipe.

Oh that's right - you're a devout "true-believer" christian. You guys are never with the times.

Anyone else get the feeling that in 50 years christian fundamentalist jokes are going to replace Amish jokes?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Teen pregnancy is something that democrats and liberals are trying to limit, problem is we got all these people who don't want to teach kids about safe sex, maybe you've heard of them? Those same people also don't seem to want teens to be able to have access to these emergency pills that stop pregnancy, or abortions.

Divorce rates are not a concern I have, people get married and find out it was a bad idea, it's better they go their separate ways than stay together. If there's a kid more of an effort should be made, but if the relationship isn't working it isn't worth it. There's a family down the street that has stayed together for their kids, the father has repeatedly said (to my mother) that he can't stand his wife, and his wife has said similar things. You can hear them shouting every other night or so about 12 houses away when you stand outside my house. That's not a healthy environment for a kid. Besides, the same people who want to lower divorce rats often don't want people to live together before marriage, the same thing that would allow people a better understanding of what they are getting into.

Single parent families often go back to the unwanted or teen pregnancy issue. Something you could do is institute job training, improve schools, increase access to higher education, put more of an emphasis on rehabilitation in prison (since it isn't uncommon that the father has been imprisoned and didn't actually leave the kids). Also, to improve conditions of such families, you could have free daycare and more monetary aid so the single parent isn't forced to spend all day working (often more than 1 job), essentially leaving the kid either in someone elses care all day, or on the streets throughout the day when they are older.

I think your wondering of "why don't we focus on the real issues" reflects your own personal biases and concerns. Abortion, gay rights (and civil rights overal), the environment, access to education, poverty, sex education etc. are all real issues, some even effecting what you've mentioned. As far as I'm concerned, many of the issues republicans are focusing on are non issues. You just have to realize, those same non issues are very important to some other people.[/QUOTE]

Let's look at teen pregnancy. My personal bias is that kids shouldn't be having sex. If they do have sex, it should be safe sex; but that doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be having sex at all. If I decide to treat the issues that arise from kids having sex without making any attempt to encourage kids not to have sex, then I'm not really dealing with the problem. Can't we teach safe sex without condoning it? I just feel that the way the situation is approached sends kids a message I'm uncomfortable with: There's no problem with you having sex, just watch out for these problems that could arise as a result. Now, I don't neccessarily think that it's the job of the government to help us instill the correct values in our children, but conversely they shouldn't hinder it. And conspiring with a child to keep important information from their parents does interfere with a parent's ability to do his/her job. I think that the 'well, these things will happen, might as well make the best of it' attitude has caused many to lose faith in the liberals. There has to be some kind of solution that addresses the fundamental problem without ignoring the stuff you mentioned. Simply saying that the other side's approach isn't really satisfactory doesn't mean that yours is.

Now that divorce is common, has the idea of marriage being a real lasting committment changed? Or did just as many people want to get divorced before but weren't allowed to?
 
[quote name='atreyue']Let's look at teen pregnancy. My personal bias is that kids shouldn't be having sex. [/QUOTE]

And why shouldn't they be having sex?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']And why shouldn't they be having sex?[/QUOTE]

Do you feel that your 13 year old girl should be having sex? I know I don't want mine to. For one thing, kids just aren't capable of consistently making decisions that will really benefit them no matter what they think, otherwise no one would need parents. When it's something with as many possibly harmful repercussions as sex, that only rises. You can educate kids all you want, there's nothing wrong with that. But it still won't change the fact that they aren't ready to handle it. If kids really could (and should) take care of themselves, then they should be responsible for themselves. People always want to give children the benefits of adulthood with none of the responsibilities.

Why should kids be having sex?
 
[quote name='atreyue']Do you feel that your 13 year old girl should be having sex? I know I don't want mine to. For one thing, kids just aren't capable of consistently making decisions that will really benefit them no matter what they think, otherwise no one would need parents. When it's something with as many possibly harmful repercussions as sex, that only rises. You can educate kids all you want, there's nothing wrong with that. But it still won't change the fact that they aren't ready to handle it. If kids really could (and should) take care of themselves, then they should be responsible for themselves. People always want to give children the benefits of adulthood with none of the responsibilities.

