Hi. I’m a Jehovah’s Witness and I Run a Faith-Based Business

Through this business, we do everything we can to spread the good word of our faith. Not everyone who works here is actually OF my faith, but they’re good, solid clerical people, or janitorial staff, or accountants, so it’s not an issue.

But I have a serious problem with the thought of them undergoing any surgical procedures. See, I am adamantly against blood transfusions of any sort. And although my faith does allow for blood substitutes to be used, I’m concerned that that might not always be an option, or worse, they’ll be unconscious and unable to reject plasma in a trauma situation. Furthermore, although some of the other witnesses find it acceptable, I reject the concept of transplanting of organs. It is against scripture and God’s will.

Therefore, based upon my faith, I refuse to support any insurance coverage that would allow for surgery of any kind. And since other owners of faith-based businesses are being allowed to follow their conscience in terms of what medical coverage they offer, then I should be allowed to as well.

Thank you for your attention.

Skippy the Jehovah’s Witness

(Because if conservatives get to speculate that gay marriage will lead to men marrying German Shepherds, I get to speculate that faith-dictated laws and policies lead to a strangulation of individual choice based upon theology.)

52 comments on “Hi. I’m a Jehovah’s Witness and I Run a Faith-Based Business

  1. And if Skippy’s employees aren’t satisfied with the benefits he’s offering, or not offering, they’re free to find employment with a company more to their liking. Nobody’s holding a gun to their head saying they have to work for Skippy.

    1. Really? And have you looked at the unemployment statistics of today? Even though they are improving, there are still very few jobs out there and dozens waiting to fill them. Saying they are free to go elsewhere, isn’t always a possibility.

      On top of that unless it somehow is directly tied to the religion, that openly advertises it’s affiliations, how are you suppose to know what religion the owner is and how his/her beliefs are impacting the benefits of the company? Of the last 5 bosses I have had I can only tell you the religious orientation of 2 of them and one of them I learned because he went through the office at Christmas demanding everyone make a donation to Catholic Charities. Not being Catholic or believing in the Catholic religion, it wasn’t something I was happy about, 9 months after being hired.

      Luckily his boss put a stop to it but he made life hëll for those of us who stood up to him.

      1. .
        Being employed by the employer that you want to have employing you is not a right. No one is forcing you to apply to any specific workplace or accept their terms of employment once you learn them. If you have to do so, then it falls under the umbrella of not working in an ideal job and just working until you can get a better job.
        .
        I became unemployed back in the early part of the 90s. While looking for a better job, I took work with a place that only hired people as part time labor and offered no benefits. Having the money to deal with something short term while I looked for something better was a hëll of a lot more important to me than having no money and waiting for the right job to come along.
        .
        If it’s short term, you make do, you give up some things you might want VS what you need and you save the money for what you need that they’re not providing.

  2. Thanks, Skippy, for giving me a laugh this afternoon. While I have no problem with people going door to door spreading the word of God, I do have major objections to any religion that practices exclusionism, i.e. cutting off friends and family that are not part of the movement. But am I right in saying that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that only 144,000 of them will be allowed into the kingdom of heaven? If so, surely they hit that number long ago, and anybody who comes along after all those slots are filled are just spinning their spiritual wheels. Or if you’re a really good Jehovah’s Witness, does that mean that you knock #139,999 off the end of the list and take their place? And if that person is already in heaven, does he or she get kicked out? I hate a religion that doesn’t have an internal logic to it- which pretty much covers all of them when you think about it.

    1. I should emphasize that I’m not out to bash the JW’s; just point out what happens if a particular policy is allowed to progress to its reasonable conclusion.
      .
      PAD

      1. Oh hey PAD, don’t worry… your hypothetical JW business will still have to pay for blood transfusions through insurance companies… as mandated unconstitutionally by the President… so it’s all good. They’re still going to end up violating one of their religious beliefs.

      2. Speaking as both a Witness and a life-long fan (you’ve been one of my favorite authors since I was eight), I’m glad to hear it.

        I know this isn’t the point of your post Peter, but just for the record I know quite a few Witnesses who are business owners, and while each of them are firm in their own stance on blood, they aren’t in the business of dictating the medical procedures used by their employees. (I do realize that you weren’t making any accusations or implications otherwise, but I can see people inferring this to be the case.)

