Americans, know your rights.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

So, under the disguise of "religious liberty", you would allow a person to become a bigot, and a racist.

A person's religion can be racist. Some argue that Islam is anti-semitic. Race is a protected class in our society although there are some exceptions made for religions. An owner of an Islamic bookstore is not going to be required to hire a Jew to work in it. However if the same owner also has a roofing company he would be prosecuted for discriminating against a Jew in that company.

The Klu Klux Klan is a racist organization by design and yet have the same right to free speech that allow us to have political discussions. So just because a person's or group's views may be racist doesn't mean they lose their civil rights.

Again, we as Seventh-day Adventists don't need the ACLU. We have a very good religious liberty department fighting our battles and should be supporting it.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Shane we know that at one time our hospitals in the U.S. refused to provide services to African-Aans.

Let's try to refrain from personalizing our posts and stay focused on the topic and not other members of the forum.

Yes, I know Adventist hospitals in parts of the US were at one time segregated as were all hospitals in the South. There was probably some racism involved but the fact they were segregated itself isn't enough to conclude racism as the churches mission is to serve people and not buck social norms.

Quote:

You tell us now that they have also refused to deliver babies to unwed mothers! That is astounding.

Yes, this is true and made the national news a number of years ago. In fact, I believe we even had quite a long tread here at C/A about this a few years back where others here said it was not an isolated incident. I first heard about it while watching a TV talk show where it was the topic of discussion and it was actually the emergency room that turned her away. There was a county hospital near by from what I recall but it has been so many years I can't remember the details well.

Abortion is another example. Christian doctors cannot be required to perform abortions even if they work in a hospital that preforms such procedures. Catholic doctors cannot be required to perform vasectomies. Within the same reasoning, an employer with certain religious convictions should not be required to support a lifestyle his or her religion believes is sinful.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Yes, I know Adventist hospitals in parts of the US were at one time segregated as were all hospitals in the South. There was probably some racism involved but the fact they were segregated itself isn't enough to conclude racism as the churches mission is to serve people and not buck social norms.

That is an astounding statement.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Abortion is another example. Christian doctors cannot be required to perform abortions even if they work in a hospital that preforms such procedures. Catholic doctors cannot be required to perform vasectomies. Within the same reasoning, an employer with certain religious convictions should not be required to support a lifestyle his or her religion believes is sinful.

Let us be accurate: Physicians cannot be required to perform either abortions or vasectomies. That right to refuse to do such is not limited to Christian and Catholic physicians.

As to the rest of your statement, you are on much more shaky ground. But, you have said "should not be required," rather than "can not be required." So, I guess that you have expressed an opinion rather than a statement of fact.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Yes, this is true and made the national news a number of years ago. In fact, I believe we even had quite a long tread here at C/A about this a few years back where others here said it was not an isolated incident. I first heard about it while watching a TV talk show where it was the topic of discussion and it was actually the emergency room that turned her away. There was a county hospital near by from what I recall but it has been so many years I can't remember the details well.

O.K. This issue is so old in your memory that you are uncertain of the details. We therefore do not know if the woman was turned away because the hospital did not have available the OB care she needed, or becaue she was not married. We do not know if she was turned away as a rape victim, or whether or not she was a prostitute. In fact, there is nothing that can be checked, to substantiate your claim. O.K.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Again, we as Seventh-day Adventists don't need the ACLU. We have a very good religious liberty department fighting our battles and should be supporting it.

The SDA religious liberty department limits itself to issues that either are a religious liberty issue, or might affect religious liberty issues.

The ACLLU deals with issues of the Constitution, and civil rights. There are many civil rights that either do not have a religious liberty aspect, or, if they do, it is tangential. SDA members may need the ACLU for those issues that do not invovle religious liberty.

In addition, the ACLU may take on religious liberty issues that the SDA religious liberty department will not. Let me give you one such:

As the pastor of a SDA congregation, I hade a physician in my congregation who held office hours on Sunday. Then the State legislature passed a Sunday law that in effect prohibited him from scheduling regular appointments for Sunday, and seeing patients on that day who were not in a life threatening condition.

With my help, he requested that the local Conference, and the Union Conference help him to keep his medical office open on Sunday. He was refused. The SDA religious liberty of the SDA church voted NOT to take that case. They decided that as a physician, he earned enough money that he could close his practice on Sunday, and still make a reasonable living. That was what I was told.

