Jul 31 2008
Religious Freedom, my ass
It’s not often that I’m seething before I finish my morning slim-fast, but what do you know? This morning is shaping up to be one of those days. Because of this article: Religious Freedom Vs. Patient’s Rights.
Give me a fucking break, already.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US CHOOSES OUR JOB. WE CAN QUIT AND GET A NEW DAMN JOB. IF YOUR JOB ENTAILS FILLING PRESCRIPTIONS FOR BIRTH CONTROL AND THAT UPSETS YOU - FUCKING QUIT. IT IS THAT DAMN EASY.
That’s not religious intolerance. It’s fucking life.
I’m sorry I’m cursing so much, I don’t usually. But this issue is so colossally simple, it practically demands that f-words pepper any discussion of it. If your religion does not allow you to fill prescriptions for birth control, do not become a pharmacist. There are a million other jobs you could have. Seriously, be an astronaut. Be a teacher. Be a stupid politician. Be anything you want to be, but don’t choose a job that has ethical ramifications if you are unable to see anything outside your world view.
Here’s where claims of religious intolerance make me cackle in outright horror: when they’re used to support other intolerance.
It is not intolerant for a hair-dresser to deny a job to a Muslim woman who has to cover up her hair according to her religion. They need her hair to show to get customers in. It is not intolerant for a store to expect a Jewish butcher to handle pork. It is not intolerant to expect a Hindu checker to scan the ground beef you’re buying. It is not intolerant to expect a doctor or nurse who is a Jehovah’s Witness to perform blood transfusions. If any one of those people had a problem with their job, do you know what the government would tell them? Sit on it. Get a new damn job.
And so I say the same damn thing. If you work as a pharmacist and you have an issue with commonly prescribed medications - sit on it. Get a new damn job. Make sure your workplace knows and so they can always schedule with someone who is comfortable filling that prescription. It’s not about religious rights. It’s about giving someone the medication they need. Since when did we, as a country, become so idiotic that we started valuing one person’s beliefs over the good of the whole? Over the beliefs of the whole?
I think you have a right to believe whatever you want. I just don’t think ANYONE has the right to enforce their beliefs on a community. If you think birth control = abortion, not only are you a damn idiot who doesn’t understand how women’s bodies work anyway, but you don’t have the right to deny people their freedoms to take birth control. If that doesn’t make sense to you, do not choose to go into a career as a pharmacist.
It is that easy. It is that simple. The fact that there is fucking debate about issues as stupidly simple as this in my damn country pisses me off.
How is what the administration is proposing not unwarranted government interference in the private sector?
No true conservative should support this crap. The free market is a major part of what makes this country great.
I think the idea is this: if someone’s religious beliefs are under attack, our gov’t has a responsibility to protect them, free market and all. The same is true of racism or sexism… our government does have a responsibility to protect minorities because the free market won’t.
Which I support, in theory, if there was actually any evidence of religious intolerance here, rather than people choosing not to do their jobs. Damn, if I did that, I’d get fired.
“I’m sorry. According to “Bob” I really shouldn’t be answering phones. See, there’s this great big conspiracy and…”
You’re fired. You have ten minutes to get off my property before I release the hounds.
Sometimes I wonder if these types–the pharmacists–just got into the game to make a stink. So stupid.
Kara, you hinted at the implicit assertion behind the arguments in support of this government interference, the assertion that fills me with disgust: “Some religious beliefs are more valid than others.”
What we have here is a pharmacist who holds one set of beliefs and a customer who holds another, different, set of beliefs. No contemporary standard of morality or legality can conclusively prove either of their belief systems to be intolerable. To allow the pharmacist to impose his beliefs on his customer, when he is inherently in a position of authority by virtue of his ability to dispense drugs, is to say that his beliefs are more valid than the customer’s. It’s like we have to find the lowest common ethical denominator. Some of us think ova are people, so we must all act like ova are people to keep anyone from getting upset. Regardless of the imposition on personal liberty and lack of demonstrable social harm.
I am further annoyed because dispensing the medication is the “default” action in this situation. The doctor has prescribed it and the pharmacist must choose not to dispense it rather than doing what is expected of him. The pharmacist has to be awfully self-righteous in order to feel that his moral integrity is compromised by following medical orders that he finds disagreeable.
That’s really what I meant, when I said,”Here’s where claims of religious intolerance make me cackle in outright horror: when they’re used to support other intolerance.” The funniest part of the issue is that the accusations of religious intolerance are really disguising a deeper intolerance. The intolerance that comes with seeing your beliefs as the only beliefs that matter and thinking that your beliefs can be enforced on society and other human beings willy-nilly with no concern for how those actions might impact them.