(August 2000) by Janet Brazill

Most people don't care what other people believe, so long as it doesn't affect them - so long as it's "no skin off my nose!"

But what about those times when other people's beliefs ARE affecting you and you don't even know it? Times when other people use their religious beliefs to decide what medical services will be available to you? Times when your nose is being skinned and you don't even know it!

Stem cell research is one such case. The recent announcement that the government will now fund studies on stem cells from human embryos was the first many even heard of this new line of research - research believed to hold promise for fantastic medical breakthroughs for a huge variety of diseases and injuries. If results hold true, then everyone in the last twenty years who has suffered from any of the ailments whose treatment could have been helped by fetal tissue research and now stem cell research has had their noses skinned right down to the bone!

The reason? Religion! Despite the fact that an estimated 30-50 percent of conceptions are aborted spontaneously, opponents of abortion sanctimoniously proclaim that each fertilized egg is sacred and not to be tampered with. President Reagan bowed to their demands in the 80's, banning government research using fetal tissue discarded from induced abortions. Ironically, research on Alzheimers, a disease soon to overtake Reagan himself, was set back years by this decision.

Now we have stem cells, the part of the embryo that scientists believe can miraculously develop into muscle, nerve, heart, blood and other cells. The medical possibilities include the creation of replacement tissue and even entire organs. Stem cells may eventually be used to repair injured or poorly functioning brains and nervous systems. New treatments may be developed for a wide range of injuries, disorders and diseases - broken bones, severe burns, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, brain damage due to oxygen starvation, infertility, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and strokes. Even AIDS.

But abortion opponents have been holding up this research, saying their concept of "sanctity of life" should prevail. Even though the embryos used are donated as excess from fertility procedures and would otherwise be destroyed, they see using them to save lives as somehow violating their religious sensibilities.

This "sanctity of life" concept could also affect Americans by denying them the right to determine their own destiny in the event of terminal illness. Oregon has passed a law that allows dying persons to end an agonizing death and die peacefully by requesting prescriptions from doctors. This has been bitterly opposed by the Catholic Church and Right-to-life groups. They are now asking Congress to amend the federal Controlled Substances Act to include harsh prison sentences for any doctors who prescribe such drugs, even though state law may permit it. An unintended effect is that doctors will be reluctant to prescribe adequate pain-relief for dying patients for fear of having their intentions misunderstood. Already passed by the U.S. House, this bill only needs approval by the Senate and the President before controlling your life.

Religion plays an increasing role in deciding health care in our nation, as the Catholic health care system becomes the largest private-sector health care provider in the country with 620 hospitals and 48 of the country's managed care plans. From 1994 to 1999, 132 mergers took place between Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals with many of the merged hospitals eliminating some or all reproductive health services. Catholic hospitals are regulated by the Ethical and Religious Directives which denies services such as birth control, tubal ligations, vasectomies, and abortions. Many people feel that since Catholic hospitals receive government funding and are often the sole provider in a community, they should be required to be full-service hospitals offering these services.

Religions that believe they alone possess moral truth are a danger to our democracy when they gain control of government. If "freedom of religion" is to mean anything to Americans, it has to include freedom FROM other people's religions.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), September 19, 2000

Answers

Great post, Debra. And I agree with you wholeheartedly. When I return to this tomorrow I will give me $.02.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 19, 2000.

so what happens when theres a shortage of fetuses?? like the blood shortage we now have! follow the money-trail! where do [so-called] not human fetuses go? do fetuses have a soul? ah yes-> breed for bucks-what next?

-- S.S.=AL-D. (dogs@zianet.com), September 19, 2000.

"so what happens when theres a shortage of fetuses??"

That's when regulations should come in. I understand your fears, greed and money (e.g., being to first to come up with a discovery etc.) could indeed get some scientists to make unethical choices. But right now regulations cut out any research on stem cells at all. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing issue.

-- (smarty@wannabe.com), September 20, 2000.

Smarty's comment on "It doesn't have to be all or nothing" led me to remember this. It was written by someone I don't know, and I hesitate to include the name, because, well, because I don't know if he'd want me to.

Subject: They Call Me a Liberal

The reactionary right-wingers call me a liberal

I refuse to pretend that racism and sexism no longer exist, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that "market forces" are some magical panacea, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe cutting the military from being able to blow up the world 10 times over down to only 8 times over is a bad thing, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe family means a man ruling over a wife and kids, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that money magically trickles down from the rich, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe giving a mother food stamps to feed her kids is a waste of money, while buying the air force a billion dollar bomber it doesn't want isn't, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe cutting the taxes of the rich helps the poor, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe Rush Limbaugh has talent on loan from God, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that the profit motive creates virtue in people, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that might makes right, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe the government should control women's reproductive choices, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that single mothers are necessarily bad parents, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe only northern Europeans have culture, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe a union worker making $17/hr is overpaid while a CEO making $1 million/year is not, so they call me a liberal.