Why should kids be having sex?[/QUOTE]

13 year olds? I'm talking 17 and above here and why shouldn't they have sex? They are going to make stupid mistakes, better they learn young than when they are 21+ and no one is watching their asses. If you shelter people they are never going to become the discision makers you expect them to be.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Let's look at teen pregnancy. My personal bias is that kids shouldn't be having sex. If they do have sex, it should be safe sex; but that doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be having sex at all. If I decide to treat the issues that arise from kids having sex without making any attempt to encourage kids not to have sex, then I'm not really dealing with the problem. Can't we teach safe sex without condoning it? I just feel that the way the situation is approached sends kids a message I'm uncomfortable with: There's no problem with you having sex, just watch out for these problems that could arise as a result. Now, I don't neccessarily think that it's the job of the government to help us instill the correct values in our children, but conversely they shouldn't hinder it. And conspiring with a child to keep important information from their parents does interfere with a parent's ability to do his/her job. I think that the 'well, these things will happen, might as well make the best of it' attitude has caused many to lose faith in the liberals. There has to be some kind of solution that addresses the fundamental problem without ignoring the stuff you mentioned. Simply saying that the other side's approach isn't really satisfactory doesn't mean that yours is.

Now that divorce is common, has the idea of marriage being a real lasting committment changed? Or did just as many people want to get divorced before but weren't allowed to?[/QUOTE]

My problem with your view about teaching safe sex is that you expect kids to live their whole lives up to 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days in the dark about safe sex and then as soon as they turn 18 you say "Ok Johnny, goto college and have a good time". All they will learn is anecdotal tales about safe sex from friends, I'd also like a mature scientific opinion on safe sex presented to them. If the kids are fundamentalist religious followers, then they can opt out and chant their "no spreading before the wedding" mantras that will banish all lustful feelings. Just don't leave the more moderate kids in the lurch.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']If you shelter people they are never going to become the discision makes you expect them to be.[/QUOTE]

Wizzuh wha... ;)
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']13 year olds? I'm talking 17 and above here and why shouldn't they have sex? They are going to make stupid mistakes, better they learn young than when they are 21+ and no one is watching their asses. If you shelter people they are never going to become the discision makers you expect them to be.[/QUOTE]

I mentioned 13 because the girl originally talked about was 13. Otherwise, I guess every parent should get to decide how to raise and disciple their kids. Why shouldn't they drink or use drugs or do anything they want while still kids too? By your logic that's fine. And there are parents who don't mind their own kids drinking, so that's their decision. But if you just let kids do whatever, they are never going to learn to make good decisions. Sheltering isn't the same as teaching responsibilty.
 
[quote name='camoor']My problem with your view about teaching safe sex is that you expect kids to live their whole lives up to 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days in the dark about safe sex and then as soon as they turn 18 you say "Ok Johnny, goto college and have a good time". All they will learn is anecdotal tales about safe sex from friends, I'd also like a mature scientific opinion on safe sex presented to them. If the kids are fundamentalist religious followers, then they can opt out and chant their "no spreading before the wedding" mantras that will banish all lustful feelings. Just don't leave the more moderate kids in the lurch.[/QUOTE]

I've got no problem with teaching kids about sex and safe sex, since it's best to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. I just think that without at least letting them know that they shouldn't be having sex the education turns into advocation. I'm also sure there are plenty of non-religious moderate people out there who think that their children shouldn't be getting it on.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I mentioned 13 because the girl originally talked about was 13. Otherwise,[/QUOTE]
:shock: I referance back to first post? I am impressed.:lol:

[quote name='atreyue']
But if you just let kids do whatever, they are never going to learn to make good decisions. Sheltering isn't the same as teaching responsibilty.[/QUOTE]
If you don't let your children do anything you'll dump them into the world and they will be unable to cope with it. I've always felt moderation and reasoning is far more important to "good discision" making than discipline and morals. Let people smoke a cigarette and cough up a lung, if they reach for a second then you go into explainations of why not to smoke and if that doesn't work then you resort to disipline. Humans always learn best from trial and error, if discipline is their primary reason for not doing something what happens when you remove the heavy hand of parental justice? I've seen far to many "good kids" go bad in college because while they had morals these morals weren't backed by enough solid fact and away from home they were lost to the wind.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I've got no problem with teaching kids about sex and safe sex, since it's best to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. I just think that without at least letting them know that they shouldn't be having sex the education turns into advocation. I'm also sure there are plenty of non-religious moderate people out there who think that their children shouldn't be getting it on.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Sounds like we both disagree with abstinence-only sex education, which is something the current presidential administration advocates.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']:shock: I referance back to first post? I am impressed.:lol:[/QUOTE]

It did take a lot of courage on my part, I admit.

[quote name='zionoverfire']If you don't let your children do anything you'll dump them into the world and they will be unable to cope with it. I've always felt moderation and reasoning is far more important to "good discision" making than discipline and morals. Let people smoke a cigarette and cough up a lung, if they reach for a second then you go into explainations of why not to smoke and if that doesn't work then you resort to disipline. Humans always learn best from trial and error, if discipline is their primary reason for not doing something what happens when you remove the heavy hand of parental justice? I've seen far to many "good kids" go bad in college because while they had morals these morals weren't backed by enough solid fact and away from home they were lost to the wind.[/QUOTE]

Here's the way I look at it. When your child is very young (pre-8 or so) you really can't try to depend on any sort of reasoning skills, so it's "because Mommy and /or Daddy (how progressive of me1 ;) ) say so". When they get old enough to understand more, I believe you should add reasoning to the mix, but there's no need to scrap discipline altogether.
 
[quote name='atreyue']It did take a lot of courage on my part, I admit.[/quote]

I'd go with equal parts courage and remembering what this topic was about in the first place.

[quote name='atreyue']
Here's the way I look at it. When your child is very young (pre-8 or so) you really can't try to depend on any sort of reasoning skills, so it's "because Mommy and /or Daddy (how progressive of me1 ;) ) say so". When they get old enough to understand more, I believe you should add reasoning to the mix, but there's no need to scrap discipline altogether.[/QUOTE]
I agree that discipline is very important with the young and you should never scrap it all together I have always been very distrubed by parents who rely on it no matter the age of the child. After a certain age it seems to do quite a bit more hard than good.
 
[quote name='camoor']Haha, I retracted that point 10 posts ago. Get with the times elprincipe.

Oh that's right - you're a devout "true-believer" christian. You guys are never with the times.

Anyone else get the feeling that in 50 years christian fundamentalist jokes are going to replace Amish jokes?[/QUOTE]

Geez, I posted when something was directed as a reply to me, not after reading the rest of the thread. When people say something to me, I tend to respond.

In any case, your hatred of Christians is really sickening. And I never said I was a "true believer." I've not talked at all about my religious beliefs on this board and intend to continue that.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Geez, I posted when something was directed as a reply to me, not after reading the rest of the thread. When people say something to me, I tend to respond.

In any case, your hatred of Christians is really sickening. And I never said I was a "true believer." I've not talked at all about my religious beliefs on this board and intend to continue that.[/QUOTE]

What do you want elpricipe, would you like me to retract the post again?

As for the "hatred of christians" part, it's untrue. How could I hate an entire religion based on beautiful concepts such as "love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek", and tales such as "the good Samaritan".

I just think that ignorance is the cause of so much suffering in the world, and if there is such a thing as evil, then willful ignorance is one of the most egregious sources. No one is more guilty of willful ignorance then fundamentalists and baptists (if you don't believe me, then check out the "evolution vs creationism" or "baptists expel practitioners with minority political postitions" threads).

I don't buy "compassionate conservatism" and I think that many (if not most) American christians are hypocrites who don't really understand the teachings of the crucified one. I'm sure this sentence sounds revolutionary, but then again I'm sure they said the same thing about Martin Luther in his time.
 