        That said, while I respect the point that you’re making, if the organization were truly a “Witness organization” rather than a “Witness-owned business” (fore example, the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses), I can see why they might object to having to finance something that is in opposition to our beliefs. Similarly, when an organization has “Catholic” in its very name, I think it’s a very dubious proposition to ask them to finance practices that they consider to be morally objectionable, whether we agree with said objections or not. People who disagree with that have no obligation to go to said schools or work at said businesses. There are many, many alternatives available.

        That said, Witnesses attempt to remain largely apolitical, so I won’t be casting a vote either way based on these issues.

        Incidentally, regarding Joe’s comment above (although I don’t want to turn this into a thread about Witness beliefs, which are largely beside the point here), here’s the quite straightforward answer to the question about the 144,000:

        “How many go to heaven? As in any government, the rulers in God’s heavenly Kingdom are few in comparison with all the people who live under its authority. To those who will rule with him, Jesus said: “Have no fear, little flock, because your Father has approved of giving you the kingdom.” (Luke 12:32) That “little flock” will finally number 144,000. (Revelation 14:1) That number is small in comparison with the millions who will enjoy endless life on earth as loyal subjects of the Kingdom.—Revelation 21:4.”
        http://www.watchtower.org/e/20100201a/article_03.htm

        Watchtower.org is run by the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses and is a good place to go for accurate information about Witness beliefs.

      3. “You mean Constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom? That “policy?””
        .
        No, I believe he was referring to the policy of one person’s religious freedom being used to deny medical treatment to another person.
        .
        Religious freedom is important in this country, but it isn’t absolute. The courts have ruled many times that you can believe what you want, but there are still limits to what you can do in the name of those beliefs. If there weren’t, people could break any law and say, “Sorry, doing that is part of my religion.”

    2. Hi Joe,

      I’m Daron from JMS News. Not widhing to bog you down in dogma but Jesus himself spoke of this ‘little flock’ of 144,00 and then another larger group, who were not filled with the heavenly hope…they being ‘the meek that would inherit the Earth, these would include such historical figures as Moses, John the Baptist, Samson.

      Hate all you like but it would be better if you checked your information before you condemn any religion.

      And ‘Skippy’…any business that is run by a JW, if they really would try to enforce that within their business, really needs to rethink what they are doing.

      Being a JW is based on principle and choice, which should reflect on everything JWs do…including business and staff. The action as described is enforcing your own beliefs on another, which is steadfastly wrong any something a real JW would find abhorrent.

      1. Well, two things: I wasn’t condemning anything. I was simply holding up an example of how any belief, taken to an extreme, can be unfair and dangerous, and that allowing religious beliefs to interfere with proper medical treatment was a dangerous precedent to set. The fact that, according to you, the JWs would never do such a thing, speaks positively of your group. On the other hand, the notion that they COULD based on the precedent being set, is disturbing.
        .
        And second…JMS News? J. Michael Straczynski has his own newspaper?
        .
        PAD

    3. Ishmael is correct Peter, I was responding to Joe N’s rather one-sided and somewhat flippant comment.

      You have been rather more restrained in you comments.

    4. It is advisable to think before you write or at least have some knowledge about the topic you write about.
      Jehovah’s witnesses do not believe that all good people go to heaven (only a select few of 144.000), but they beliee all good people will live for ever on paradise earth.

  3. http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10374833-opinion-obama-birth-control-policy-compromise-ignores-patients
    .
    “This does not bode well for the future of health policy as our society ages and costs inevitably escalate. Today it is contraception that has been put out to pasture purely for non-medical reasons. Yesterday, it was not paying for doctors to talk to their patients about end of life care. Tomorrow, it will be covering treatments derived from the use of cells obtained from embryos — or something equally morally controversial.
    .
    Too bad. Americans deserve health care that is in line with their needs, not what religious leaders or politicians diagnose.”

  4. Because, you know, God forbid you should allow an individual within your organization to make their own choices based on his or her own ethical and moral standings when diciding whether of not he or she should even consider using a contraceptive.

    Because even THINKING about such things is a sin.

    And that is wrong.

    So let other people with a higher standing in the organization do the thinking for you.