I refuse to ignore the long history of oppression, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe teaching children about cultural diversity is wrong, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe the only good jobs are ones where someone else is skimming off a profit, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe Americans are inherently superior to other nationalities, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe homosexuals are evil, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe non-Christians are evil, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe liberals are subhuman monsters, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that things are black-and-white, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe their lies, so the reactionaries call me a liberal.

The more they talk, the more being called a liberal sounds like a compliment.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 20, 2000.

Umbilical cord blood could be harvested for stem cells without using aborted fetal tissues. Why not make it SOP to use this resource? Could stem cells be cloned?

-- helen (b@s.p), September 20, 2000.

If prisoners in America can be forced to donate blood, what's the next step? Forcing female prisoners to donate eggs for future stem cell harvest? Wake Up!!

Link

Saturday 12 September 1998

RCMP(Royal Canadian Mounted Police) tracks HIV-tainted prison blood Criminal probe traces trail of plasma from Arkansas inmates Mark Kennedy The Ottawa Citizen The RCMP'scriminal investigation into the tainted-blood affair will examine how HIV-contaminated plasma was collected from Arkansas prison inmates and shipped to Canada by a U.S. firm with links to President Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, tainted-blood victims angrily said the prison blood- collection scheme was a scandal on its own that proved the federal government neglected its regulatory duties to keep the blood supply pure The tainted plasma -- used to create special blood products for hemophiliacs -- is believed to have been infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. As well, it's likely the prisoners' blood was contaminated with hepatitis C Mr. Clinton was governor of Arkansas when the Canadian blood supply was contaminated in the mid-'80s. He was generally familiar with the operations of now-defunct Health Management Associates, the Arkansas firm that was given a contract by Mr. Clinton's state administration to provide medical care to prisoners. In the process, HMA was also permitted by the state to collect prisoners' blood and sell it elsewhere. Mr. Clinton was a friend of HMA president Leonard Dunn, who boasted of the friendship in 1986 to Arkansas police who conducted a probe of the firm following allegations it was providing poor medical care to inmates. In the early 1980s, U.S. companies that fractionate blood products had stopped buying prison blood because it was widely understood that since many prisoners practised unsafe sex or were intravenous drug users, they posed a high risk of carrying the AIDS virus. However, HMA found a willing buyer in Continental Pharma, a Montreal blood broker, which in turn sold the plasma to Toronto-based blood fractionator Connaught Laboratories. Connaught apparently didn't realize the plasma had come from prisoners. Details of HMA's links to Mr. Clinton were reported Thursday after the Citizen obtained copies of internal reports from the Arkansas State Police dating back to the mid-'80s. Cpl. Moreau, spokesman for the special task force of Mounties investigating the blood scandal, cautiously responded to queries yesterday about the investigators' work. He said that, as a matter of policy, the RCMP cannot reveal specifics about what is being investigated because that might jeopardize the investigation. However, Cpl. Moreau did note that Mr. Justice Horace Krever chronicled -- without mentioning Mr. Clinton -- what he knew about the prison-blood collection. The contaminated plasma collected by HMA in the early '80s came from Cummins prison in Grady, Arkansas. As well, HMA bought prisoners' plasma from four Louisiana prisons and sent it to the Montreal blood broker, which sold it to Connaught Laboratories. Connaught fractionated it into blood products for use by hemophiliacs.

-- r (r.1@juno.com), September 20, 2000.

"so what happens when theres a shortage of fetuses??"

Until recently, adult stem cells were known to exist only in certain types of adult tissue and it was considered impossible to reprogramme them.

The obscurity of adult stem cells was compounded by the fact that they were only believed to exist in minute quantities and were also hard to isolate and purify.

-- Peg (too@much.spam), September 20, 2000.

What a mess...sorry!

http://asia.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/world/article.html? s=asia/headlines/000920/world/afp/Breakthrough_in_stem_cells_set_to_fu el_row_over_embryo_research.html

Breakthrough in stem cells set to fuel row over embryo research PARIS, Sept 19 (AFP) -

A laboratory breakthrough by Italian scientists is poised to fuel a bitter ethical row about the use of embryos in transplant research, the journal Nature Neuroscience reports in October's issue.

The controversy has been sparked by stem cells -- primitive cells that scientists hope can be grown in a lab dish and then implanted to repair damaged organs, such as injured spinal cords or brains affected by Alzheimer's disease.

The most scientifically exciting stem cells come from embryos that are a few days old.

These cells have the extraordinary ability to develop in the womb into any part of the body, opening up dreams that they may be cloned and grown in a laboratory to become a universal source of transplant tissue.

But using embryo stem cells is hotly contested.

France, like many other countries, outlaws any scientific use of embryos for moral reasons, while Britain and the United States have issued cautious guidelines that would allow stem cells to be used in specific areas of research.

Opponents to embryonic research say the solution lies in adult stem cells, a new and largely overlooked area of exploration.

