How Far Can The State Go?

[PoliticalChic]

Admit it or not, the politically dominant philosophy, whether one calls it Democrat, Liberal, socialist, Marxist, it virulently opposed to religion, and, by extension, the morality thereof.



1. "Religious case at Supreme Court could affect Obamacare and much more
...At issue in Tuesday's oral argument before the court is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to provide workers a health plan that covers the full range of contraceptives, including morning-after pills and intrauterine devices, or IUDs."
Religious case at Supreme Court could affect Obamacare and much more - Los Angeles Times


But this is only the tip of the iceberg.




The American Left has always taken it's cues from the European Left.....
...and there, one can see both the how far the Left wishes to go against religious precepts, and, possibly.....

...an incipient push-back.



2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients.
Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland


b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting?

"How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



3. What makes men good? Certainly they are not good by nature. In fact, frequently, the contrary. Does science have an opinion?
"Perhaps," Atheist Richard Dawkins speculates, "I... am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091226094728AAv8UVO





Perhaps there are some men who are simply good by their nature.....

4. "Some Dutch pharmacists refusing to supply euthanasia drugs

Although euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, some Dutch pharmacists are refusing to supply the lethal drugs needed to carry it out. ....this does not necessarily happen because of religious objections to euthanasia. Some pharmacists do not know the doctors who approved the euthanasia; others do not agree with euthanasia for conditions like dementia or depression.

“A pharmacy is not a shop where deadly drugs are just handed over,” a spokesperson for the pharmacists’ association said."
BioEdge: Some Dutch pharmacists refusing to supply euthanasia drugs




Now, if the pharmacies of Holland were under the purview of the current United States President and his henchmen at the Department of Justice.....

...what, one wonders, would they be ordered to do?

 

[occupied]

The state will always go as far as the people will let them but I am puzzled by your outrage-du-jour, are you opposed to Dutch euthanasia and what the hell does that have to do with Obama and the ACA? We as Americans lack the common decency to allow people to chose the time and manner of their death unlike the rather kind nation of Holland.

 

[ogibillm]

henchmen? seriously?

i'm of the opinion that a pharmacy is licensed to do business, and that part of that license should be the facilitation of legal prescription fulfillment - whether the pharmacist personally objects or otherwise.

if the pharmacist objects that strongly they are welcome to choose a new career. sometimes having religious convictions can require tough choices.

further, your #3 quote doesn't really have anything to do with your position.

 

[Plasmaball]

Holland isn't here. Regardless if a pharmacist doesn't want to hand out legal drugs then they can find a new job.

 

[ogibillm]

politicalchic, would you like a third party - like say the government - intervening between a doctor and patient and telling them which course of treatment they are allowed to pursue based on that third party's whims?

 

[Mac1958]

The American Left has always taken it's cues from the European Left.....

Correct, although they won't admit it. And that's what they clearly want - a pure social democrat system with centralized, authoritarian control.

The American Right, however, has done a stunningly awful job of doing anything about it. From somehow failing to recognize the Left's goals, to offering almost laughingly bad counter-messaging, the Right will have to look in the mirror when the Left gets its way.

We've passed the tipping point, so that moment of mirror-gazing is inevitable at this point.

.

 

[occupied]

I ******* hate it when people start threads and then abandon them.

 

[Redfish]

The American Left has always taken it's cues from the European Left.....

Correct, although they won't admit it. And that's want they clearly want - a pure social democrat system with centralized, authoritarian control.

The American Right, however, has done a stunningly awful job of doing anything about it. From somehow failing to recognize the Left's goals, to offering almost laughingly bad counter-messaging, the Right will have to look in the mirror when the Left gets its way.

We've passed the tipping point, so that moment of mirror-gazing is inevitable at this point.

.

I am really afraid that you are right. We have gone past the point of no return. Our individual freedom is being taken away daily and those on the left are celebrating in their ignorance because they are too stupid to realize that THEIR freedoms are being taken too.

or maybe they are just unable to take responsibility for their own lives and are happy being wards of the state.

 

[ogibillm]

The American Left has always taken it's cues from the European Left.....

Correct, although they won't admit it. And that's want they clearly want - a pure social democrat system with centralized, authoritarian control.

The American Right, however, has done a stunningly awful job of doing anything about it. From somehow failing to recognize the Left's goals, to offering almost laughingly bad counter-messaging, the Right will have to look in the mirror when the Left gets its way.

We've passed the tipping point, so that moment of mirror-gazing is inevitable at this point.

.