    1. “So let other people with a higher standing in the organization do the thinking for you.”
      .
      Um, yeah. That’s the way most organizations work. The people in charge set the policy – and while they cannot control what you think about they can – and should – have a say in how you act and what they provide you.
      .
      I understand the thought that an employer has the right to make to make decisions for employees as far as what the employer is willing to pay for or establish policies in the workplace is shocking to many who like to think of themselves as individuals entitled to do whatever they want, but what the hey.

  5. Hi, Peter, well actually (sorry), facilities and businesses used by Jehovah’s Witnesses in printing and distributing Bibles and Biblical literature are no longer 3rd-party firms but owned and staffed by volunteers of Jehovah’s Witnesses. We don’t have faith-based JW hospitals, universities, etc. While we have volunteered help during natural disasters, the focus of our work is the preaching of the good news (Matthew 28:19,20, Acts 20:20).

    — Ken from Chicago

    P. S. Perhaps a better hypothetical would be Jedi’s. They have been known to hire smugglers who don’t follow their religion.

  6. Better yet as an example anyone who works for the Christian Scientists, no health insurance what so ever.

    1. I love Jennie. Have chatted with her several times. But this strip really does not address the issue at hand. It’s pretty general.

      1. Owning/running a business is a privledge, NOT a right. You do NOT have a right to force your religious ignornace on your employees.

        Or do you believe that KKK-member owned business have the right to exclude blacks and jews from working there?

        The ignorance and bigotry of the people who support this kind of of šhìŧ is DISGUSTING and an example of how far mankind has fallen. We deserve to be wiped out and another species rise and replace us…

      2. .
        Bladestar: “Owning/running a business is a privledge, NOT a right. You do NOT have a right to force your religious ignornace on your employees.”
        .
        That argument cuts both ways. Being employed by the employer that you want employing you is not a right. No one is forcing you to apply to any specific workplace or except their terms of employment once you learn them.
        .
        “Or do you believe that KKK-member owned business have the right to exclude blacks and jews from working there?”
        .
        You’re mixing and matching argument to a degree here. You’re comparing a workplace where anyone can be hired but not everyone will agree with the policies and benefits package VS an employer who will refuse to hire at all based on race, sex or creed.
        .
        Not quite the same and we have laws on the books to address that. Interestingly though, the Republicans elected a few Tea Party candidates back in 2010 (Rand Paul chief among them) who have espoused the belief that business owners should be able to discriminate if they want to, so at least those guys are being consistent right now.

  7. .
    I’m just a little curious about something here. If the Republicans and conservatives out there have just discovered this “Separation of Church and State” concept and figured out what it’s all about, are they going to now finally stop blocking gay marriage because, as many of them have argued, traditional marriage is between a man and a woman as defined by God?
    .
    Just wondering.

  8. Pleased to meet you, Skippy. I’m Rabbi Schlomo Levine, and our Temple runs a food bank for the needy in our community. It’s open to anyone, of any faith or no faith, and we welcome all. Naturally, it goes without saying that we don’t evangelize or proselytize to anyone (“Evangelical Jew” is one of my favorite oxymorons). But we got a little problem.
    .
    Last week, this guy in the community offered us about a dozen cases of SPAM for our food bank. We were greatly touched by his offer, but explained that since the bank is in the Temple, we couldn’t accept pork products, as they are trayf. Well, he took that rejection personally, and complained to his brother-in-law, who’s on the town Board of Selectmen. Now they’re threatening to shut us down for “discriminating against non-Jews.” Apparently we’re imposing our beliefs on those we serve by not offering foods unacceptable to Jews.
    .
    So, Skippy, maybe we can work out some kind of deal. I hear you Jehovah’s Witnesses got no problems with pigs, and I have a nephew who’s a doctor…

    1. I think you’re trying to make a point(?), but not doing it very well.

      There’s a distinct difference between limiting what food you will serve to others to those you personally don’t find objectionable, and limiting what medical is available to others to those you don’t find objectionable.

      Nobody is going to starve because Rabbi Levine won’t serve pork products.

