E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Blood transfusions and religious liberty, Part II

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

A couple days ago, I addressed the troll "argument" that Jehovah's Witnesses should enjoy "religious liberty" protections regarding blood transfusions. What brought this up was a local Leftist whining after my letter to the editor calling on the city council to reject funding for Planned Parenthood. Here are a couple comments making that point:

So, you're okay with forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to subsidize blood transfusions even though it goes against their religious beliefs?


I'm just trying to determine to whom, beyond those in your Christian sect, you extend "religious freedom".

Do I really need to count the ways this is stupid?

Let's start with the most obvious and most glaring flaw: I have never argued that giving Planned Parenthood funding under the Jack Hopkins grant is a violation of religious freedom under the First Amendment, or that such grants are illegal. Trying to make this an issue of "religious liberty" is a dishonest straw man argument. In fact, I did not even mention religion in my letter to the editor!

It is true that I have argued it is bad policy to force Christians to subsidize Planned Parenthood, but that is most certainly not the same thing as arguing it is a violation of religious liberty. I have argued that the council should not vote for this welfare. Yes, the city council has the legal right (unless the state prohibits it) to disburse this funding every June as they see fit. It would nonetheless be the right thing to do to end this forced donation.

Furthermore, the discussion of blood transfusions is completely irrelevant to the Hopkins funding process. One is an issue of religious freedom under ObamaCare and whether private corporations should be forced by the federal government to fund something the owners find morally objectionable. The second is a decision by a local government to offer a purely elective (and politically decided) subsidy to local charitable organizations. These are two separate and unrelated issues. They have nothing to do with each other.

I expect I will get pushback every time I write a letter opposing corporate welfare for Planned Parenthood. Leftists should at least try to present "arguments" that are actually relevant to the topic and are not based on fabrications of arguments I have never once made in support of my position.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.