[quote name='camoor']What do you want elpricipe, would you like me to retract the post again?

As for the "hatred of christians" part, it's untrue. How could I hate an entire religion based on beautiful concepts such as "love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek", and tales such as "the good Samaritan".

I just think that ignorance is the cause of so much suffering in the world, and if there is such a thing as evil, then willful ignorance is one of the most egregious sources. No one is more guilty of willful ignorance then fundamentalists and baptists (if you don't believe me, then check out the "evolution vs creationism" or "baptists expel practitioners with minority political postitions" threads).

I don't buy "compassionate conservatism" and I think that many (if not most) American christians are hypocrites who don't really understand the teachings of the crucified one. I'm sure this sentence sounds revolutionary, but then again I'm sure they said the same thing about Martin Luther in his time.[/QUOTE]


You seem to have a hatred for what christianity has become, and while I have little problem with that, you seem to also have problems with followers of modern christianity. It's one thing to hate those, like falwell, who want the country to be run like that, but you treat it like there's a vast conspiracy where every christian is out to ruin america. You don't seem to see them as individuals, just one mass herd. One of the problems is that fits with many people perception of liberals and, while you're really not going to have an effect of people beliefs, it's famous liberals like you, who are on tv and in print, who just strengthen and reinforce that stereotype. It also makes it harder for a liberal who doesn't care what religion does, as long as it isn't playing a role in government, because people automatically assume that what they say, and the majority of liberals and what they say, have something against religion and religious people. Again, members of this board are really insignificant in the end, but the famous people who often have similar ways of thinking aren't.
 
[quote name='camoor']What do you want elpricipe, would you like me to retract the post again?[/quote]

No, just to not criticize me for responding to your response to my post.

[quote name='camoor']As for the "hatred of christians" part, it's untrue. How could I hate an entire religion based on beautiful concepts such as "love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek", and tales such as "the good Samaritan".

I just think that ignorance is the cause of so much suffering in the world, and if there is such a thing as evil, then willful ignorance is one of the most egregious sources. No one is more guilty of willful ignorance then fundamentalists and baptists (if you don't believe me, then check out the "evolution vs creationism" or "baptists expel practitioners with minority political postitions" threads).

I don't buy "compassionate conservatism" and I think that many (if not most) American christians are hypocrites who don't really understand the teachings of the crucified one. I'm sure this sentence sounds revolutionary, but then again I'm sure they said the same thing about Martin Luther in his time.[/QUOTE]

For someone who claims not to hate Christians, you sure talk like someone who does hate Christians. Look at your last paragraph, for example, calling most American Christians hypocrites. You seem to want to believe the worst about Christians, that they are ignorant liars and hypocrites, based on the words and actions of a few. That sounds a lot like prejudicial hatred to me.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']For someone who claims not to hate Christians, you sure talk like someone who does hate Christians. Look at your last paragraph, for example, calling most American Christians hypocrites. You seem to want to believe the worst about Christians, that they are ignorant liars and hypocrites, based on the words and actions of a few. That sounds a lot like prejudicial hatred to me.[/QUOTE]

First off, I didn't say that many christians are liars. Willful ignorance is different, it's deliberately deceiveing the mind, and I believe that the christians who engage in it probably have good intentions. However nothing good can come from an ignorance born out of turning a blind eye to one's true perceptions.

I don't want to believe anything. Why would I want to argue against what is currently the most powerful political group in America if I saw nothing wrong with their policy positions?

