[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-18, 08:27, said:

Germany is not Spain, but here politicians get caught stealing millions and don't even lose their job, they even get reelected, a kamikaze killed someone for driving his car on the wrong side of a highway, he has been exonerated by the government (links to the government are suspected), however a mother's been sent to prison for buying food&diapers with a credit card she found on the street.

Memories of when my family had a place in Spain in the 70s-90s. The town we were in had 3 parts (town/beach/port) separated by bits that couldn't be built on. Suddenly a petrol station appears in a prime spot between the town and the beach. Turns out to have been built by the mayor's brother with no planning permission whatsoever. Corruption in local politics got so bad the expats even formed a political party to try to clean it up.

[jkljkl]

Codo, on 2013-January-18, 09:28, said:

I would not claim knowledge of his mindset. I am evangelic ltherian from Hamburg, I do not care about your regional cardinals or your regional politicians, sorry.

But I would belive that you will find fundamentalists everywhere and that some of them will support how the doctors reacted.

But up to now, nobody claimed that this behaviour was right or according to catholic believes. Or do you know/hear someone?

This behaviour was directly caused by catholic believes, that noone claims it does not make it untrue. And you don't have to be sorry about not caring what an effect our politicians or cardinals have on our lives, standard human behaviour (mine too). But to put out a factor out of an equation while you say that you are talking about it, will lead to nowhere. Maybe you have a more theoretical approach about pure concepts without humans being involved. I do not buy this religion without humans.

[mgoetze]

Codo, on 2013-January-18, 09:33, said:

You may google it and find something in the WDR, Münchner Abendzeitung, Fokus, Gerealanzeiger- just to name the first hits I found on facebook...

But maybe in your dayly "Bash the christs" journal they had another view....

As you can see I linked to Zeit Online. If you really think they specialise in bashing Christians ... well, I don't know what to say. The Kölner Stadtanzeiger had more or less the same text so it seems to have been from a news agency. I checked your first source, WDR, which claims the Archbishopric had apologized. However, they give no quote, whereas the sources I just mentioned give an actual quote from a speaker for the Archbishopric which does not sound apologetic at all. On the other hand, the WDR article mentions that the central organisation of catholic hospitals in Germany supports the hospitals which denied aid to the victim. So it seems like things are not as clear as you claim they are.

[kenberg]

Since this thread addressed the issue of tolerance, I will say a few more words, maybe not totally repetitive, of how I see tolerance.

First an extreme, and as far as I know, a fictitious example. A person is rushed to the hospital from a car accident or whatever, he is in serious need of transfusion, the doctor in charge announces that his religion forbids the giving of transfusions. Do we all agree that this is unacceptable?

My tolerance toward religious practices is, I believe, broad. Somene wants to go off in the woods and practice witchcraft, good luck to him and his fellow witches/warlocks. Just go easy on the animal sacrifices, and in extreme cases society may have to intervene on behalf of children, but largely I accept a person's right to worship as s/he pleases.

It changes if the person becomes a doctor. The first responsibility of the medical community is to the patient, not to the religious preferences of the doctors. Doctors of course can be religious just as mathematicians can be religious. But if their religion interferes with accepted medical practice then they must put aside their religious views or they must arrange for the conflict to be managed in some other way. I imagine that ear/nose/throat specialists seldom have religious crises in their practice. They could try that.

I apply this not only to religion but to any selection of a profession. It is not reasonable for a person to take a job with a tobacco manufacturer and then expect to be exempted from the production and marketing of cigarettes. Nor is it reasonable for a person to take a job that he cannot perform and then expect accommodations.


Many years back I read Bartleby the Scrivener, a short story by Melville. I can't say that I enjoyed it that much or that I much remember the details, the main good part was that it was a lot shorter than Moby Dick, but the main character takes a job and whenever he is given a task to do, he replies "I would prefer not to". Well, then, he needs to find a job he prefers to do. I don't get to announce I would prefer not to do a job that I am being paid to do, and neither does anyone else, religious objections notwithstanding. You do the job or you go get a different job that you find more suitable. In the case of a medical job, it is completely irresponsible and incredibly arrogant for a doctor to assert that his religious needs take precedence over a patient's medical needs. Such a doctor needs to be gone, and gone quickly. It does not matter at all which religion we are speaking of here, or even whether it qualifies as religion.