Their position now appears to have been strengthened by a team led by researchers from Italy's National Neurological Institute and Stem Cell Research Institute, based in Milan.

The scientists took stem cells from an adult brain and used them to grow skeletal muscle, both in culture and in animals.

The signal to reprogramming these stem cells appears to come from membrane contact with other cells rather than a secretion, they believe.

When the neural stem cells were in contact with other neural stem cells, they grew neurons and glia -- vital cells that act rather like electricity insulation in the nervous system.

And when the neural stem cells were in contact with muscle tissue, they grew muscle.

In a commentary, neuroscientist Charles Jennings said that the work was encouraging, but it was too early to abandon research using embryonic stem cells until the limits of adult stem cells were known.

But he warned the finding "seems likely to attract considerable attention, and along with several other recent reports, to provide new fuel for an increasingly strident debate on the ethics of human stem cell research."

Until recently, adult stem cells were known to exist only in certain types of adult tissue and it was considered impossible to reprogramme them.

The obscurity of adult stem cells was compounded by the fact that they were only believed to exist in minute quantities and were also hard to isolate and purify.

-- Peg (too@much.spam), September 20, 2000.

Some may prefer to debate the specifics, but the large problem is what concerns me. (BTW, I believe very little in that article about blood supply from prisons-clinton this, clinton that, sounds like newsmax to me-publish those reports unedited and then maybe I will take another look).

In no way, shape, or form should religious belief come into the health care equation for me and mine. It is appaling that it does, for in this country no one has the right to dictate what to believe. Concurrently, I do not believe the "state" should have the right to force people of a certain religious belief to undergo treatment forbidden by their belief.

One thing that DOES give me comfort is the body of law surrounding what is and is not proper medical care. I have done much research in medical torts, and medical malpractice is taken very seriously. Given a choice, I would not go to a facility run by a religion. Fortunately I have such a choice. Pity those that do not.

This issue speaks to the fundamental rights of human being to make free choices. A hospital that chooses to not offer me or mine a medical option because of their belief set is violating that fundamental principle.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 20, 2000.

"A hospital that chooses to not offer me or mine a medical option because of their belief set is violating that fundamental principle."

Yes, but only if they're government sponsored and not completely private institutions. And that's what that article implies, that some Catholic hospital recieve government fundings and withold medical services such as birth control and abortions that go against that religion.

The Sisters of Mercy (Catholic)are an extrememly powerful corporation who own several large hospitals in my area and throughout the country. They're growing bigger and bigger each year. That scares me.

-- (smarty@wannabe.com), September 20, 2000.

smarty@wannabe: I haven't seen you in Bok's lately. Get your butt over there some night soon. Please?

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), September 20, 2000.

FutureShock,

Wouldn't your insistence that a hospital offer abortion violate the fundamental rights of the human beings who run that hospital to freely choose not to offer abortions?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 20, 2000.

I'm not FS, and I can't believe I'm responding to bait...

Last time I checked, slavery is no longer in widespread practice, J. Therefore the individual you refer to would be free to work at a hospital which mirrors his/her principles/philosophies/morals/tastes/etc.

Don't hit the Submit button, Rich...

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), September 20, 2000.

I have a big problem with religious institutions getting government money, even hosptials. That is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithtouta.net), September 20, 2000.

Bingo 1,

Could you clarify what you are saying? You have completely lost me.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 20, 2000.

What better verification that I NEVER should have responded to the question? Thanks, J. Sometimes the lessons are quick and easy.

Have a great day!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), September 20, 2000.

FEMINISTS FOR LIFE

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 20, 2000.

Catholic hospitals are a moot point; in our very mobile society, just find a hospital that mirrors your beliefs. A tubal or vasectomy isn't emergency surgery. What has offended me most is that a person can get a state paid abortion, yet a child of working poor parents can't get state paid tonsilectomy.

-- r (r.1@juno.com), September 20, 2000.

Bingo 1,

I asked FutureShock to explain to me what I believe is a contradictory stance, i.e. that human beings should be able to make free choices about choosing to have an abortion, but that the human beings who run hospitals should not be free to choose not to offer abortion.

Your response about slavery and an individual being free to work at a hospital has me stumped. I then politely ask you to clarify, as it may be that I am the one who is missing something, and you respond with what appears to be a sarcastic insinuation that I am in the wrong. Again, maybe I am missing the point of your earlier comment, could you expound on its meaning to enlighten me?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 20, 2000.

Tarzan,

I disagree with you that this practice clearly violates the First Amendment. Since the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", I would argue that as long as government money is also going to non religious run hospitals, it is perfectly constitutional. Furthermore, if the government were to give money to non religious run hospitals, but withhold money from hospitals that were run by a religious organization, THAT would be unconstitutional, in my opinion.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 20, 2000.

Thanks for the invite to Bok's, Bingo, but I must feel in the mood for live chat, and the right atmosphere has to be present. You'll see me there again sometime.