I am really afraid that you are right. We have gone past the point of no return. Our individual freedom is being taken away daily and those on the left are celebrating in their ignorance because they are too stupid to realize that THEIR freedoms are being taken too.

or maybe they are just unable to take responsibility for their own lives and are happy being wards of the state.

which freedoms? it's not really on topic but i really am curious

i can still vote, worship as i please, assemble with whom i want...

you can make the case that the nsa data collection is a curtailment of freedom theoretically, although practically there is no real loss.

 

[FA_Q2]

henchmen? seriously?

i'm of the opinion that a pharmacy is licensed to do business, and that part of that license should be the facilitation of legal prescription fulfillment - whether the pharmacist personally objects or otherwise.

if the pharmacist objects that strongly they are welcome to choose a new career. sometimes having religious convictions can require tough choices.

further, your #3 quote doesn't really have anything to do with your position.

That is the opinion that the state should somehow force one person to do something that they do not want to for no other reason than you demand it. That is rather silly.

You don’t have to serve tacos if you own a restaurant – that would simply be asinine. Why then does a pharmacy have to carry a specific drug? Why is it required to dispense that drug? And most stunning of all, why do you chose a drug that is NOT lifesaving or difficult to obtain to be the holy grail of MUST DISPENSE drugs.

Interestingly enough, no pharmacy carries the medication that my son requires. None of them are required to dispense it. Should I lose it or otherwise end up without it then I may have to drive a hundred miles to obtain more. If I do not administer it, my son will die.

Not one single person thinks it is some sort of ‘right’ that a pharmacy carry it though. I guess the medication that allows for you to more easily practice your chosen sex pattern is more important than another’s medication that is required to survive. The hypocrisy is utterly stunning.

The rather simple solution is to allow the business to handle it weather or not that means firing the employee or allowing them to work. That is called freedom – freedom to execute your life and business as you see fit.

As far as the euthanasia issue, I too would like to hear PC actually respond to that issue. It is utterly counter to the belief in freedom to demand that a person and their doctor cannot make end of life decisions. If you want to kill yourself – go ahead. Who the hell am I to demand that such an act be illegal/

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anarchy is the new conservative religion.

Laws that aren't voluntary are the new tyranny, according to conservatives.

Of course the only modifications to the above are that government and laws that conservatives like are acceptable.

 

[ogibillm]

henchmen? seriously?

i'm of the opinion that a pharmacy is licensed to do business, and that part of that license should be the facilitation of legal prescription fulfillment - whether the pharmacist personally objects or otherwise.

if the pharmacist objects that strongly they are welcome to choose a new career. sometimes having religious convictions can require tough choices.

further, your #3 quote doesn't really have anything to do with your position.

That is the opinion that the state should somehow force one person to do something that they do not want to for no other reason than you demand it. That is rather silly.

You don’t have to serve tacos if you own a restaurant – that would simply be asinine. Why then does a pharmacy have to carry a specific drug? Why is it required to dispense that drug? And most stunning of all, why do you chose a drug that is NOT lifesaving or difficult to obtain to be the holy grail of MUST DISPENSE drugs.

Interestingly enough, no pharmacy carries the medication that my son requires. None of them are required to dispense it. Should I lose it or otherwise end up without it then I may have to drive a hundred miles to obtain more. If I do not administer it, my son will die.

Not one single person thinks it is some sort of ‘right’ that a pharmacy carry it though. I guess the medication that allows for you to more easily practice your chosen sex pattern is more important than another’s medication that is required to survive. The hypocrisy is utterly stunning.

The rather simple solution is to allow the business to handle it weather or not that means firing the employee or allowing them to work. That is called freedom – freedom to execute your life and business as you see fit.

As far as the euthanasia issue, I too would like to hear PC actually respond to that issue. It is utterly counter to the belief in freedom to demand that a person and their doctor cannot make end of life decisions. If you want to kill yourself – go ahead. Who the hell am I to demand that such an act be illegal/

well again, i'm not saying that your local pharmacy shouldn't carry the drug you need, or that they should have a ready supply on hand.

i do recognize that it is unreasonable to expect every pharmacy everywhere to carry every drug, but i do believe that it is not unreasonable to expect them, as part of being a licensed pharmacy, to facilitate getting the drug to you.

in other words i believe that you should be able to walk into a pharmacy, any pharmacy, present them with a script, and have that script filled within a reasonable amount of time at that pharmacy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Holland isn't here. Regardless if a pharmacist doesn't want to hand out legal drugs then they can find a new job.

There are, of course, significant differences between fascism and Progressivism, but these are mainly attributable to the cultural differences between Europe and America- and between national cultures in general.



The Germans, representative of European thought, have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany"



And in the above post one can hear the echoes of jackboots on cobblestone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anarchy is the new conservative religion.