      1. Nobody is going to starve because Rabbi Levine won’t serve pork products.
        .
        And what exactly is the consequence of the Church’s position? Women who work for the Church won’t get subsidized contraception? Men who work for the Church won’t get a subsidized vasectomy? (That one I know a little about.)
        .
        Simple solution: set up a Health Care Savings Account to cover the costs. Since the base policy covers less, it should be a bit cheaper anyway, so it might even come out as a wash.
        .
        But the principle is the same. In both cases, a religious organization is being compelled to do things that are explicitly forbidden to them, under threat of government coercion. And in both cases, the threat is to put an end to the organization’s “good works” that are not, strictly speaking, part of their core beliefs, but part of their overall commitment to serve their community, and not just those of their faiths.
        .
        Shall I tie this in with the repeated Democratic notions of reducing or ending the tax deductions for charitable giving, which would also put a serious hurting on the non-governmental groups that provide aid to the needy? There’s a theme there that some find most compelling…

      2. And what exactly is the consequence of the Church’s position? Women who work for the Church won’t get subsidized contraception
        .
        No, that they won’t be able to get a particular medication that is routinely prescribed for at least half a dozen conditions, because they’re being blocked from obtaining it by a bunch of ignorant people.
        .
        That’s what.
        .
        Back to ignoring you.
        .
        PAD

      3. PAD, I respect you tremendously, but you’re absolutely dead wrong on that point.
        .
        No, that they won’t be able to get a particular medication that is routinely prescribed for at least half a dozen conditions, because they’re being blocked from obtaining it by a bunch of ignorant people.
        .
        They can get it just fine. What they won’t get is having it either for free or subsidized heavily by their insurer.
        .
        Just because one has a right to something doesn’t mean they have the right to it for free. “Freedom of the press” doesn’t mean the government will give everyone a printing press.
        .
        The Church isn’t saying “you can’t have this.” They’re saying “you can’t have us pay for it, because it’s been a core tenet of our faith for longer than there’s been a United States.”
        .
        Yeah, they’re wrong on birth control. But they have every right to be wrong. Much like the Jews and Muslims, and pork products — “bacon is proof that God loves Gentiles, too.”
        .
        And you’ll get my pepperoni pizza from me when you pry it out of my cold, dead, greasy hands.

      4. Simple solution: set up a Health Care Savings Account to cover the costs. Since the base policy covers less, it should be a bit cheaper anyway, so it might even come out as a wash.
        .
        Small problem: if the employer refuses to offer an HSA-compatible plan, the employee cannot open a Health Savings Account.

  9. I think the point has been missed a lot here.
    .
    Yes, the Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law… respecting an establishment of religion…” One of the ways that cuts is that if the government is funding an organization, they have to apply the same laws to it as to any other organization, no matter what the people running the group think. As it happens, under the law, you’re not supposed to deny certain procedures to your employees just because you personally disapprove of them – you can look askance all you like, but you aren’t allowed to stop it. “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” and all that.
    .
    Of course, if it’s that important to these Catholic hospitals and other groups that they be permitted to force their beliefs on everyone they deal with, they’re allowed to try. All they have to do is renounce their claim to any government funding. No problem!

  10. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that birth control pills are often used for medical reasons other than pregnancy prevention.

    As Peter said, this is a far more real slippery slope than gay marriage. I was a vegetarian for 8 years, during part of that period, people worked for me who ate meat — even in the office. Should I have forbidden them to buy meat with money they made through me?

    I’m also an atheist. If a Catholic works for me, that money I pay her goes to buy the gas that gets her to mass.

    Where does this end? Why are we having this debate in the 21st century. If we support freedom of choice, you should only be concerned that your employees do their jobs. If they break the law, sure, fire them. But this is insane.

    I like that there’s the claim of a War on Religion when Catholics are protected from losing their jobs because of their personal beliefs.