After the local police came out to arrest him for violating the law (he was informed, and his office was closed when they arrived) he closed his office permanently on Sunday.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

An owner of an Islamic bookstore is not going to be required to hire a Jew to work in it.

There are circumstances where you are correct. And, there are circumstances where you would not be correct.

[Dr. Shane]

I can remember from the talk show that the woman was turned away because she was not married. Her boyfriend was with her at the time. I am surprised that those who profess to know so much about what goes on in this church cannot remember this incident that drew the national press. Does anyone remember David Koresh in Waco, Texas?

Quote:

there is nothing that can be checked, to substantiate your claim.

I don't think it is that big of an issue that it needs to be substantiated. The point is that a private, religious hospital has the right to refuse service to someone in such conditions. While it may or may not be moral, the right remains.

As for the Adventist doctor, it sounds like the religious liberty department made the right decision. We should choose our battles wisely. Paul instructs us to submit to the civil authorities. I am sure if the doctor wants to perform abortions on Sundays the ACLU will be more than happy to take up his cause.

[Gregory Matthews]

The only need to verify is to determine to what extent it is true. As you have stated that you do not remember the details, you have opened the door to the possibility that you have posted some falsehood.

As to your statement that a private religious hospital has the right to refuse to someone in such a condition: You are clearly wrong in some places, if you imply that the reason for refusing to deliver the baby is due to the woman not being married. Perhaps you are right in other places.

You sure raise an interesting issue: To refuse to provide medical assistance in the delivery of a child, may (in some cases) endanger the life of that child to the point that the child dies. To do that because the mother is unmarried presents a shallow concept of Christianity that, in my mind, is worthy of rejection. If you do not beleive in abortion, I find it strange to justify a refusal to assist a woman in the delivery of her child. Something is wrong here.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

As for the Adventist doctor, it sounds like the religious liberty department made the right decision. We should choose our battles wisely.

Yes, we should choose our battles wisely. You are entitled to your opinion in regard to that being the right choice. But, by saying such, you have demonstrated the need for organizations such as the ACLU. My response was to your statement that SDAs do not need the ACLU as we have our religious liberty department. Thank you for making my point.

[Gregory Matthews]

May a hospital refuse to deliver the child of an ummarried mother?

Here is the a reference which may be of help:

Quote:

Under federal law a hospital equipped to handle delivering babies may

not turn away a woman in active labor even if the woman is uninsured. The law

prohibiting hospitals from turning away patients who are in urgent need of care

is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act--also

referred to as the anti-dumping law.

I do not know when the event that Shane references is supposed to have occured. The key point is: Is the hospital equiped to deliver children, and to the degree of medical intervention required for that specific delivery. If so, the hospital can not refuse to do assist in the delivery of the child.

The reason is simple: Society values life. Our culture places value on the life of unborn children. Under this law is has asserted this value, in an attempt to preserve life.

Yes, I know that you will bring up abortion. Yes, this law may (?) be inconsistent with the law on abortion. But, that does notmean that our society in some ways values live and attempts to protect unborn children.

Perhaps, Shane has referenced an event that occured a long time ago, before this law was passed, or perhaps he is simply wrong in his implied reason. After all, the media is not always correct.

So, Shane, I would appreciate it if you could give us some facts that would substantiate your claim.

By the way, the above law was passed in 1986. You may reference it on: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/EMTALA/

[Dr. Shane]

Regardless how one looks at it. SDAs do not need a radical group like the ACLU to defend them. If the ACLU didn't exist, Adventists could hire their own private attorney's to fight their battles. When we become "we" centered instead of "I" centered then we began to accept the decisions of the church and stop fighting and playing the role of a victim. The victim mentality does not serve us well.

The ironic thing is that Adventists criticize other denominations for compromising their beliefs when they join hands with denominations they disagree with in significant areas of doctrine. The idea that an Adventist would go seek help from the ACLU is frightening scary. It is almost like selling one's soul to the devil. If the religious liberty department doesn't believe a person's case merits the church's assistance, why on Earth would a person go to the child molesting, gay, abortion defending ACLU?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

So, Shane...

Shane is not the topic of this thread.

[Neil D]

Quote:

So, Shane...

Shane is not the topic of this thread.

But when Shane expounds radical viewspoints like abortion, distorted views of the ACLU, even calling them radical, and when Shane distorts and proposes a myth as mainstream, then Shane does indeed become the topic of the thread and his viewpoints are examined....