J and Bingo you're snaping at each other over miscommunication, it looks like, and probably you agree on the same principle.

J you said "Wouldn't your insistence that a hospital offer abortion violate the fundamental rights of the human beings who run that hospital to freely choose not to offer abortions?"

Perhaps you mean to say "of the human beings who OWN and run that hospital to freely choose not to offer abortions". In that case they do have that right and do excersise it. But it seems that Bingo understood your statement to mean that the WORKERS there who RUN the hospital (administrators, supervisors down to medical staff) who do not OWN that hospital do have the choice to work in hospitals that match thier philosophy.

R, you said "Catholic hospitals are a moot point; in our very mobile society, just find a hospital that mirrors your beliefs. A tubal or vasectomy isn't emergency surgery."

The problem with that statement is that in fact many low-income areas only have Catholic hospitals to service them. The very poor people in those communities who tend to need those services the most (planned parenthood services, birth control education and health issues) can't afford to go to any other hospitals outside their immediate areas, and even if they could those hospitals for the most part simply won't take them in for lack of insurance. Catholic hospitals are proud to do the charity and take up the slack, and they can afford it, but one must go by their philosophy and what they offer.

"What has offended me most is that a person can get a state paid abortion, yet a child of working poor parents can't get state paid tonsilectomy."

I'd like you to support this statement with clear examples or specific cases. Otherwise it's an opinion taken from the wind. If that is indeed the case, then those poor kids can still go into a Catholic hospital's ER and they'll be taken in for the tonsilectomy. The government is providing what the Catholic hospitals won't.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 20, 2000.

Sending federal money to religious institutions, even hospitals, is clearly a promotion of those institutions and those religions. You can call it anything else you like, but that's the bare bones of the matter. From a religious perspective, the money they receive also makes them subject to secular blackmail, such as "perform abortions or stop receiving federal money".

Religion gets plenty of breaks in this country, including tax-exempt status. We do this to specifically avoid mixing religion and politics. Anything that muddies the water is clearly unconstitutional and ultimately a bad idea for everyone involved.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 20, 2000.

smarty,

Thank you for your assistance.

Bingo 1, I now (only with the aid of smarty) see what you mean. Obviously workers can work wherever they choose. My question to FutureShock was about the choice of the people who OWN/RUN the hospital to choose not to provide abortion, not the actual staff that work there. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 20, 2000.

Tarzan,

I can appreciate that you do not want federal money given to a hospital run by a religious organization, as you see it as "respecting an establishment of religion". I still argue that to give federal money to a secular run hospital, and then withhold money from a religious run hospital is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". To be constitutional, I believe that federal funds have to be given to both, or to neither.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 20, 2000.

I still argue that to give federal money to a secular run hospital, and then withhold money from a religious run hospital is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

How does withholding money "prohibit the free exercise thereof?"

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 20, 2000.

If your concern is fairness, consider this: religious institutions are not taxed while secular institutions are. When they receive federal funding, they in fact receive MORE than their "fair share" of the pie. They don't have to pay taxes like everyone else AND they get public money.

Once again, public money used for religious purposes promotes that religion. It's a violation of the first amendment

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 20, 2000.

I don't see government funding going to a hospital that has a religious affiliation, as inconsistent with the Constitution, provided that the following are met:

1. The funding criteria are religion-blind, i.e., they do not inherently favor or disfavor religious run hospitals.
2. The hospital fully meets the funding criteria.
3. The hospital does not promote religious beliefs or activity, e.g., giving unsolicited religion oriented brochures to its patients.
4. The hospital is strictly non-profit.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 20, 2000.

hmm,

If you withhold money from religious run hospitals, while giving money to secular run hospitals, you are, in effect, saying to the religious run hospitals, "Jump through our hoops, and we will give you cash". To close the pursestrings due only to whether or not a hospital is run by a religious organization is to tacitly restrict the free exercise of religion. I.E. quit practicing your religion, and we will give you the same public money that we already give the secular run hospitals.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 21, 2000.

Tarzan,

Most religious institutions are not taxed because they are not-for-profit. There are many secular institutions that are not taxed because they are not-for-profit as well.

If federal funds are given to BOTH secular run and religious run hospitals, how is that promoting religion?

The First Amendment doesn't stop at, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", it goes on to say, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If federal funds were to go ONLY to religious run hospitals, that would be "respecting an establishment of religion", for funds would not be granted unless there was religious affiliation. However, if funds were withheld ONLY from religious run hospitals, then that would be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", for funds would not be granted if religion were freely exercised.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 21, 2000.

If you withhold money from religious run hospitals, while giving money to secular run hospitals, you are, in effect, saying to the religious run hospitals, "Jump through our hoops, and we will give you cash".

Why would you say that? Does "withholding money" not mean "withholding money"?