    1. .
      “Why are we having this debate in the 21st century.”
      .
      Because the Republicans really have nothing else left in their arsenal.
      .
      They can’t attack Democrats on the economy as easily as they once might have. We had eight years under a Republican President, six of which we also had a Republican Congress, and we got policy after policy straight from their playbook that was supposed to create a magic and wonderful new century of prosperity for us all. Instead, we got the start of a historic crash starting at the end of year seven that took us down the hole so hard and fast that it will take years to crawl back out.
      .
      Yeah, they can maybe play games to attack Obama over his stewardship of the economy during his time as President, but they can’t go back to their playbook policies convincingly and whenever they do discuss economic policy it’s pretty much the same old thing.
      .
      They can’t convincingly campaign on the war on terror and keeping us safe. Under Obama, we’ve been taking out high level targets left and right with drone strikes. Under Obama, a SEAL Team was given the go to go in and kill the most wanted terrorist in the world. Yeah, they can, and have, tell lies left and right about Obama and his actions with and around the war on terror, but most of those are easily debunked with minor fact checking and, well, he gave the word to kill OBL.
      .
      Their biggest weapons have been blunted. If they were smart, they would look at their policies, reevaluate and adapt as has both parties over the decades. They just keep getting more extreme and uncompromising about things to the degree that some of the leaders refuse to even say the word “compromise” while being interviewed.
      .
      All they have left is screaming hysterics about social issues and fake wars against Christmas and religion. And that’s all they’ll have until they bottom out, leave the extremist nutters behind and start rebuilding a smarter party.

      1. Your biggest problem, here, Jerry, is…
        .
        Oh, yeah, you don’t listen to me. Let me start over.
        .
        Folks, Jerry’s biggest problem — which should be blindingly obvious, but it took me a while to spot — is his utter lack of empathy. His understanding and interest in issues begins and ends with “I am right, and they are wrong.” He has no clue as to the other side’s beliefs, and less interest. Consequently, he lazily fills in the blanks by simply ascribing to them the simplest and worst of all possible motives, and pronounces his conclusion as indisputable fact.
        .
        The irony here is I actually largely agree with his opinions of the Catholic Church. I think they are absolutely wrong on the whole contraception issue, and that it’s a logical outgrowth of their wrongheaded patriarchal structure built on a celibate, exclusively male hierarchy. And on the ever-popular-among-critics pedophile priest scandal, it’s a horrible black mark on the Church that will remain indelible for years and years.
        .
        Where I differ from Jerry, however, is that I actually looked beyond the surface on these matters. The pedophile priest mess wasn’t a matter of doctrine, but failed doctrine. At no point was it ever condoned or rationalized; it was recognized as wrong and shameful from the outset. The worst of it was that the Church let the shame take precedence and tried to conceal and minimize it, instead of confronting and excising it. It paid a hefty price for that, and will continue to pay it, and should pay it for a very, very, very long time.
        .
        But on the issue at hand: the Church has a very strong position on contraception, based on the precept that human life begins at the moment of fertilization. Further, it also believs that only God has the right to make decisions about who lives and dies, not Man. From that belief, it is entirely logical that it would consider any action by Man to take that authority away from God as a tremendous sin — to the point of considering interfering with God’s plans for a human being (which, to the Church, is what a fertilized egg is) as murder.
        .
        Contraception, generally, is a bad thing, as it attempts to thwart God’s plan for humanity. But contraception that prevents fertilization is one thing; contraception that acts after fertilization is a Very Bad Thing.
        .
        And to attempt to force the Church to not only do nothing about this Very Bad Thing, but to actively aid and abet it, is wholly repugnant to the Church. It is literally unacceptable. It is an assault on their core principles. It would be like… dámņ, metaphors fail me. OK, it would be like disregarding the parents’ objection and implanting a pig heart valve into a Muslim child. That might be close enough.
        .
        Now, again, I’m no Catholic, but I have studied up enough on them to think I’ve grasped their position here. And let me repeat: I wholly disagree with their position. I not only have no problems with contraception, I think it’s one of the greatest creations in the history of mankind. On abortion, I have enough qualms on both sides that I consider myself an “agnostic” on the matter and desperately try to avoid the subject entirely. And I am still quite angry about how the whole Pedophile Priest mess was covered up for decades, and would like to see quite a few high-ranking Catholics (starting with Cardinal Bernard Law) behind bars.
        .
        But while I think the Church is wrong on this issue, I wholeheartedly support their right to be wrong. I draw my inspiration from Voltaire’s declaration that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
        .
        Jerry has it the easy way. They’re wrong, so they’re also evil and stupid. Which tends to leave him saying evil and stupid things. And he’s proven he’s quite good at that.
        .
        Which is a shame, because you can better defeat your opponents if you understand their arguments and their motivations. However, that’s not for the intellectually lazy and arrogant.