[Winstonm]

32519, on 2013-January-18, 08:58, said:

A large amount of copies of all the letters written which make up the New Testament have been recovered, sometimes 300 or more. The oldest manuscripts are regarded as the most accurate. But there is also a process of comparing them with each other to determine consistency in the copy process, the majority containing the same text are considered more reliable.

The language of the first century was predominantly Greek.

This is a terrific non-refutation of all the points I made. Copies, yes. Predominantly Greek means nothing to a illiterate Aramaic-speaking fisherman.

[Fluffy]

kenberg, on 2013-January-18, 15:15, said:

First an extreme, and as far as I know, a fictitious example. A person is rushed to the hospital from a car accident or whatever, he is in serious need of transfusion, the doctor in charge announces that his religion forbids the giving of transfusions. Do we all agree that this is unacceptable?

My tolerance toward religious practices is, I believe, broad. Somene wants to go off in the woods and practice witchcraft, good luck to him and his fellow witches/warlocks. Just go easy on the animal sacrifices, and in extreme cases society may have to intervene on behalf of children, but largely I accept a person's right to worship as s/he pleases.

It changes if the person becomes a doctor. The first responsibility of the medical community is to the patient, not to the religious preferences of the doctors. Doctors of course can be religious just as mathematicians can be religious. But if their religion interferes with accepted medical practice then they must put aside their religious views or they must arrange for the conflict to be managed in some other way. I imagine that ear/nose/throat specialists seldom have religious crises in their practice. They could try that.

I agree with all, the first case should be unacceptable by laws of whatever country it happens. If it happened to me while visiting some country, well then it is my problem, but as other things I've said about tolerancy, I think my views are easier to say than to follow, if this ever touched me somehow I might not be strong enough to stand. When a country has a law that is uncommon for torists it is normally very well announced before/whle you enter the country.

The second I fully agree, again some laws protecting animals and children might apply.

Third one also fully agree, if your beliefs doesn't let you be a doctor, well just don't be.



The problem in northern Mali is that islamists have conquered the land, and are imposing both their beliefs and their laws, this is so unfair for locals who never ever picked any of them. A minorty is imposing the laws and the beliefs.

[kenberg]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-18, 16:41, said:

[/size]
The problem in northern Mali is that islamists have conquered the land, and are imposing both their beliefs and their laws, this is so unfair for locals who never ever picked any of them. A minorty is imposing the laws and the beliefs.

Long ago someone observed to me that the problem is not with this religion or that religion, but with the uncompromising true believers of any religion. It's not that simple of course, but the observation is on the right track.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-18, 09:53, said:

I have no idea what they did or failed to, but I am no fundamentalist but accept that they can follow their beliefs in their own hospital as long as it is according to the law

The most obvious problem with this is that the rape victim might not have had a choice which hospital she went to; she may well have been brought to the closest one. So she did not willingly accept the limitations of the Catholic hospital.

Quote

(maybe it wasn't according to law, then I am just saying nonsense and they should be pursued by law, not by ethics). But then, I am more tolerant that others.

I had surgery on 17th december, but before I was taken to the operation room I had to take way my wedding ring, this shocked me because I had planned to stay with it for my whole life, even managed to board 4 planes with it. But it is their hospital and their rules. I just accepted it. I supose this is much less important for you than whatever rape thing (I did't fully understand sorry), but the concept its the same.

The concept is the same? Ummm... suppose the rape victim was also asked to remove her wedding ring. This is the same. Were you refused necessary treatment, or procedures that might help catch a criminal? Are you really as naive as your posts suggest, or are you putting up a straw man to make a point?

[blackshoe]

Whenever I've gone in for surgery, I've been asked to remove all jewelry, watches, and anything else metal or detachable, such as dentures. I never asked, but I can think of several possible reasons for this: in the case of dentures, if they're planning to stick a tube down your throat, they don't want anything getting in the way. In the case of jewelry two possibilities occur: they don't want to deal with patients who claim "when you put me under I was wearing a $5000 watch; now it's gone. You owe me $5000", or possibly they prefer that patients who may require electric shock to restart their hearts not be wearing things that conduct electricity. I suspect the latter is more likely.