To close the pursestrings due only to whether or not a hospital is run by a religious organization is to tacitly restrict the free exercise of religion. I.E. quit practicing your religion, and we will give you the same public money that we already give the secular run hospitals

Since when do religious organizations need public funding to exist? No one is telling them to stop practicing religion. In fact, their religious backers are ALREADY enjoying a tax-free existance, unlike the backers of secular hospitals. This gives religious hospitals MORE money than secular hosptitals.

Most religious institutions are not taxed because they are not-for- profit. There are many secular institutions that are not taxed because they are not-for-profit as well.

NOT TRUE. Religious institutions aren't taxed because to do so would violate the wall of separation. Secular not-for-profit organizations are taxed in several ways that religious institutions aren't, including property taxes.

If federal funds are given to BOTH secular run and religious run hospitals, how is that promoting religion?

Religious hospitals are already getting funding from their private, NON TAXED religious institutions. Therefore, religious hospitals are getting ADDITIONAL money that secular hosptials aren't. Moreover, they use this PUBLIC money as a way to practice and promote their religion. This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

The 1st Amendment guarantees that religion won't affect government and government, in turn, won't affect religion, either to impede or promote.

However, if funds were withheld ONLY from religious run hospitals, then that would be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", for funds would not be granted if religion were freely exercised.

So you're admitting that religious hospitals use those public funds to promote and express their religion. Thanks for proving my point for me!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 21, 2000.

Tarzan,

I admitted no such thing. Religious run hospitals use public funding to promote their hospital services. To withhold HOSPITAL funding based on the religious affiliation of those that own/run said hospital is impeding their free exercise of religion.

It's akin to having the IRS say that child tax credits will not be given to Jewish taxpayers because that would be promoting the Jewish faith.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 21, 2000.

To withhold HOSPITAL funding based on the religious affiliation of those that own/run said hospital is impeding their free exercise of religion.

Whether it "impedes" their free exercise of religion is debatable. However, it does not prohibit their free exercise of religion.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 21, 2000.

hmm,

prohibit- 1)to refuse to permit; forbid by law or by an order
2)to prevent;hinder

impede- to bar or hinderthe progress of; obstruct or delay

By definition, you have said that it is debatable. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 21, 2000.

Religious hospitals also use their hospitals to promote their faith. Don't believe me? Next time you need to have an overnight stay in a hospital, go to a religious one.

Your analogy fails because reduction in taxes, including child credits, do not equate with giving money. When government reduces someone's taxes, they are simply not taking as much money as they were before. Since religion, and religious institutions, are not taxed in this country, you can't cut their taxes.

I can't believe I have to spell this out for you, but here goes: there is no entitlement to public money. We put money into the public coffers, in the form of taxes. Religious institutions, once again, do NOT pay taxes. Therefore, why should they be entitled to those funds in the first place?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 21, 2000.

prohibit- 1)to refuse to permit; forbid by law or by an order 2)to prevent;hinder

impede- to bar or hinderthe progress of; obstruct or delay

How, exactly, does withholding funds from religious hospitals forbid and impede the exercise of their faith?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 21, 2000.

Tarzan,

My analogy does not fail. Child tax credits are refundable credits. This means that even if you don't pay any tax, you still are eligible for the credit. Are you saying that it would be acceptable for the IRS not to issue child tax credits to Jews under the guise that it promotes the Jewish faith?

Take a good hard look at your argument about religious institutions not paying taxes and therefore not being entitled to public funds. If a conservative used that line of reasoning about welfare recipients, you would have a fit.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 21, 2000.

My analogy does not fail. Child tax credits are refundable credits. This means that even if you don't pay any tax, you still are eligible for the credit. Are you saying that it would be acceptable for the IRS not to issue child tax credits to Jews under the guise that it promotes the Jewish faith?

Oh come now. Every working resident of the US pays taxes. Why do you think you get a W2 at the end of the year? When I was in college, making minimum wage at my 20-30 hour a week job, I certainly didn't pay taxes at the end of the year, but I got a check for the ones I had already paid from the previous year.

Even the clergy pay some taxes, with extremely liberal loopholes. However, the religious institutions which employ them get a free ride.

Take a good hard look at your argument about religious institutions not paying taxes and therefore not being entitled to public funds. If a conservative used that line of reasoning about welfare recipients, you would have a fit.

No, because welfare recipients have been taxed in the past and will be taxed again, particularly under the new "welfare-to-work" plans. Only religious institutions have never been taxed and never will be taxed.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 21, 2000.

prohibit- 1)to refuse to permit; forbid by law or by an order 2)to prevent;hinder

If the first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", then why wouldn't the appropriate application of the definition "prohibit" be the definition forbid by law or by an order?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 21, 2000.

Tarzan,

Every working resident of the U.S. does not pay taxes. It depends on whether or not they earn enough to cross the threshhold. Currently the threshhold is somewhere between $4000 - $5000, I believe. Of course, non-working residents don't pay taxes. I ask again, are you saying that it would be acceptable for the IRS not to issue child tax credits to Jews under the guise that it promotes the Jewish faith?