Noone is better at playing the "we're persecuted" card better then a fundamentalist/radical christian who would otherwise lose the hearts and minds of level-headed American citizens. I'm trying to wake people up before we have the bench full of men who mistake the bible for the constitution, we have the 10 commandments in every courtroom, and we lose the freedom of certain civil rights that church leaders deem to be immoral.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You seem to have a hatred for what christianity has become, and while I have little problem with that, you seem to also have problems with followers of modern christianity. It's one thing to hate those, like falwell, who want the country to be run like that, but you treat it like there's a vast conspiracy where every christian is out to ruin america. You don't seem to see them as individuals, just one mass herd. One of the problems is that fits with many people perception of liberals and, while you're really not going to have an effect of people beliefs, it's famous liberals like you, who are on tv and in print, who just strengthen and reinforce that stereotype. It also makes it harder for a liberal who doesn't care what religion does, as long as it isn't playing a role in government, because people automatically assume that what they say, and the majority of liberals and what they say, have something against religion and religious people. Again, members of this board are really insignificant in the end, but the famous people who often have similar ways of thinking aren't.[/QUOTE]

Why hate at all? My speech may be fiery, but I find it very disturbing that the new American government has aligned itself with a religion whose modern emphasis consists of pounding policy points like "abortion is evil" and constantly reminding it's followers that they are sheep who must obey the shepard (even going so far as to kick out members who refuse to tow the party line). Close-minded christians don't want to ruin America any more then Julius Caesar wanted to ruin the Roman Empire. However when the lines between religion and government begin to blur, out goes the brilliance of the founding fathers and in steps the law of unintended consequences.
 
[quote name='camoor']Why hate at all? My speech may be fiery, but I find it very disturbing that the new American government has aligned itself with a religion whose modern emphasis consists of pounding policy points like "abortion is evil" and constantly reminding it's followers that they are sheep who must obey the shepard (even going so far as to kick out members who refuse to tow the party line).[/quote]

Ya know, just cause there are some liberals who go around shouting bush conspired with osama to make 9/11 happen, or that republican=racist, doesn't mean they have anything to do with the rest of us liberals.

Close-minded christians
Click to expand...

Ever hear the old saying "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? When someone says they're christian, or someone sides with something that average practicing christian would agree with, you seem to have a whole list of beliefs you ascribe to them.

Though I tend to use the word hate as just something more than dislike, but not necessarily a particularly strong feeling of complete and utter disdain, which some people reserve it for.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Ya know, just cause there are some liberals who go around shouting bush conspired with osama to make 9/11 happen, or that republican=racist, doesn't mean they have anything to do with the rest of us liberals.

Ever hear the old saying "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? When someone says they're christian, or someone sides with something that average practicing christian would agree with, you seem to have a whole list of beliefs you ascribe to them.

Though I tend to use the word hate as just something more than dislike, but not necessarily a particularly strong feeling of complete and utter disdain, which some people reserve it for.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what that first paragraph means.

As for the other two, I think it's a great example of everything that's wrong with the pussy-footing American attitude that accompanies almost anything but rabid conservative politics. When someone attempts to justify denying a woman her legal right to abortion or justifying crackpot science like creationism on the sole basis of their christianity then you can count on me to call them on it, every time.

I hear jokes that the new "get out of jail free" card in politics is that you found Jesus. People round here find that pretty funny, but I have to feel bad for the goobers who actually buy it. I realize people don't like to be challenged on things they hold as emotional beliefs, but how do you expect to be a decent human being if you can't consider other viewpoints?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']members of this board are really insignificant in the end[/QUOTE]

We'll see what you've got to dsay when my corn flake machine and I have taken over the world! :twisted:

and while I'm wasting everyone's time,

[quote name='camoor']Close-minded christians don't want to ruin America any more then Julius Caesar wanted to ruin the Roman Empire.[/QUOTE]

Julius Caesar ruined the republic by creating the empire. Sorry, I was a latin major in college. now I get to feel smart without actually contributing to the topic. Unless there's a clever hidden meaning in there.... :headache:
 
[quote name='atreyue']Julius Caesar ruined the republic by creating the empire. Sorry, I was a latin major in college. now I get to feel smart without actually contributing to the topic. Unless there's a clever hidden meaning in there.... :headache:[/QUOTE]
I thought that when Caesar died, Rome was still a republic. It wasn't until Augustus that the title Emperor was formally used. I could be way off though.
 
