Free Republic

kosta50 said: "Also, you can't outlaw a religion! Christianity was outlawed and persecuted for 300 years and all it did was grow and grow until it finally took over."

And I agree completely. Oppression (real or imagined) has only helped Christianity to grow and spread. Islam is really much the same in that respect. If you oppress, cruelly, harshly and unfairly it will only spread. Unfortunately "perceived" oppression - made up sometimes by Muslims or just misunderstood has the same effect. That's why we in the West have to stick to our values of civil liberty, democracy, tolerance (including freedom to worship) and openness. If people behave badly, come down on 'em like a ton of bricks - but do it openly and fairly.

There's a lot of talk about Islamaphobia in the UK - that's the "irrational fear or hatred of Muslims". At first I thought the "Muslim community" were completely making it up - but reading some of the posts in this forum I see there is a lot irrational fear and misunderstanding about Islam (and I have already posted that I don't care for Islam one jot).

Irrational fear isn't constructive. But understanding and discourse is. There are a lot of bad Muslims out there and that they are dangerous (this seems well understood), but folks also have to understand that there are in fact a lot of decent Muslims out there who could take a lead in their religion and culture being more tolerant - and dare I say it - more Westernised.

And please believe me, I do understand what some Mullahs are preaching. I've worked with a guy who was a full-on Nut-case Islamic fundamentalist who I have no doubt would have happily killed me if he thought it would promote the spread of Islam (and who, by the way, was actually very pleasant to work with, I learned a lot from him) But squashing this guy, when he hadn't actually done anything and hadn't said anything either (my earlier description of him is just MY perception) would have only enraged his Muslim brothers - and rightly so.

"All able bodied citizens between 17 & 40 except those few public officials who specifically exempted by statute. The term well regulated in the time the Bill of Rights was written was understood to mean that you were proficient in the manual of arms and basic marksmanship."

Right so, everybody has to give up their guns at age 41? And what about the proficiency - which frankly I think would be a good idea. Who tests proficiency? I have a certificate from the state of Tennessee (somewhere) showing I've been through a basic course on Hunter Safety, which included gun safety and I had to load and fire a gun 5 times to pass (thankfully nothing on marksmanship because I didn't do very well).

And my argument about car registration isn't a straw man, because it isn't just about taxes. If I use my car irresponsibly (speeding, hit someone or something) my registration is how they track me down to make sure I'm held responsible for my actions.

Back to my original point, I'm in favor of more control over guns and gun ownership (to what extent, I will tell you honestly I don't know), but I'm not in favor of taking everybody's guns away. I currently live in the UK, where I think gun control has gone far too far - it would be quite difficult (but not impossible) for me to legally have a gun and I could not legally have a hand gun.

I'm certainly not in favor of dismantling the Bill of Rights, but the 2nd amendment to me isn't very clear. And just like Tom DeLay says - I'm not a bad person for wanting a more balanced approach to gun control.

Hi,

You said:
"the folks who wish to destroy the Second Amendment have an agenda that would result in the wholesale rape of the Bill of Rights"


I don't want to destroy the 2nd amendment, but I have to admit I don't understand it. It's a little ungrammatical frankly.

The 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

(And if dismantling the 2nd means "raping" the rest, about that 3rd amendment, which is crystal clear BTW, I hope the army guys quartered in my house are really cute.)

Who is the well-regulated militia? Where would one sign up for it? And does this mean that to bear arms you should be part of a well regulated militia? Who does the regulating? Does this mean proper gun licensing. If so, great! I'm all for it.

You have to register ownership and be a licensed user for what must the be the number one tool which causes untimely death (the CAR), so it makes sense to have some kind of regulation and license for another efficient tool of untimely death (the GUN).

BTW, I'm not anti-gun, I like shooting and one day I'll probably have a gun. I'm just agreeing with Tom DeLay that there are a lot of people out there who aren't anti-gun who think there should be some sensible limits on gun ownership, e.g. if you're a felon and can't vote, sensible enough you shouldn't have a legal gun instead.

If you're happy enough to let the government know where you live (property tax, voting, etc), how much you earn, what kind of library books you check out (Patriot Act), take a test for a driving license and register your car, what harm would a little extra registration, regulation and control on weapons do?

Honestly, I really don't understand the objection or why you think anyone who questions unfettered access to potentially dangerous objects is a bad person.

"& the questioning of the motives of these people should not be out of bounds."

Though you're more than welcome to question me on my motives.