Sorry Shane, but you brought this to yourself....

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane has made numerous comments in regard to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In view of those comments, I have decided to provide some additional information.

Steven Shapiro, writing for the ACLU, in December 2004, in an amici curiae brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court on a petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the case of Cutter v. Wilkinson, said the following:

“The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) is a nationwide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with more than 400,000 members dedicated to the principles of liberty and equality embodied in the Constitution and this nation’s civil rights laws. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has sought to preserve religious freedom through its defense of both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. In furtherance of that goal, the ACLU has appeared before this Court in numerous religion cases, both as direct counsel and as amicus curiae.”

It should be noted that in this case the ACLU argued for the Constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1, a law which SDAs and other religious people value highly.

Shane is entitled to his opinion on the ACLU, as is everyone else reading these posts. While we might disagree with some of the positions that the ACLU has taken, it has often defended religious liberty .

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane, no, you are neither the topic, nor the central focus of these posts. Rather, you are the one to whom they are addressed. To recognize and name the person to whom they are addressed is a polite form of the written English language.

[lazarus]

Shane is entitled to his opinion on the ACLU, as is everyone else reading these posts.

Agreed.

The challenge comes when we make assertions that are presented as fact but provide no evidence to support those facts. Shane I do not want to make you the subject of this thread but please don't make what I consider to be unfounded remarks and then simply ignore polite requests for support.

Another way to deal with it is to say "in my opinion" or "I think" but when you say the ACLU is this or that folks who disagree will want to know how you arrived at the conclusion.

[Dr. Shane]

When anyone expresses an opinion on a topic, no matter what their opinion is or how founded in fact it may or may not be, it should not move the discussion away from the topic and on to the other participant of the discussion. Instead of making excuses to dismiss their misconduct, those that move the focus onto other members should simply apologize and steer a thread back on topic. Some get quite emotional and can easily get caught up in personalizing a discussion that need not be personalized at all.

When disagreeing with another member, if we avoid using their name or the word "you" that will go a long way in playing well with others and creating a friendlier forum were more people will feel safe to disagree with opinions being expressed. If we continue to justify behavior by saying things like "you brought this to yourself" then our forum will continue to be known as a place that is not friendly.

The opinion I have expressed is commonly held by many in the US. The ACLU is considered to be one of the most liberal organizations in the country. Those that disagree might list a few they think are more liberal, more extreme. As I have pointed out, they have taken on some conservative causes like defending Rush Limbaugh. However they also have defended child molesters rights to recruit and organize other child molesters. To me it doesn't get much more extreme than that. Of course I was sexually molested as a child so I have an obvious bias against organizations the promote and defend such behavior.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The challenge comes when we make assertions that are presented as fact but provide no evidence to support those facts.

Perhaps my first post in this thread was missed:

Quote:

Here are a few things the ACLU has fought for.

1. Blocking prayer and Bible reading in our public schools and city/village meetings

2. Litigating to remove 10 Commandments plaques and all Christian symbols and emblems in schools, cities and public places

3. Ensuring the procedure of partial birth abortion be permitted as a recognized legal medical procedure

4. Ensuring abortion without restrictions be available at any time throughout a woman's pregnancy

5. Ensuring parents be denied the right to consent or even be notified of a teenager's decision to have an abortion

6. Denying waiting periods before pregnant women have an abortion

7. Denying "right to know" information to women considering the dangerous risks of having an abortion

8. Removing "IN GOD WE TRUST" from our money

9. Forcing religious organizations like Catholic Charities as well as insurance companies to provide contraceptive and/or abortion coverage against their will

10. Removing God out of the Pledge of Allegiance

11. Forcing homosexuality to be taught as an acceptable alternate lifestyle in public schools

12. Forcing public schools to adopt Gay/Straight Alliances in communities that do not want them

13. Forcing states to accept same sex marriage as equivalent to heterosexual marriage

14. Preventing libraries from blocking pornography in their computers

Is it just Shane? Is Shane making accusations or just restating a common opinion held by millions of American?

Boston Globe: The ACLU is out of line

O'Reilly Factor: The ACLU Exposes Itself...

Front Page Mag: Watching the Pro-Terror Left

Medical News Today: Scalia During ACLU D...Abortion Rights

And finally the director of the ACLU admits many believe them to be liberal (it's not just Shane!). He defends the ACLU as being nonpartisan because they defend low-lifes on both ends of the political spectrum.