[Fluffy]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-18, 18:19, said:

The most obvious problem with this is that the rape victim might not have had a choice which hospital she went to; she may well have been brought to the closest one. So she did not willingly accept the limitations of the Catholic hospital.

This is a law problem as well you should not send a victim to a hospital where she won't get the attention she needs/wants.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-19, 02:33, said:

This is a law problem as well you should not send a victim to a hospital where she won't get the attention she needs/wants.

This is not the solution, but it suggests one -- don't have Catholic/inadequate hospitals in the first place so that this never happens.

[Trinidad]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-19, 02:33, said:

This is a law problem as well you should not send a victim to a hospital where she won't get the attention she needs/wants.

Sorry Gonzalo, but this is nonsense. This is an emergency hospital. That is where you get rushed to in an emergency. They have to give the medical attention that is prescribed for these situations.

I am very tolerant towards religious people, pretty much how Ken describes it. Independent of what I think about their believes, they can believe whatever they want, practice whatever they want... as long as it isn't at the expense of others. At that point, my religious tolerance stops. Finito, basta!

In this case, we are talking about doctors and nurses who are supposed to be the ultimate people acting in the interest of their patients. But since they were Roman Catholics they decided to practice their religion at the expense of defenseless patients.

This I won't tolerate, and neither should society. Fortunately, many Christians agree with this.

Rik

[BunnyGo]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-19, 02:33, said:

This is a law problem as well you should not send a victim to a hospital where she won't get the attention she needs/wants.

Sorry, this defeats the purpose of emergency medicine in a hospital. The point is not to have to travel to the next city (if you're not fortunate to live equidistant from 2 hospitals), but to get the necessary treatments ASAP.

The only times I've ever taken patients (when I was on an ambulance) to a hospital that was not the closest was:

a) When they had a speciality issue such as a crushed skull and needed to get to the specialist ASAP as opposed to just the closest doctor for stabilization

or

b) the difference between travel times was < 2 minutes and the patient requested the farther hospital for medical reasons (e.g. there was a doctor there who knew them)

Demanding that patients know the differing policies of a hospital is absurd. Treat them ASAP in the best way uniformly everywhere--that should be the law (if it isn't already).

[nige1]

Mr Lettsom said:

When people's ill, they come to I,
I physics, bleeds and sweats 'em;
Sometime they live, sometimes they die,
What's that to I? I let's 'em.

Arguably, there's no such thing as an exact Science. Anyway, Medicine isn't one. Good doctors do the best they can for patients. It's understandable if an unborn child is regarded as a patient. Just like contributors on both sides of this debate, doctors have irrational beliefs. Removing tonsils and adenoids used to be a craze. Later, hysterectomies became a fad. Doctors seem to have genuinely believed that they were doing the right thing (Surgeons routinely permitted unnecessary hysterectomies on their wives). Many a modern medical hobby-horse will turn out to be a chimaera. Bridge bidding-theory is another possible analogy

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2013-January-19, 09:41, said:

Just like contributors on both sides of this debate, doctors can have irrational beliefs.

So many religious people argue that atheism is just another form of their own irrational world-view, as if there is no real difference: both sides operate on belief. I suppose that makes it easier to avoid confronting the truth that they cannot rationaly defend the tenets of their religion.

But while we have seen a great deal of irrationality on the part of some (but not all) of the religious posters here, I wonder what posts from atheists exhibit irrational beliefs?

Being rude or confrontational may not be desirable traits, but when the thoughts are based on evidence, they need not reflect irrationality.

This post of nige's appears to reflect scarabin's error: just because there are two sides to a debate doesn't mean that both sides possess equally valid arguments. Thus I contend that the non-believers offer rational reasons for their non-belief while the believers vary in the rationality of their arguments, with the mycrofts and codos offering rational arguments for choosing to believe irrational things with the 32 type being on the lunatic fringe.

[nige1]

mikeh, on 2013-January-19, 10:01, said:

So many religious people argue that atheism is just another form of their own irrational world-view, as if there is no real difference: both sides operate on belief. I suppose that makes it easier to avoid confronting the truth that they cannot rationaly defend the tenets of their religion. But while we have seen a great deal of irrationality on the part of some (but not all) of the religious posters here, I wonder what posts from atheists exhibit irrational beliefs?

