Jump to content
Vacamion

President Trump & the USA

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Well, I could find some examples of where a Christian actively sought out a LGBT person to kill (like the murder of Danny Overstreet by Ronald Gay for example), so it might follow that if some Christian folks would have it within themselves to do that then being a bystander and letting member of that demographic die is also a possibility?

 

Again, I have to emphasise that the freedom of conscience and action is in no way a problem for me here - it is the possibility of potential lack of consequence from actions that directly stem from that freedom of conscience.

There are already laws in place to prevent murder and that didn’t stop that, psychopaths are psychopaths whatever their religion or position and laws don’t prevent them unfortunately.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

There are already laws in place to prevent murder and that didn’t stop that, psychopaths are psychopaths whatever their religion or position and laws don’t prevent them unfortunately.

Very true - and that's why the law is in place, to apply consequences given those situations because as you say, sometimes such things cannot be stopped before they happen.

 

The rule suggested here has the potential, however far-fetched, to eliminate those consequences in a specific situation.

 

I think the argument consists of folks thinking that this rule won't allow such a thing (causing death or suffering through neglect) to happen without consequence, and/or people aren't that twisted. I'm unsure on the first of those given the wording of the rule and the way it's been reported and you've provided direct agreement to refute the second.

 

Allow me to repeat that I think people have the right to freedom of conscience and Carl and Webs (I think) made points regarding treatment of trans folks pertaining to their transition alone that I entirely agree with, as well as the hypothetical situation I'm thinking of being convoluted. What I don't agree with is the idea that an indirectly malicious act can be carried out and the government will protect you from the legal consequences of doing so in the name of freedom of conscience - that is an extension too far.


Edited by leicsmac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'd hope not too, and as I said it's doubtful it's the case, but given the attitude towards that particular demographic from this administration and a fair few of those who support it - as well as the ambiguity in reporting - some clarification in the form of a denial in the way you suggest here would do an awful lot to allay justifiable suspicions about the motives behind the changing of the rules here.

That's fair enough, but considering how Trump's opposition to trans people serving in the army was overturned by their legal system I find it hard to believe they'd let through a loophole allowing them to be refused urgent medical care even if the administration wished for it.

 

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Very true - and that's why the law is in place, to apply consequences given those situations because as you say, sometimes such things cannot be stopped before they happen.

 

The rule suggested here has the potential, however far-fetched, to eliminate those consequences in a specific situation.

 

I think the argument consists of folks thinking that this rule won't allow such a thing (causing death or suffering through neglect) to happen without consequence, and/or people aren't that twisted. I'm unsure on the first of those given the wording of the rule and the way it's been reported and you've provided direct agreement to refute the second.

 

Allow me to repeat that I think people have the right to freedom of conscience and Carl and Webs (I think) made points regarding treatment of trans folks pertaining to their transition alone that I entirely agree with, as well as the hypothetical situation I'm thinking of being convoluted. What I don't agree with is the idea that an indirectly malicious act can be carried out and the government will protect you from the legal consequences of doing so in the name of freedom of conscience - that is an extension too far.

I don't disagree with this but I'm yet to see the evidence that it's the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

That's fair enough, but considering how Trump's opposition to trans people serving in the army was overturned by their legal system I find it hard to believe they'd let through a loophole allowing them to be refused urgent medical care even if the administration wished for it.

 

I don't disagree with this but I'm yet to see the evidence that it's the case.

Both fair points.

 

Perhaps I'm blowing smoke here, but pardon me for being innately suspicious of anything this administration does with respect to religious freedom and how it might affect LGBT populations, given the reputation of the administration in general and the VP and elements of the core support in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leicsmac said:

Both fair points.

 

Perhaps I'm blowing smoke here, but pardon me for being innately suspicious of anything this administration does with respect to religious freedom and how it might affect LGBT populations, given the reputation of the administration in general and the VP and elements of the core support in particular.

Oh aye there's no doubt that @The Donald holds suspect views (see his travel ban, the central park rape case, his entire election campaign) and surrounds himself with like-minds and yes men so you're right to be suspicious of anything he does, I am too... :D  I just feel like the implications here are too big and obvious to be allowed by a judicial system which has already shown itself ready and willing to challenge their illustrious leader commander in chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Both fair points.

 

Perhaps I'm blowing smoke here, but pardon me for being innately suspicious of anything this administration does with respect to religious freedom and how it might affect LGBT populations, given the reputation of the administration in general and the VP and elements of the core support in particular.

Wouldn't your time be better spent on what's actually affecting you and not what might affect you, however tenuous and hypothetical the link?

60 million people wanted him, that's democracy, right there.

Just saying of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the fox said:

so, you can understand why people were too afraid to speak up, it's even you or them. i got no horse in this race but blaming christianity for some psycho trying to turn a whole ethnicity into soup isn't fair.

 

it divided zilch! those psychos killing all types of people (mostly muslims) in "the name of the religion". no one with his right mind agrees with them.

 

Erm... right minded Muslims?

 

You realise that in labelling all Muslims psychos, you're merely a mirror of them (or what you believe them to be)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Oh aye there's no doubt that @The Donald holds suspect views (see his travel ban, the central park rape case, his entire election campaign) and surrounds himself with like-minds and yes men so you're right to be suspicious of anything he does, I am too... :D  I just feel like the implications here are too big and obvious to be allowed by a judicial system which has already shown itself ready and willing to challenge their illustrious leader commander in chief.

