Monday, March 12, 2012
Heh. I've been kicked off my debate blog. Apparently, I'm not taking the christian's arguments seriously. I mock them instead. Well, it's true. I DID indeed mock them. The argument from design is so flawed, all I can do is mock it. I tried to show why it is laughable, and why it fails so badly, and why it is an example of bad reasoning, but I guess that wasn't good enough. If any of my atheist readers want to take up the baton, go to andrewvtim.blogspot.com and apply to be the new atheist. If you want, I'll brief you on all of the "dogma" of the SMAD and the dragon in my pants. Good Luck.
The freedom of worship is a problem?
I guess you have heard of the birth control controversy. I thought I’d lend my thoughts on the subject. First, I know there are many people arguing that birth control pills are prescribed for a myriad of reasons outside preventing pregnancy. That’s fine, but I think it is just fine to also prescribe birth control pills for the explicit purpose of preventing pregnancy. And since this IS the primary reason these drugs are administered, why not embrace it? What’s wrong with people taking charge of their reproduction? People ought to be able to control when they do and do not want to be pregnant.
I’ve tried listening to the Catholic radio guys to get a feel for why they are so opposed to the recent mandate that all insurance companies pay for birth control. What I hear is that since the Catholic Church opposes birth control, they should be able to exclude the coverage from the insurances offered to their employees.
Further, they argue that this “attack” on religious freedom is an effort to limit the freedom of expression to simply the freedom to worship, and that is unacceptable. The free-exercise clause of the First Amendment should guarantee the right to decide which benefits are and are not acceptable to an employer.
This is just plain crazy. Most people I know immediately recognize the danger of this kind of thinking. If we allow employers to decide which benefits are allowable and which are not based on nothing more than religion, what is stopping anyone from refusing to offer any benefit to anyone at any time? Where does it end?
It seems to me that the Obama Administration actually got this one right. Well, kinda. I mean, there are still loopholes for some religious institutions, but they are narrow. And there is a delay for the mandate to take effect. But the fact that our government has ruled that discriminating against women should not be protected by the veil of religion is a good thing. Religion does not give people the right to discriminate.
That doesn’t mean it is illegal for you to be a bigot; it just means your bigotry will not be allowed in law or in public practice. We don’t want religion to be the reason people are lacking medical care.
God doesn’t belong in the medical profession. Doctors do. And any doctor is free to belong to whatever religion he/she wants to be. But when it comes to administering medicine, that doctor had better grab a medical journal, not the bible, for research.