I believe that there are welfare recipients who have never been taxed. For instance, if a woman became pregnant at a very early age, and continued to have children, she may never have worked a day in her life. I don't pretend to know what the future will bring in the way of "welfare-to-work" plans, but it is interesting to note that you can see into the future with regards to the tax status of religious institutions.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 21, 2000.

hmm,

I can't be certain that it isn't the appropriate application. I understand that part of the First Amendment to read like this:
"Congress shall make no law 1)respecting an establishment of religion, or 2)prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If I am correct in my understanding, then it would be redundant to use the "forbid by law or by an order" definition, as that part of the First Amendment would then read like this:
"Congress shall make no law 1)respecting an establishment of religion, or 2)forbidding by law or by order the free exercise thereof".

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 21, 2000.

Every working resident of the U.S. does not pay taxes. It depends on whether or not they earn enough to cross the threshhold. Currently the threshhold is somewhere between $4000 - $5000, I believe.

Exactly. If they make less than that they will get a refund after they file their 1040EZ form. They will not, of course, get a refund on FICA, Social Security and possibly their state taxes. Of course, according to the IRS, the tax credit wouldn't apply to the couple in your analogy so it's a moot point.

I ask again, are you saying that it would be acceptable for the IRS not to issue child tax credits to Jews under the guise that it promotes the Jewish faith?

No, because as tax-payers that couple have earned that credit. What, exactly, are the tax credits the church has earned?

And while you're at it, please explain to me how not giving a religious institution funds to promote its faith is tantamount to prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I believe that there are welfare recipients who have never been taxed. For instance, if a woman became pregnant at a very early age, and continued to have children, she may never have worked a day in her life.

Not anymore. Welfare-to-work programs eliminate those people from their programs. They are pushed out and forced by circumstances to accept minimum wage jobs, where, of course, they are taxed. They can still receive some aid, such as food stamps and WIC, but they are forced to work for their daily bread. Unlike religious institutions of course.

I don't pretend to know what the future will bring in the way of "welfare-to-work" plans, but it is interesting to note that you can see into the future with regards to the tax status of religious institutions

Are you saying you see the 1st Amendment being negated anytime soon?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 21, 2000.

If I am correct in my understanding, then it would be redundant to use the "forbid by law or by an order" definition, as that part of the First Amendment would then read like this: "Congress shall make no law 1)respecting an establishment of religion, or 2)forbidding by law or by order the free exercise thereof".

It may appear redundant, but the sentence was talking about the laws that Congress cannot make. My understanding of the word "prohibit" when applied to laws was the definition "forbidden by law or by order" and not simply "hinder." For example, if you walk into a building where smoking has been prohibited, then that means that you are forbidden to smoke there, not simply that you will be hindered from smoking there. The problem with using the term "hinder" in a legal definition is that it allows too much leeway. I don't see any indication that the framers of what is clearly one of the most important legal documents in our country would use such an ambiguous term.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 21, 2000.

Debra, the debate has been around a while. It's the old fear that if we give an inch, they'll take a mile. I agree that research needs to continue and if they can use aborted fetuses, so be it. I don't think that it will lead to women making babies just to abort, if no incentive is provided for such abortions.

But since this has already gone way off topic, I'd like to comment on whoever wrote the liberal beliefs.

I refuse to pretend that racism and sexism no longer exist, so they call me a liberal. Sorry, but republicans don't believe that they don't exist. Remember, Lincoln was a republican.

I don't believe that "market forces" are some magical panacea, so they call me a liberal. I also don't believe they are a panacea but I believe that profits are a great motivator for efficiency, something the gov lacks.

I don't believe cutting the military from being able to blow up the world 10 times over down to only 8 times over is a bad thing, so they call me a liberal. Disagree, the world has seen a great power fall during the last repub administration. Why do you think that is? Also, missiles have been dismantled under that administration.

I don't believe family means a man ruling over a wife and kids, so they call me a liberal. Wow! Rebups believe this? Could have fooled me. Please don't confuse the religious right, just as Nader doesn't represent all liberals.

I don't believe that money magically trickles down from the rich, so they call me a liberal. Of course money comes from the rich in many ways! The rich pay more taxes, so the poor see the extra welfare checks. The rich (mostly corporations) employee millions of people, "trickle down". Yeah there's nothing magical about it. It's how you get paid.

I don't believe giving a mother food stamps to feed her kids is a waste of money, while buying the air force a billion dollar bomber it doesn't want isn't, so they call me a liberal. Mixing apples and oranges. I believe in opportunity and the mother has the opportunity to work, if she dares to look. I'd much rather see food given to her child, then give the mother food stamps. Food stamps can be traded for drugs and I believe that many mothers will do just that and not provide for their child.