Laws that aren't voluntary are the new tyranny, according to conservatives.

Of course the only modifications to the above are that government and laws that conservatives like are acceptable.

The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

 

[Wry Catcher]

Admit it or not, the politically dominant philosophy, whether one calls it Democrat, Liberal, socialist, Marxist, it virulently opposed to religion, and, by extension, the morality thereof.



1. "Religious case at Supreme Court could affect Obamacare and much more
...At issue in Tuesday's oral argument before the court is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to provide workers a health plan that covers the full range of contraceptives, including morning-after pills and intrauterine devices, or IUDs."
Religious case at Supreme Court could affect Obamacare and much more - Los Angeles Times


But this is only the tip of the iceberg.




The American Left has always taken it's cues from the European Left.....
...and there, one can see both the how far the Left wishes to go against religious precepts, and, possibly.....

...an incipient push-back.



2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients.
Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland


b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting?

"How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



3. What makes men good? Certainly they are not good by nature. In fact, frequently, the contrary. Does science have an opinion?
"Perhaps," Atheist Richard Dawkins speculates, "I... am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091226094728AAv8UVO





Perhaps there are some men who are simply good by their nature.....

4. "Some Dutch pharmacists refusing to supply euthanasia drugs

Although euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, some Dutch pharmacists are refusing to supply the lethal drugs needed to carry it out. ....this does not necessarily happen because of religious objections to euthanasia. Some pharmacists do not know the doctors who approved the euthanasia; others do not agree with euthanasia for conditions like dementia or depression.

“A pharmacy is not a shop where deadly drugs are just handed over,” a spokesperson for the pharmacists’ association said."
BioEdge: Some Dutch pharmacists refusing to supply euthanasia drugs




Now, if the pharmacies of Holland were under the purview of the current United States President and his henchmen at the Department of Justice.....

...what, one wonders, would they be ordered to do?

"Admit it or not, the politically dominant philosophy, whether one calls it Democrat, Liberal, socialist, Marxist, it virulently opposed to religion, and, by extension, the morality thereof."?

1. Not all Democrats are Liberals.

a. If they were socialists they would be members of the Socialist Workers Party

b. if Communists, members of the Communist Party

c. if opposed to religion many would not be practicing Catholics or Jews or members of other organized religious sects.

2. As we know - at least I do - PC ought not speak to the issue of Morality, Immorality or Amorality; she does not comprehend the construct of each.

3. PC is, IMO, a bore, a passive aggressive, angry narcissist who holds any ideas which does not fit nicely into the box she carries labeled "my dogma" as the product of (pick the pejorative).

 

[NYcarbineer]

politicalchic, would you like a third party - like say the government - intervening between a doctor and patient and telling them which course of treatment they are allowed to pursue based on that third party's whims?

Conservatives support the free market death panel. If you can't afford healthcare at the market price,

you go without, or at best go begging.

 

[occupied]

Holland isn't here. Regardless if a pharmacist doesn't want to hand out legal drugs then they can find a new job.

There are, of course, significant differences between fascism and Progressivism, but these are mainly attributable to the cultural differences between Europe and America- and between national cultures in general.



The Germans, representative of European thought, have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany"



And in the above post one can hear the echoes of jackboots on cobblestone.

Ever cared for a terminally ill patient? When life is nothing but very expensive torment the most monstrous thing of all is the government telling you that you have to endure more suffering because the church people demand it. My mother suffered the torments of the damned before she died many months after life had lost it's last shred of dignity. Who the **** are you people that you require the terminally ill to suffer?

 

[Plasmaball]

Holland isn't here. Regardless if a pharmacist doesn't want to hand out legal drugs then they can find a new job.

There are, of course, significant differences between fascism and Progressivism, but these are mainly attributable to the cultural differences between Europe and America- and between national cultures in general.



The Germans, representative of European thought, have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany"



And in the above post one can hear the echoes of jackboots on cobblestone.

The germans...lol...they embraced that sort of rule because they are a prideful nation..and it wasn't so much they wanted to be ruled as they thought they where better and slighted by other nations.

Furthermore Germany is vastly more progressive than here.

We'll neat...you are trying to say I'm authoritative but I'm not...if I don't do my job I get fired..that's how life is..I guess you've never worked for a living so you wouldn't understand such a simple concept

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right to choose when to end one's own life, where would one put that among the best examples of 'liberty'?

Asked because we hear so much lip service given to 'liberty' nowadays from the Right.

 

[ogibillm]

PC, why do you believe the religious beliefs of a third party should enter into the care decided upon between a doctor and the patient?