Scott Brown is owning the dems in the commonwealth state

Your analogy is horrible. There certainly is a separation of church and state. When the government walks into a person profession (ie: their life work, not unskilled labor) and demands them to go against their reasonable religious beliefs, that is stepping over the boundaries. We already have trouble with keeping competent doctors.

 

I could've ran over the 41st "No" vote of the senate and make you all suffer the communist healthcare plan.

 

It's gonna be funny as hell watching Republicans trash this guy in a few months. Brown was more liberal than 2/3 of the Republicans in the state of Massachusetts while he was in the state Senate. He voted for almost the same health care plan he derides today. Anyone who thinks this dude is a Teabagger isn't looking at his record. They are just listening to his rhetoric. People will say anything to get elected.

 

This is all politicians. The only reason why he is close to being elected is because he has pledged to vote against the health reform. That should speak volumes about how the nation feels about this current plan.

 

That is the exact treatment that conservative posters get on this forum.

 

And why do you believe him?

After all, Republicans were campaigning on cap and trade six months before they decided it was communist. What makes you think that six months from now Brown won't flip flop the same way? Especially since he had to reverse his long held policy positions to make the claim that he wouldn't support health care in the first place?

If Brown gets the same kind of hookup that Nelson did for his state, he will vote for the plan. He's no different. He is using the Tea Baggers. He isn't one.

 

I suspect most of the nation is like you and profoundly ignorant of the basic facts and circumstances surrounding it - care to prove me wrong?

 

Government walk in how? Are you saying that we should change the laws of professions just to suit a particular narrow minority religious view? When you talk reasonable is it reasonable that the laws regarding abortion and birth control should be changed to allow Catholic medical workers to work in those fields? That to me is a far greater government intrusion that leaving the laws as is and letting them decide whether that work conflicts with their beliefs or not.

Under separation of church and state we don't force people to take jobs that might conflict with their religious beliefs that doesn't mean though that we change those professions to suit those religious beliefs. No one's freedom is being restricted.

 

Dude, you just called people who are pro-life a narrow minority view. Catholic hospitals should be able do deny those services no questions asked. And Catholic hospital workers and doctors should have a conscience clause that protects them. Obama promised this when he was at Notre Dame, and jack squat has been done.

To put a face on the problem, here's what's happening: http://adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/2694

 

In regard to the particular case you cite without knowing all the facts of it I would agree that it sounds like that is a situation where an accomodation could've been allowed for but not every case is and the article itself alludes to that. Anyway Catholicism isn't the only religion with restrictions. What about a devout Jew who can't handle insulin made from pig pancreas because it isn't kosher?

The argument that you are making here is one that doesn't apply to every religious tradition. When I speak of narrow that is a situation where a law is crafted to benefit only a small set of religions, albeit religions with a lot of members but still only a few religions. I doubt the government is willing or could craft laws for every religion. For that matter in those religions not every member of that religions subscribes to those prescriptions. There are plenty of Christians (even Catholics) that classify themselves as Pro-Choice and a large majority of Americans of all religions are for contraceptives.

Under separation of church and state the government should treat every religion equally. While I agree that reasonable accomodation should be applied in the case of something like emergency medicine there may be cases where such accomodation cannot be made. Given that possibility I would say that those whose religious practices are so set that they cannot be in that situation should consider not entering that field where the possibility exist they may encounter that.

 

This might be the problem with your perception. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with treating religions equally. Simply put, the government can't tell the church how to conduct (reasonable) business and the church can not tell the state (like run Crusade Wars or Palins 'Gods Will') how to run the country.

 

Back on topic, anyone see this woman not know who Curt Schilling is?

 

That is a distinction without meaning. As for the government to not interfere with the church it has to consider all churches. For instance you can't say we aren't going to tax some churches but others we will.

 

You are conflating different elements of religious liberty tests in your understanding. You are working from the basis of Smith, which states that neutral and generally applicable laws do not warrant exemptions under the law.

As far as I know, while abortion is legal, there is not state sponsorship of abortion. There is no law stating that abortions have to be performed. A Catholic hospital or a Catholic doctor does not have to perform an abortion just because a female wants one. The same goes for contraceptives. There is no law that says you have to distribute contraceptives.

And that's where you get confused with the insulin argument. There are laws that state that you have to give a diabetic in need of insulin their insulin. It's not the same as an elective procedure such as an abortion or handing out contraceptions.

That's why Coakley was wrong in her assessment of the religion clauses and those morally opposed to having to take part in these procedures.

 

I'm pretty sure she does. She was just making a bad joke.

 

did you see what I'm talking about, she clearly didn't know what team he played for.

not that it shouldn't matter, and it probably won't, but just a bad gaffe in that part of the country

 

There's a problem though in terms of emergency medicine the situation does arise where a choice has to be made between the life of the women or the fetus. The article you link to alludes to that possibility. At that point there if the only staff available have a religious problem with being involved with that situation then I would say that's a problem especially if the hospital doesn't as an institution have religious restriction then the religious individual is placing a burden upon the whole institution.

As far as contraceptives I agree there is no law that you have to but my point is that it is a minority view. I'm willing to agree that a Catholic institution shouldn't have to but a Catholic working in an institution without that restriction the institution shouldn't be forced to abide by that restriction just to satisfy the Catholic.

Again though abortions aren't always elective. There are several emergency situations where the life of both mother and fetus are in question and only one can be saved.

The problem though is the belief that every abortion situation is going to be an elective situation for the convenience of the mother. A lot of unpredictable things can arise in an emergency situation and if one is so rigid in their religious views where they cannot be put in that sort of situation at all I would say they shouldn't be in that field.

 

According to her spokesperson it was a bad joke. Without knowing Martha Coakley personally I can't say if that's true or not. That said it was a poor statement either way.

 

I don't really like the current revision of the healthcare bill that's in the Senate -- it's basically a mutated creature that isn't even worth passing at this point. So, I could care less whether Scott Brown getting elected suddenly blocks healthcare reform.

However, I do care that Scott Brown being elected will pretty much block all legislation at all. The hard-line "no" from the GOP (the unity is impressive) will not only prevent legislation, but continue to prevent meaningful discussion. If anyone thinks suddenly everyone's going to be bipartisan once the Democrats lose the 60/40 advantage, they're crazy. New legislation will effectively stop once Scott Brown is elected and that's not what we need right now.