Yeah, all true. I guess we'll see.

 

5 minutes ago, Colourmy said:

Wouldn't your time be better spent on what's actually affecting you and not what might affect you, however tenuous and hypothetical the link?

60 million people wanted him, that's democracy, right there.

Just saying of course.

Were my decisions based purely on immediate and short-term self-interest, I would of course agree.

 

However, I also like to think that what affects other, more vulnerable people than myself as well as the future can motivate me. If we all thought in terms of direct and immediate consequences there would be no reason to do something about the way CO2 levels are rising or take action to mitigate the possible consequences, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Erm... right minded Muslims?

 

You realise that in labelling all Muslims psychos, you're merely a mirror of them (or what you believe them to be)?

 

Erm, he didn’t. 

 

And he is a Muslim. 


Edited by Buce
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/conscience-abortion-transgender-patients-health-care-289542

 

Here we are.

 

"The pending rule would establish a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the HHS civil rights office that would conduct compliance reviews, audits and other enforcement actions to ensure that health care providers are allowing workers to opt out of procedures when they have religious or moral objections."

 

Now, of course the party line is that these "opt-outs" would only be used for procedures that are non-life threatening, but the way the rule is phrased ("opt out of procedures where they have religious or moral objections") means that things could easily extend to that, viz. "I think this persons entire lifestyle is morally objectionable and against my religious beliefs, therefore I don't have to carry out any procedure and therefore treat any illness or injury they have" - and that opting out would be protected under this new rule.

 

This rule allows that option to be taken and would be protected by this new department in the HHS.

 

Strange law to move for a predominately Christian country - when you think of what the bible teaches in terms of being a Good Samaritan, forgiveness and Jesus’ own actions towards the poor and needy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, all true. I guess we'll see.

 

Were my decisions based purely on immediate and short-term self-interest, I would of course agree.

 

However, I also like to think that what affects other, more vulnerable people than myself as well as the future can motivate me. If we all thought in terms of direct and immediate consequences there would be no reason to do something about the way CO2 levels are rising or take action to mitigate the possible consequences, for instance.

If we'd all thought of the next generations, we'd all still be in caves and whittling arrows from twigs. We cannot change a sausage. Spend the little time you have here looking after you and those important to you. To seek change in other's is futile!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Colourmy said:

If we'd all thought of the next generations, we'd all still be in caves and whittling arrows from twigs. We cannot change a sausage. Spend the little time you have here looking after you and those important to you. To seek change in other's is futile!

Well, safe to say we disagree on that one - I would posit that wanting to make the world better for other people and for the future as well as yourself has been a key driver beyond human progress rather than holding it back, and while we don't have much time on this Earth geologically speaking looking inward to protect only yourself and those closest to you will only work as long as humans can deal with every single problem as disparate groups - and that won't be the case forever.

 

But hey, I might be wrong and this is approaching meaning-of-life territory, so I'd need a drink to go with that conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Erm, he didn’t. 

 

And he is a muslim. 

I read it back and I see much is lost in translation.

 

I used Nazi Germany as an example, because it's the most clear example, but the same could be said of most despots and conflicts.

 

It's why I could never serve in armed forces, because I'd be, "but sir, the enemy might be basically, decent human beings, with similar goals and dreams as me."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/conscience-abortion-transgender-patients-health-care-289542

 

Here we are.

 

"The pending rule would establish a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the HHS civil rights office that would conduct compliance reviews, audits and other enforcement actions to ensure that health care providers are allowing workers to opt out of procedures when they have religious or moral objections."

 

Now, of course the party line is that these "opt-outs" would only be used for procedures that are non-life threatening, but the way the rule is phrased ("opt out of procedures where they have religious or moral objections") means that things could easily extend to that, viz. "I think this persons entire lifestyle is morally objectionable and against my religious beliefs, therefore I don't have to carry out any procedure and therefore treat any illness or injury they have" - and that opting out would be protected under this new rule.

 

This rule allows that option to be taken and would be protected by this new department in the HHS.

The golden rule, which is pretty much the central principle of Christianity, is treat other as you would want to be treated yourself.

 

That this hasn't always been followed is down to the same reasons as Strokes said earlier. It's against the law to murder, so much so we almost don't need a law, you just intrinsically know (assuming full mental health), but that doesn't stop people doing it. 

 

Given the long-shot of your hypothetical situation, it would be an even longer shot that they were the only physician to hand to provide treatment. How many practices have one doctor? Hospitals even less so. It barely constitutes worrying about.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

The golden rule, which is pretty much the central principle of Christianity, is treat other as you would want to be treated yourself.

 

That this hasn't always been followed is down to the same reasons as Strokes said earlier. It's against the law to murder, so much so we almost don't need a law, you just intrinsically know (assuming full mental health), but that doesn't stop people doing it. 

 

Given the long-shot of your hypothetical situation, it would be an even longer shot that they were the only physician to hand to provide treatment. How many practices have one doctor? Hospitals even less so. It barely constitutes worrying about.

Again, I agree; it's a long shot, with the reasons why well-discussed.

 

However, I fail to see the reason why it's any kind of shot at all, even a long one, when such could have been easily avoided with a little more clarity on the part of those seeking to change the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×