      2. Folks, Jerry’s biggest problem — which should be blindingly obvious, but it took me a while to spot — is his utter lack of empathy.
        .
        I wish you could empathize with the needs of women.
        .
        But while I think the Church is wrong on this issue, I wholeheartedly support their right to be wrong.
        .
        I wish you also supported the right for women to be “wrong” about the use of birth control.

      3. I wish you could empathize with the needs of women.
        .
        When my partner of the time and I agreed that we had no interest in children (she already had two), I volunteered to have a vasectomy, as my surgery would be far less intrusive. I spent three days practically attached to bags of frozen peas. I got the empathy credentials.
        .
        I wish you also supported the right for women to be “wrong” about the use of birth control.
        .
        Listen carefully, because I’m tiring of repeating myself: I got no problems whatsoever with women using birth control. Hëll, in a huge majority of cases, I favor it. In some, I’d consider making it mandatory. (OK, a skosh byperbolic there. Sorry.) And the Church’s point in this mess is “we think it’s wrong, but whatever — it ain’t our business. Just don’t make us pay for what we deeply and sincerely and historically believe is wrong.” No one is being denied access to contraception; the issue is access to contraception paid for by a Church that has always denounced contraception as a sin.
        .
        I think they have that right. I think the government has no right to compel a religious institution to engage in actions that violate its core beliefs.
        .
        But if the new standard is “a right you can’t afford to exercise is a right denied,” then I want some free guns. I’m being denied my 2nd Amendment rights because I can’t afford guns on my own.

      4. When my partner of the time and I agreed that we had no interest in children (she already had two), I volunteered to have a vasectomy, as my surgery would be far less intrusive. I spent three days practically attached to bags of frozen peas. I got the empathy credentials.
        .
        While that is absolutely noble and I commend you, that shows that you have empathy for ONE woman, and a woman with whom you already had a close connection. That’s not the same as having empathy for women in general, which is what Jennifer was referring to.

  11. Peter, JMS’ newspaper was/is Universe Today, featured a few times on his science fiction “novel for television”, Babylon 5. It was a full-color, full-motion, e-ink customizable, downloadable, recycleable, foldable newspaper.

    1. Yeah, but JMSnews.com is where JMS’ posts are archived. There are forums which is what Daron was refering to.

  12. I didn’t know kangaroos were allowed to join the Jehovah Witnesses.

    BTW, Peter, do you have stones nearby for when they come ringing at your door ? After all, they say “Jehovah” quite often 😉

  13. “….On the other hand, the notion that they COULD based on the precedent being set, is disturbing…”

    Well it’s fine to speculate I suppose, no harm there, just human inquisitiveness. Although, it does all rather sound a bit vague…

    The notion COULD be disturbing, IF such a precedent MIGHT be set, where such rules MAY be forced on employees…

    There are far too many “if-and-buts” to make anything like a concrete argument there, I am afraid.

  14. I think government has no right to compel a religious institution to engage in actions that violate its core beliefs.

    So tell me, what’s your position concerning laws against polygamy and Mormonism?