On the point of an Islamic society - you bet, I agree - there would be few civil liberties left. But we can look back in time to when Christians were killing each other in Europe over relatively small differences in theology, never mind non-believers like myself. You might say we could never go back, but I believe that we have to stay constantly vigilant, lest we do.

I grew up in a small town in the Bible Belt and there was a lot of pressure on 'free speech'. I've certainly felt pressure to keep my mouth shut for over evolution, abortion and the fact that I don't believe in God. There was constant and overwhelming societal pressure to go to church - though fair enough I wasn't dragged there (except by my mother).

More broadly, there are movements by so-called Christians in several state legistlatures against what I would call free speech and academic freedom (though these Bills are cleverly named things that seem to imply they support free speech) because they're trying to promote the teaching of "intelligent design" at University level. Others are encouraging pharmacists to deny people legal prescriptions, abortion clinic bombings, etc. etc, all based on their "Christian" morality. And what happens if you object to prayer in a public place...?

I don't think that these things are being promoted by people I would call good Christians. I was raised Christian, and there's a lot of good in Christianity - it's just not for me. What's also not for me is people moralising and legislating based on religion rather than rational discourse.

I don't live in the US anymore, but every time I visit my family I see how my country is changing, how it's becoming more militanty religious - and to me it's worrying. It's like building a fundamentalist society where your every act is governed by someone else's view of religion.

I'm fairly tolerant, I don't mind if someone else lives that way, but I don't want them to tell ME what to do based on THEIR holy writings. Nor do I feel I should have to go too far out of my way to accommodate someone else's religious sensitivities (but I'm a big believer in being polite!) Currently, we all have to tread carefully in the UK (where I live) not to offend Islamic sensitivities, in the US it's Christian sensitivities. If you don't, then you're called anti-Christian, Islamaphobic, etc.

Re. being anti-Islam, I wouldn't want to stop anyone from practicing Islam -I believe people should be free to practice their religion - in their private domain (home, church, etc.) even if I think it is a religion with little redeeming value. Because I believe our Western values of liberty are right and include a set of freedoms, including freedom to worship.

The threat to our country- and our Western values isn't from all Muslims or all people raised Muslim, but from fundamentalist Muslims who seek both peaceful and legal means and violence to force their way of life on others. But if to counter their ways, we restrict our own liberties, THEY have won. If people become more fundamentalist in their Christianity to counter this and ALSO try to alter others' behavior accordingly - I think we all lose. I think we fight fundamentalism and bad religion by being clear, rational, secular and tolerant and we fight the violent promotion of bad religion with effective, well-funded and well thought-out and fair law enforcement.

First off - let me say I have known and worked with and liked personally many Muslims and that while I haven't read the Quran, I have done some reading on Islam written by Muslims. Those writings were positive toward Islam, I read with an open mind thinking Islam wasn't necesarily bad, just that it had some bad followers. After reading that,I subsequently changed my mind - and although there are some aspects which are OK, I think the basic tenets of the religion are deeply flawed and potentially dangerous. Unfortunately, we've only seen some of this potential danger realised - there's a lot more scary potential left untapped. So in summation, I don't like Islam, at all.

On the other hand... I don't agree that "our tolerance" will be our undoing. Rather than taking a religious stance, I rather support the freedoms and liberties that Western society has - some of this the result of Enlightenment thinking, some of this the result of the Protestant struggle.

When we deny liberties to others, we deny them to ourselves. If we support the extension of fundamentalist Christian views onto society at large (e.g. denying others choices based on someone else's doctrine), then we are giving aid and succor to fundamentalist Islam.

I see two distinct, but entangled threats to my liberties and freedoms. 1. The growing tide of fundamentalist Islam. 2. The reactionary elements of the Christian right who seek to deny me many of the same liberties that fundamentalist Islam would, e.g. free speech, freedom to live my life largely by my own moral code (within the law), freedom to NOT worship and freedom to seek the truth as I see it based on science and empirical, rational objectivity.

Yes, even more puzzling is when Jesus asks the crowd to stop stoning the adulturess or calls the bad tax-collector man down to talk to Him. He asks them to change their behavior and be nicer people, hmm?

Actually, I think there's a lot we could learn from Islam -e.g. theocratic states or groups of extreme religios fundamentalists imposing the views of a few on society as a whole means everyone has fewer rights and liberties and quite probably greater violence and chaos.

It seems the Vatican has already picked this lesson up - voting with their Islamic brothers against equal rights for women and human rights for all.