You Tube: Anthony Romero - Is the ACLU a Liberal Organization?

Isn't supporting our religious liberty department a much better option? Why support an organization that supports child molesters, racists, abortionists, homophobs and gays alike?

[lazarus]

It's widely accepted that the ACLU is a far left organization [/quote}

None of your sources support the the above assertion. You have used right wingers to support the notion that ACLU is far left.

Using Bill O'Really as a source is, well....unfortunate.

[Dr. Shane]

Anthony Romero is the executive director of the ACLU. He was also one of my sources that admits many believe the ACLU is a liberal organization. Furthermore, I am not trying to prove the ACLU is a liberal organization. Although I believe they are, for the most part. What I have proven is that many believe they are a liberal organization. Thus the discussion isn't about what Shane thinks. It is about a popular opinion that exists among the American people. It is undeniable that many Americans believe the ACLU is a liberal organization.

To keep this on topic we need to ask ourselves if Adventists should be financially supporting the ACLU when that support could be sent to our own religious liberty department. What I have been comparing and contrasting is the ACLU vs. Adventist religious liberty departments. Which does a better job? Which deserves our support more? Which is more noble?

[Neil D]

Quote:

He was also one of my sources that admits many believe the ACLU is a liberal organization.

An opinion, that is attempted to be passed as fact or a reliable source...designed to color one's thinking...and supporting your own...but in actuallity, not backed up with scientific poll or based on a reference that is unbiased. [even though it is from what you call a leftist source, still not based in fact.]

Quote:

It is about a popular opinion that exists among the American people. It is undeniable that many Americans believe the ACLU is a liberal organization.

and many americans have been wrong about a great many things, Shane. Why are you preporting myths that have no basis in fact?

Quote:

To keep this on topic we need to ask ourselves if Adventists should be financially supporting the ACLU when that support could be sent to our own religious liberty department. What I have been comparing and contrasting is the ACLU vs. Adventist religious liberty departments. Which does a better job? Which deserves our support more? Which is more noble?

Again, you are the one who is talking about financially supporting the ACLU. No one else has brought up the subject...

and it is obvious that you are setting a standard within the SDA church layity, avoiding the ACLU at any cost.

As to the Adventist religious liberty department vs the ACLU and which does a better job, I think each as it's place within society. And if I could afford it, I think both are quite good references and places to go with various civil libertys, and religious liberty. However, the ACLU, I suspect has more 'clout' than the religious liberty department among those in the legal areas of law.

[lazarus]

My main objection is to the use of the term far left. I have no problem with the ACLU being described as Liberal. In many ways I Jesus was a liberal.

Liberal: Open to new behaviour and opinions and willing to disregard traditional values.

I'm all for that!

The term "far left" is inaccurate, perjorative and an "O'Reallyism".

Put very simply we can support the ACLU and Liberty. Liberty is supportive of some of the work done by the ACLU.

If O'Really, right-wing websites and Limbaugh are the main sources of information then the ACLU will be seen as the big bad wolf.

[Dr. Shane]

As long as we continue to use the word "you" and other member's names when we are disagreeing with them, Club Adventist will continue to be known as an unsafe place to express one's opinion. If we want Club Adventist to be known as a safe place, we need to focus on topics and not other members when we are involved in a disagreement.

[Dr. Shane]

It isn't simply O'Reilly and Limbaugh. In fact, I would suspect Limbaugh thinks quite differently about the ACLU than O'Reilly does since they bailed him out of a bind.

I also gave the example of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia. Let's also remember that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the most liberal justices on the Court and once served as general counsel for the ACLU. So just looking at the ACLU through the nation's Supreme Court it looks pretty liberal. I think the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

As far as the ACLU having more influence than our religious liberty department... I doubt that. Liberty Magazine is sent to legislators, judges, law enforcement, probation officers, governors and even the White House itself. In fact, it has been said that if a person has never heard of Liberty Magazine it is probably because they are not a lawyer or have never been elected to a high office. I dare to say our religious liberty department has more influence because not only does it stand for many of the same things as the ACLU, it stands with integrity. As Greggory Matthews demonstrated here, our religious liberty department chooses its battles wisely. We don't defend racists and child molesters just to make a point that doesn't need to be made.