I don't believe cutting the taxes of the rich helps the poor, so they call me a liberal. Wow, another misconception! Putting money back into the pockets of the people stimulates the economy. The "rich" will then go to restaurants more, spend on other materials, creating more jobs for the "poor". And believe it or not, they also contribute to charities and churches. Tell me that doesn't help the poor.

I don't believe Rush Limbaugh has talent on loan from God, so they call me a liberal. Agreed.

I don't believe that the profit motive creates virtue in people, so they call me a liberal. Agreed. Nothing creates virtue; that comes from within. I don't think even the religious right believes that one.

I don't believe that might makes right, so they call me a liberal. I don't know where this one came from. I believe in Darwin's theory.

I don't believe the government should control women's reproductive choices, so they call me a liberal. AGREE! Gov needs to get out of the business of regulating morals. I'm a republican not a religious right wacko.

I don't believe that single mothers are necessarily bad parents, so they call me a liberal. Agree! Same comment as above.

I don't believe only northern Europeans have culture, so they call me a liberal. Huh?

I don't believe a union worker making $17/hr is overpaid while a CEO making $1 million/year is not, so they call me a liberal. Agree. People make what they are worth. CEO's create companies with inventive ideas and are worth their millions (or whatever it may be). If a union worker wants to make more money, she can go find employment elsewhere. Opportunity, what a concept! I believe that employers need to provide good work environment; that makes for a win-win situation. I believe that unions suck. They don't do what they are paid to do.

I refuse to ignore the long history of oppression, so they call me a liberal. Remember Lincoln.

I don't believe teaching children about cultural diversity is wrong, so they call me a liberal. Huh? Neither do I.

I don't believe the only good jobs are ones where someone else is skimming off a profit, so they call me a liberal. Huh? I call skimming illegal.

I don't believe Americans are inherently superior to other nationalities, so they call me a liberal. Huh? I wouldn't call you a liberal on that one. America is a hugh melting pot, of many other nationalities.

I don't believe homosexuals are evil, so they call me a liberal. Neither do I. I also don't believe that homosexuals should be treated differently than the rest of US citizens.

I don't believe non-Christians are evil, so they call me a liberal. Huh? Only criminals are evil.

I don't believe liberals are subhuman monsters, so they call me a liberal. Huh? Remember Hillary's words, "our enemies are out to get us, those monsters" (or something to that effect), when it turned out she was lying.

I don't believe that things are black-and-white, so they call me a liberal. Huh? Nothing is.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 21, 2000.

This may surprise you, but the opposite of "liberal" is not "republican". Also, Lincoln is no longer in existance.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 21, 2000.

Tarzan,

You must not understand the tax code. Nothing in my analogy would infer that the person (or couple) would not be eligible for a child tax credit, so it is not a moot point. Again, a child tax credit is a refundable credit. One need not pay any tax to be eligible to receive it. Do you understand what that means? A person who does not work a single day, and who earns not a single penny, can get money from the IRS if they have an eligible child. Not money BACK, but money.

I will ask you again. Are you saying that it would be acceptable for the IRS not to issue refundable child tax credits to nonworking, non- taxpaying, Jews under the guise that it promotes the Jewish faith?

I did explain it above. Withholding funds earmarked for hospitals because of the religious affiliation of the hospital's owners is a tacit form of religious discrimination.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 21, 2000.

hmm,

I agree that today the common usage of the word prohibit is akin to forbid. I do not know what the common usage of the word was roughly 225 years ago, however. It would be interesting to see a dictionary from that time frame.

I don't believe that using "hinder" in a legal definition would have been a problem 225 years ago, as I am sure that all of the founding fathers had no problem with what the definition of the word "is" was. : ) In that day and age, there may have been no ambiguity to the word. Of course, maybe the meaning "hinder" was exactly what they intended to convey. I am not saying for certain that you are wrong, but I do believe that it is at least open for debate.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 21, 2000.

I agree that today the common usage of the word prohibit is akin to forbid. I do not know what the common usage of the word was roughly 225 years ago, however. It would be interesting to see a dictionary from that time frame.

While that may not be possible, there is a fairly detailed definition available here. The first definition listed is:

To forbid by authority

and the example:

Smoking is prohibited in most theaters.

With regard to the "hinder" definition, the dictionary uses this example:

Gates of burning adamant, Barred over us, prohibit all egress. -- Milton.

In this case, "prohibit" is used in a literary work, a way to refer to someone being physically, rather than legally, hindered from exiting. In the first case, "prohibit" is used as a legal term.

Given the fact that the Bill of Rights is a legal document and not a literary work, it indicates that the most likely use of "prohibit" is as a legal term meaning "forbidden by authority" rather than a literary term meaning "hinder."

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 21, 2000.

hmm,

Again, you may be correct. I reserve the position that the common usage at that time may have been "hinder". While we are arguing semantics, why do you think that the founding fathers used, "free exercise" instead of just "exercise"?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 21, 2000.

You must not understand the tax code. Nothing in my analogy would infer that the person (or couple) would not be eligible for a child tax credit, so it is not a moot point.