Oh yeah, I do like some Islamic design principles - very nice geometric patterns. There's something to learn from.

Actually, note that this has happened in the UK not the US. So this person wouldn't be a Democrat (or a Republican). Perhaps, Labour or Liberal Democrat or even Conservative. However, this person might very well be a "welfare-entitlist" - as most people are in the UK. Of course, because of the strong socialist welfare system (which I personally disagree with) that means that all those babies you don't want aborted are actually supported with housing, food, cash, etc. for their whole lives rather than just for a couple of years of welfare as in the US.

I personally don't see anything wrong with the Morning After Pill - and I'm quite disturbed by the refusal. I was under the impression that this kind of moralising behavior was happening only in places where orthodox religionists are in power (e.g. Saudi Arabia or increasingly in America). I'm very unhappy to see that it's happening here, too.

The drug is legal in the UK and not only that, but can be sold "over the counter" - though there are lots of "over the counter" drugs that have to be dispensed by a pharmacist here - from cough medicine to strong anti-fungal athlete's foot cream.

Also note that this person went to an NHS clinic afterwards- which is the National Health Service - so that moralising refusal meant that a drug she was happy to pay for herself was instead paid for by the UK taxpayer. As they'd say here it was a "bit of an own-goal" for the forces of conservatism.

Well, there's lots of stuff about the government "forcing" people to dispense drugs they disagree with. However, everyone seems to be forgetting that pharmacists are LICENSED. We wouldn't want just anyone handing out drugs -we want people who are reasonably qualified, understand drug interactions, etc. So when someone becomes a licensed pharmacist that means that they're signing up to certain professional and legal requirements. I hope to goodness that means that pharmacists don't have the right to refuse legal medication or refuse to refer you elsewhere, harangue and lecture you if they think - without any real knowledge - that you're behaving in a sinful way - or refuse to return the script for medication including oral contraceptives - the Pill -(as is happening).

No one forces businesses to stock every drug on the market - Walmart doesn't sell the morning after pill for example and many small pharmacies don't carry narcotics because of the security risk of druggies breaking in and beating/killing their employees. However, pharmacists have a professional duty to behave in a professional way - this is part of the compact with the State and society that they make when they become LICENSED pharmacists.

Hi,

I live in England and the terms soccer and football can be (and have long been)used interchangeably, but with a preference for football, especially for official usage. For example, the Football Association (FA) is the governing body for that sport in this country. And soccer is the older game - so why get worked up if that's what folks here want to call it? I personally hate it when they call me on using the term "trunk" instead of "boot" (and sensible people don't do that - they know what I mean)

And why the term Eurinal? - honestly - they're not so bad. Name calling is unhelpful.

BTW - I support two football teams - the England national side and the Tennessee Volunteers. (Go Vols!)

You asked for ONE instance where a pharmacist refused to dispense BCP's. Well there was recently a case in Wisconsin where a pharmacist refused to fill an oral contraceptive prescription for a U. Wisconsin student- and a couple of cases in Chicago. An article in last week's Economist said that there have been around 180 complaints of pharmacists refusing to fill prescription for either oral contraceptives or emergency contraceptions like the morning after pill. There was no mention at all of RU 486 or similar. I don't know all the ins- and outs of RU 486, but I do know that it's a 2-dose treatment - meaning many doctors will dispense the medication themselves to make sure that the follow-up dosage is actually taken - so I don't think there are many run-of-the-mill take-your-script-to-the-local-drugstore prescriptions for this drug course.

Pharmacies don't have to stock every drug - e.g. Walmart doesn't carry the Morning After Pill. And I do have some sympathy with pharmacists who don't want to dispense drugs they find questionable (including abusable drugs like pain killers) in certain circumstances. However in some of these cases not only were pharmacists refusing to fill the prescription, but they were also lecturing and haranguing the women who asked for them, and in some occasions refusing to hand back the prescription note (in my view criminal).

The sad truth is that many right-wing religious groups (e.g. Ralph Reed's lot) have had their eye on oral contraceptives for some time - because the Pill - very rarely - can in fact act as an abortifacient in regular prescribed use (but if you were taking it and got pregnant, the abortifacient quality would kick in before you knew you were pregnant - so you'd in fact never know). However, I believe the real agenda is taking away people's reproductive choices - and attacking the Pill which is one of the most effective and only private method of birth control. There are organisations of radical right-wing pharmacists who are openly advocating not filling prescriptions for oral contraceptives - and not returning prescriptions. I personally don't want this radical agenda protected in law.