[quote name='dcfox']I thought that when Caesar died, Rome was still a republic. It wasn't until Augustus that the title Emperor was formally used. I could be way off though.[/QUOTE]

Well I believe Pompey was the first to use the position of Emperor for a short time, but the Roman rulers who really first paved the way were the earlier Sulla and Marius. When Caesar died, Rome still had a Senate (with a very eloquent Cicero) however the real power lay in the hands of Julius.

By practically changing the Republic of Rome into an Empire, Julius paved the way for a great period of sustained political unrest that when eventually combined with smallpox and invading Gauls led to the collapse of the Roman Empire. And what followed the collapse of the Roman Empire was the worst period for the advancement of knowledge, medicine, mathematics, astronomy and science in the history of Europe.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well I believe Pompey was the first to use the position of Emperor for a short time, but the Roman rulers who really first paved the way were the earlier Sulla and Marius. When Caesar died, Rome still had a Senate (with a very eloquent Cicero) however the real power lay in the hands of Julius.

By practically changing the Republic of Rome into an Empire, Julius paved the way for a great period of sustained political unrest that when eventually combined with smallpox and invading Gauls led to the collapse of the Roman Empire. And what followed the collapse of the Roman Empire was the worst period for the advancement of knowledge, medicine, mathematics, astronomy and science in the history of Europe.[/QUOTE]

I can see that I'm not needed here :)
 
What is the big deal? If you don't like it don't shop at Walmart. Just like atheists don't shop at christian bookstores and people that are against porno don't shop at porno shops.

The clerk has a right to do whatever the hell he wants, Walmart has a right to allow it or to fire him, and the customer has a right to take their business elsewhere. Nobody's rights are being violated. There is no controversy here.

And those of you screaming discrimination. It is perfectly legal to discriminate on anything other than race, sex, religion, physical disability, or sexual preference.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']...or refer to those atheists evolutionary scientists (remember chunk?), don't you just dismiss them?[/QUOTE]

Your not helping your own credibility either. If you remember clearly you would recall that I never referred to "atheist evolutionary scientists". My objections to evolution are on purely scientific grounds and if you think its because of religious reasons then you are dead wrong. Don't use your disagreement with me to stereotype me as some kind of religious radical. You're just making yourself look like an antireligious radical.
 
[quote name='chunk']What is the big deal? If you don't like it don't shop at Walmart. Just like atheists don't shop at christian bookstores and people that are against porno don't shop at porno shops.

The clerk has a right to do whatever the hell he wants, Walmart has a right to allow it or to fire him, and the customer has a right to take their business elsewhere. Nobody's rights are being violated. There is no controversy here.

And those of you screaming discrimination. It is perfectly legal to discriminate on anything other than race, sex, religion, physical disability, or sexual preference.
[/QUOTE]

This is discrimination based on religion. Specifically, a fundamentalist christian discriminating against someone who is a more moderate christian / athiest / other.

Easy to say don't shop at Walgreens. I'm assuming that you've never been to a small town where all the mom and pop stores have been run out of business.
 
[quote name='camoor']I have no idea what that first paragraph means. [/quote]

Look at my paragraph, then look at one of your complaints

Your not helping your own credibility either. If you remember clearly you would recall that I never referred to "atheist evolutionary scientists". My objections to evolution are on purely scientific grounds and if you think its because of religious reasons then you are dead wrong. Don't use your disagreement with me to stereotype me as some kind of religious radical. You're just making yourself look like an antireligious radical.
Click to expand...

Using that specific term you didn't. Using the search feature, I dug up a few quotes from our last discussion. And besides, you keep assuming that I'm not religious.

I think that part of the problem is that evolution is viewed as some kind of alternative to religious thought, which it is not. Fanatical atheists feel a need a trumpet that evolution has somehow put to rest religious thought, when it is really very lacking in scientific terms......


It is like evolution avoids scientific scrutiny, simply because of its potential as an alternative to religious thought. .....

It doesn't seem so ridiculous to me. Most of the fanatical atheists that I know are more hellbent on destroying religion than anything else...........

However, regarding atheists, I feel that they may be partially responsible for the unwarranted promotion of evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top