Theocracy in America
It’s all quite alarming, as Paul Krugman points out.
Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people’s beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.
Doesn’t it just. Which is one reason I keep nagging so relentlessly at this ‘desire to show respect for other people’s beliefs’ – asking why we have it for some kinds of beliefs and not others, and why we have it at all, and the like. I mean, seriously – one reason I don’t have desire to show respect for other people’s beliefs is because people who make a fetish of their beliefs are far more coercive and intolerant and intrusive than people who have the humility and vestige of rationality to realize that mere beliefs are just that, and don’t entitle them to shove them onto other people, or try to tell other people what to do because of them. I think it’s way past time we started telling people ‘if you want to believe in supernatural entities, okay, but you have to recognize that that’s your choice and that you can’t expect anyone else to agree with you – because that’s how it is with supernatural entities: you have no way of giving us any evidence that they exist. So keep your beliefs to yourself.’
One thing that’s going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo’s parents, hasn’t killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards. Another thing that’s going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right. Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through “Terri’s law.” But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice – a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge’s order that she remain there.
Jeb Bush used his office to try to break the law. (Gee, why does that have a familiar ring to it…)
Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available.
Welcome to God’s country. Really – it’s way, way past time to stop respecting people’s beliefs and start pushing back.
Absolutely. Force people to do all actions available to them under the law.
All doctors will be required to perform abortions on demand, and a Federal program created to demand it of every one; roster abortions to those not presently offering the service including muslim, christian african-american doctors and catholic doctors.
And as for thet dang Jeb Bush, it seems he intiated an action to save a life, then stopped it when it appeared that a law against that action would be enforced. What an abuse of office.
s/qulaified/qualified, of course.
I am a vegetarian. It is against my principles to eat meat, sadly I am still in a minority and meat eating is still perfectly legal. If I get a job at Burger King and then refuse to serve people ordering meat then I deserve to get fired. Someday I might be unemployed and need a job there, that wont change the fact that the job requires me to serve burgers.
I’ll start being horrified over the overreach of politicians as soon as you start to question the antics of our supremacist courts.
Considering the courts have discovered that they can freely do away with all laws they disagree with (“emanations of penumbras”, anyone?), thereby taking a neat little shortcut around that oh-so-yesterday electorate.
This is of course where reciprocity comes into play. Considering the regular and flagrant abuse of power by the courts in striking down the will of the people on flimsy constitutional grounds, I won’t really get upset if the politicians ‘get even’ by doing a little law-stretching themselves.
Regards, Döbeln
Chrisper-
How freaking stupid can you be– He didn’t send the state police to save a life.
If a pharmasict won’t dispense medication, he is simply not doing his job. He should be fired.
What if your pharmascist chose not to dspense antibiotics becuase of private belief–would you accept that as well.
Idiots.
Ophelia, you forgot about the Satanic turtles!
http://barneymac17.blogspot.com/
I am disturbed and perturbed.
First, a pharmacist cannot know *why* a medication has been prescribed, so how can they rationalize refuasl? Plenty of women take daily hormones for reasons unrelated to birth control. (Just a happy side-effect!) If they are indeed second guessing…that’s as ridiculous as, say, Congressmen diagnosing a patient based on videotape…oh, yeah.
Second: “Considering the regular and flagrant abuse of power by the courts in striking down the will of the people on flimsy constitutional grounds….” Since when does any of what goes on in our government really and truly represent the will of the people? Perhaps I’m cynical, but in a representative democracy, the constituents can only hope that the elected officials will carry out the will of the majority, and not expect such. In truth, they more often than not carry out the will of special interest groups, bankrollers, and their own interests.
I’m too young to be this cynical. Sigh!
Chris, that’s absurd. It’s not a question of forcing everyone to do everything – but the job of a pharmacist is to fill prescriptions. If you’re a pharmacist you don’t get to refuse some on religious grounds. If you want to do that then you should go into a different line of work. Just as if you want to teach science in public schools and universities, then you have to teach science, not your religion. Pure job description, that’s all.
“Considering the courts have discovered that they can freely do away with all laws they disagree with”
That’s what they’re there for. That’s the point of the Bill of Rights and of the judiciary: both are based on the principle that there are some things that no majority, however large, should have the power to vote: taking away a minority group’s rights, for example.
Amy L-B: Pharmacists can and occasionally do legitimately query prescribed medications; they, not the doctors, are the experts in pharmaceuticals after all. A friend of mine, who is a manager in the NHS, tells me that this has stopped dangerous mistakes from being made on more than one occasion. It would of course be perfectly legitimate for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense in this sort of situation.
Rowan–
Yes, but we were not discussing peventing medical mistakes, noticing a dangerous drug-interaction, seeing a strange dosage, or noting an allergy where a doctor did not. This, of course, is legitamete, but no where near the scenario we were discussing.
A pharmacist does not ask why I am taking a medication, should not ask why, unless he or she sees a dangerous scenario like one I described above. To do so is an invasion of my privacy. Therefore, he or she cannot no why I am taking it, cannot make moral judgements.
And, of course, as Ophelia says, he or she signed up for a gig dispensing meds, not a gig morally judging others medial choices.
“That’s what they’re there for. That’s the point of the Bill of Rights and of the judiciary: both are based on the principle that there are some things that no majority, however large, should have the power to vote: taking away a minority group’s rights, for example.”
Well, they are supposed to enforce the constitution. The problem is of course that by interpreting the constitution in a loose enough manner, combined with lifetime appointments, they can pretty much make policy as they please. That on the other hand is not what they are there for. (Anyone who honestly believes that the constitution, say, mandates that every state provide virtually unlimited abortion rights, or public services for illegal immigrants?)
Thus, their recent usurpation of power has to be checked by other branches of government. If those branches have to do some usurpation of their own to achieve that goal, so be it.
*) Note that I am:
a) An atheist
b) Pro-abortion
Well, I certainly would never dream of arguing that the Supremes are infallible. Two little words – Dred Scott – are more than enough to make a mockery of that idea. But I think ‘so be it’ is a tad casual for usurpation by a pack of at least as incompetent a gang of majoritarian thugs.
Amy L-B: I wasn’t arguing with you at all; I’m in complete agreement with you. I was just clarifying something, although doing so looks a bit superfluous now.
“But I think ‘so be it’ is a tad casual for usurpation by a pack of at least as incompetent a gang of majoritarian thugs.”
Well, a matter of taste I reckon – personally I believe “majoritarianism” should be the rule, with strict constructionist judges making the constitutionality judgements, etc. Perhaps it’s a european thing. (On this side of the pond, our “constitutions” are mostly lame jokes.)
Never read Mill or Tocqueville on majoritarianism then? Or just not convinced.
Could be a european thing I guess. Our political system is such a basket case thanks to the disastrous loop of elections carried on via tv ads which are expensive so result in endemic bribery which pays for idiotic ads that cause people to vote for reasons radically disconnected from any factual knowledge about what the voted-for are actually going to do. It’s all ‘vote for me I have a spouse and 3 children and I love Jesus’. As a result my trust of our majority is a tad shaky.
I see the point of having a constitution – however, the constitution will only last if it is applied in a rather minimalist fashion. If one significant faction decides to employ the constitution as a cudgel against another large faction in society, the inherently frail constitution is destined to break – reciprocity pretty much guarantees it.
If you are happy when “your team” suddenly decides that the consitution creates the right to, say, government services for immigrants who are in the country illegaly, regardless of what the dumb majority thinks; why shouldn’t a Bush-appointed judge be free to do a little creative thinking with regards to, say, the first amendment?