Practicing religion in a blended society
Mac discusses a “doctor who choses who to treat based on faith”:http://www.peskyapostrophe.com/index.php/weblog/the_doctor_is_not_in/. An example: he wouldn’t treat a girl for an ear infection because the her mother has a tattoo. I’m sure you’ve heard of doctors and pharmacists have refusing to give birth control medication to women.
These stories leave me speechless. I’m baffled by the thought processes that would lead one to conclude this behavior is constructive. All it seems to offer is a sense of superiority, and these kinds of decisions violate the root social contract of a democracy. I have a feeling that folks who think this way are seeking self-righteousness and wouldn’t be opposed to authoritarian rule as long as it swung their way, so I guess they don’t really have a problem with that. But it worries and confuses me.
A very long time ago (by blog standards) I wrote that we are “not required to tolerate intolerance”:http://www.thudfactor.com/wordpress/2004/04/16/tolerance-shmolerance/, and these strike me as excellent cases. All those involved say they are just exercising their freedom of religion, but they are doing so in a manner that tries to impose those standards of behavior on other people. If it was just one doctor in Manhattan, it’d be one thing. But it looks like what we’re facing is a movement seeks to make it difficult for people with different views and opinions to live. And although I’m generally opposed to forcing people to do things they believe are wrong, the behavior of these doctors is so extreme that it cries out for legislative remedy. They ought to be forced to treat people who need treatment or get out of medicine.