    1. .
      I’ll do you one better. And I’ll do you one better with a question that we know the answer to before asking it whether we’re asking it of common, every day bloggers or the very same Republican politicians who’ve suddenly discovered the bit about separation of church and state in the Constitution.
      .
      Sharia Law, the moral code and religious law of Islam.
      .
      There are practices under Sharia Law that govern how a man can treat his wife and his children that we will not allow in this country. As a matter of fact, many conservatives howl in protest at the very mention allowing such things to take place and not be dealt with by US law and proper, Christian ways.
      .
      In sharia law, a Muslim man is permitted up to four wives under the rules for nikah.
      .
      In some cases of Sharia Law, a ruling against someone can bring about the amputation of a limb as punishment.
      .
      When a person is convicted of a hudud crime, punishment is given based on the laws of the Quran and several hadith. For the popular example, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands. In accordance with hadith, stoning someone to death for some offenses is a required penalty.
      .
      In some interpretations of Sharia, conversion by Muslims to other religions or becoming non-religious is strictly forbidden and is termed apostasy. Some Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in some interpretations of sharia, the penalty for apostasy is death.
      .
      Not a single person in the Catholic Church or their defenders and mouthpieces in the conservative movement would allow any of that on US soil. Many conservative politicians have even been very vocal about needing to have federal laws banning all practices of Sharia Law in the US even if the application of that law is strictly practiced by only Muslims and applied to only Muslims. Noooooooooo, those Muslims better forget their religious laws and practices and do it the God fearing, Christian/American way.
      .
      And can anyone here imagine the insane screaming that would come from the Right if a Democratic Presidential candidate said on the primary campaign trail that they would not support someone for elected office unless they first renounced their Christian views completely or renounce their belief in living their life by the governing rules of the Ten Commandments? Of course, the silence from the Right was defining running up to the South Carolina primary when Newt said that he could not support a Muslim candidate for public office who doesn’t disavow Sharia. So, of course they at least said he was wrong and quietly reminded him of the separation of church and state, right? Who are we kidding, they jumped to his defense when any comment was made about it.
      .
      What kind of screaming do you think we would here if a prominent candidate fro the Democratic party said that we should be able to ban churches from being built in our communities. Herman Cain said on the campaign trail and on Fox News Sunday that Americans should be able to ban Muslims from building mosques in our communities. He was cheered by some of the ones who scream now and he went on to see his star rise in the primary afterward (although his rise was not directly tied to the comment.)
      .
      These people screaming about this issue don’t believe in the separation of church and state. They only believe in it when it suits them. It’s dámņëd sure true that the Catholic Church doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state. They threaten excommunication against politicians that don’t make votes that will impact everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, by the guiding principles of Church Doctrine.
      .
      Now, me, I don’t think we should have Sharia Law implemented in this country in any way. Our secular laws say that if you as a group stone someone to death in the street in your neighborhood than you’ve committed murder. Our secular laws say that if you punish your wife or son to the point that they need hospital care you’ve committed the crime of assault and battery.
      .
      I have absolutely no problem with secular laws having more power than religious doctrine when it comes to public and professionalism matters. Likewise, I have no real issue with the idea that if you want to open a business and expect to have the same rights and perks as the other businesses in town, well, you have to play ball by the same rules as the other businesses in town.
      .
      If you want to be a Church, then be a Church. If you want to be a business then be a business. Of course, if you want to be a business, then you fall under the same secular laws govern all the other businesses out there.
      .
      And, of course, if you want to be a two faced hypocrite on matters of religion and religious freedom in this country, become a Republican politician.

  15. I had this thought… suppose a Muslim employer said he didn’t want his employees to get coverage for trichinosis or alcoholism. The same people arguing to allow religious organizations to opt out of contraception coverage would be screaming “Sharia Law! Sharia Law!”

    However, I do see one flaw in comparing “Skippy’s” position to birth control. Blood transfusions are necessary for life-saving surgery. While birth control is important, and has medical purpose beyond preventing pregnancy, it is not life-saving, not in the sense that, say, a few pints of O negative are for major surgery.

    (And before I get attacked for that — yes, I’m a man. And I’m gay, so birth control is *really* a non-issue for me.

  16. I do have to say this, though… I find it *astonishing* that we are debating birth control in 2012.

    But on the other paw… this isn’t really about birth control. Even among American Catholics, the need for birth control is accepted. The church hierarchy objects, but the laity doesn’t. I don’t think most conservative Protestants have a problem with it, as long as it’s between a married couple.

    What this *really* is about is the right’s attempts to create an impression that Obama has declared “war on religious liberty”.

  17. It’s Obvious that you are not a Jehovah’s witness or not even well acquainted with them.
    So it less than fair to pretend that you are on a ‘public’forum.
    JW’s have never lobbied against gay mariage, abortion and have never ever tried to legislate their beliefs in any way. In fact, if you know your constitutional history, you will know that Jehovah’s witnesses were pioneer defenders of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of press and the right to bodily self determination before all the national supreme courts. In Canada Jehovah’s witnesses have even lobbied for the introduction of a Bill of rights.
    No single other religion has done so much to establish and protect the constitutional freedoms and rights in the 20th and 21st century.
    What you propose would be absurd to even contemplate for any sane JW (who normally do not own ‘faith based businesses’).

    1. Are people really that dense they missed the actual point and just sit there nitpicking “JW’s are actually…”

    2. And it’s obvious you have no idea who Peter David is. What, did you read about this posting on some JW web site and decide you have to be outraged by it?

      1. “…on some JW web site…”

        [Wry Smile] Yes, because there are just oh so may of them…[/Wry Smile]

Comments are closed.