Being rude or confrontational may not be desirable traits, but when the thoughts are based on evidence, they need not reflect irrationality.

hrothgar said:

In my experience, the individual who complain most about ad hominem attacks are cranks, yahoos, and idiots who resent their status and think that throwing around some Latin will somehow make others forget the reams of drivel that they have been subjected to.

Idiotic cranky Yahoo said:

I agree that it's hard to forget the reams of drivel to which we've been subjected but when an antagonist becomes rude and confrontational it usually indicates that we've won the argument.

mikeh, on 2013-January-19, 10:01, said:

This post of nige's appears to reflect scarabin's error: just because there are two sides to a debate doesn't mean that both sides possess equally valid arguments. Thus I contend that the non-believers offer rational reasons for their non-belief while the believers vary in the rationality of their arguments, with the mycrofts and codos offering rational arguments for choosing to believe irrational things with the 32 type being on the lunatic fringe.

Idiotic cranky Yahoo said:

Some of us lack Mikeh's vision. Why do we do things? FWIW, a set of simplistic ideas:

• Dawkins et al. say many of our behaviour patterns are instinctive i.e. built into our genes.
• Chomsky et al. confirm that our genes code inbuilt systems that facilitate learning at critical periods e.g. of Language
• Skinner et al. explain behaviour in terms of conditioning e.g. Operant conditioning.
• Is there more to it? Most people give this little thought (e.g. they would puzzle over philanthropic behaviour. Although Dawkins et al. make a plausible attempt to justify altruism in terms of gene-survival). Some people, however, imagine that they have a trait you might call conscious free-will (for want of a better term). For our purposes, we may define Self-awareness as one's ability to mentally manipulate a model of reality that includes oneself as an identifiable discrete entity. Explicitly or implicitly, two axioms, influence some people's decisions: X is good and We should try to act so as to maximise good. The set of goals (X) is hard to define, neither postulate is provable, and Deontic Modal Logic is flawed by paradox. Nevertheless, for a religious person, X may be Our God's will. For a utilitarian, X may be Human Happiness. For many, X may include My wealth and power.. Moral behaviour based on such a belief system seems to lack proper rational justification. In this mire of uncertainty, Agnosticism seems more defensible than Atheism. And 32519's working hypotheses seem to be as rational (or irrational) as any other.

Hamlet said:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

[Vampyr]

What is curious to me is that all of the believers who have posted in this thread are believers in specific anthropomorphic gods and specific holy books. I should have thought that these people would be heavily outnumbered by those who think there is "something" out there, that did not necessarily create the world, does not necessarily care what we do, does not necessarily dole out rewards and punishments, etc. But we have not heard from the latter sort of people, or if we have, they have not identified themselves as such.

I find this a shame, because, to me at least, the idea of the divine is much more seductive than the tenets of an organised religion or quotes from its scriptures.

[Fluffy]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-19, 05:29, said:

In this case, we are talking about doctors and nurses who are supposed to be the ultimate people acting in the interest of their patients. But since they were Roman Catholics they decided to practice their religion at the expense of defenseless patients.

Yes, they are suposed to, by law. But if they aren't suposed to by law, they don't have to do it*. It doesn't matter what they believe or not, if the law allows it, then they are allowed to do it, saying that they are enforced to follow laws that don't exist doesn't make sense.


If you don't like it then change the laws, not their beliefs. Trying to change their beliefs its really stupid in the first place.

* for me its pretty rare that laws don't force doctors to save lives.

If whatever test its neccesary for the investigation then you should require it by law, or else someone will not do it, it can be a fanatic, or it can be an atheists doctor who happens to be the uncle of the assaulter.


If you give someone the option to choose, don't complain that he chooses what you don't want.

[Fluffy]

BunnyGo, on 2013-January-19, 08:37, said:

Sorry, this defeats the purpose of emergency medicine in a hospital. The point is not to have to travel to the next city (if you're not fortunate to live equidistant from 2 hospitals), but to get the necessary treatments ASAP.

Yes this is really obvious, and then, if a hospital is not adequate for emergencies, you either make it adequate, or don't let it take emergencies!, or at least those for wich its not adequate.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-19, 16:33, said:

If you give someone the option to choose, don't complain that he chooses what you don't want.

To whom is this directed? I wasn't aware that anyone in this forum gave these doctors and nurses the right to choose what procedures to carry out.