LOLOL! Thanks for the set up!

Again, a child tax credit is a refundable credit. One need not pay any tax to be eligible to receive it.

OH REALLY? I certainly wouldn't want you to prepare my taxes. Here's an on-line version of the Child Tax Credit form.

http://www.taxboard.com/Tax-Help/1040Instrs/i1040_pg34_wrksht.html

Note line 4. If you answer "Yes" to this question (where yes would mean your credits are equal to your tax liability), you can NOT, repeat, NOT take the Child Tax Credit because "there is no tax to reduce".

For even more evidence, here's a link to the 199 1040 form with instruction (note: requires Adobe reader)

http://www.lib.lfc.edu/taxforms/instruct/i1040gi.pdf

You are partly right. You aren't eligible for the Child Tax Credit if you have two or fewer children and no income. You could conceivably be eligible for it if you had three or more children, so long as your deductions for them weren't greater than your tax liability.

A person who does not work a single day, and who earns not a single penny, can get money from the IRS if they have an eligible child. Not money BACK, but money.

Wrong. And to add insult to injury, you were also wrong about the amount at which one owes taxes. According to the IRS, if you earn at least $5, you will owe taxes. Here's the link.

http://www.lib.lfc.edu/taxforms/instruct/i1040tt.pdf

You really made that too easy.

I will ask you again. Are you saying that it would be acceptable for the IRS not to issue refundable child tax credits to nonworking, non- taxpaying, Jews under the guise that it promotes the Jewish faith?

Once again, I would oppose the issue a Child Tax Credit to such a couple because it would violate the tax codes and leave them open to a big reaming by the IRS. Why would you wish such a thing on your innocent, if hypothetical, couple?

Try again.

I did explain it above. Withholding funds earmarked for hospitals because of the religious affiliation of the hospital's owners is a tacit form of religious discrimination.

Also not true. Discrimination laws apply only to INDIVIDUALS, not ENTITIES. If a decision was made to withhold funds based on the religion of a hospital administrator, you might have a case.

No offense, but you seem very, well, stupid, today. Are you REALLY Y2J/Dennis?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 21, 2000.

Whoops! Looks like in my zeal to completely destroy J's specious tax argument, I missed a line. I should have said, "Legally, there is no such thing as religious discrimination against an entity. As religious hospitals are owned by religious entities, not individuals, there can be no discrimination in the withholding of public funds,"

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 21, 2000.

The moral of Tarzan's post is, "Don't f&!$ with someone who understands the tax code,"

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), September 21, 2000.

Again, you may be correct. I reserve the position that the common usage at that time may have been "hinder".

Certainly, it may have been, but what is the likelihood given the fact that the definition "forbidden by authority" is clearly a legal term and the Bill of Rights clearly a legal document, while the definition of "hinder" was more literary in nature? Consider also this definition from the Webster's 1828 Dictionary in which, again, "To forbid; to interdict by authority;" is the main definition with "hinder" being the secondary and less common definition?

Do you believe that it is still more likely that the common usage at the time was "hinder" even though the more common usage was clearly "forbid by authority" as far back as 1828?

While we are arguing semantics, why do you think that the founding fathers used, "free exercise" instead of just "exercise"?

Got me on that one. I haven't a clue.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 21, 2000.

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, J.

-- Dean Wormer (dean.wormer@fabercollege.edu), September 21, 2000.

J-

Please show me where I mentioned abortion in my two previous posts on this thread.

While entertaining(it always is when J and tarzan go at it) I totally mis the point. Medical care is medical care-has anyone read the hippocratic oath lately? Religion does not enter the equation-AT ALL. Standard of care is a legal term which has evolved over the years, and as I stated before, I am glad it exists as it allows me to properly file medical malpractice should it occur. The whole object of medical care is healing, where possible, and making someone comfortable who is facing the inevitable. NO RELIGIOUS BELIEF SHOULD EVER GET IN THE WAY OF PROPER MEDICAL CARE. THIS IS LUDICROUS.

Why we are talking about other stuff confuses me at this time. A hospital practices religion? Fuck that. A hospital should be about caring for people an NOTHING ELSE.

J-I am sorry it upsets you, but abortion IS LEGAL in this country. Until, and if it ever becomes illegal(in which case I would move) we have nothing to debate. If a hospital refuses to perform an abortion on a dying mother, a mother who will die if the fetus is not aborted, because of some religious belief, THEY WILL HAVE VIOLATED THE STANDARD OF CARE and will be found at fault if the women dies and the hospital is sued. Again, sorry you do not like it-but that's the fact, jack.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 22, 2000.

Tarzan,

I was wrong about the tax code.

I confused the child tax credit, which is non refundable, with the earned income credit, which is refundable. Of course, you do not qualify for the earned income credit unless you have earned income, hence the name. Again, I was mistaken about the tax code.

Try again I will. Let me ask you a different question, since you are so intent on dodging my original question. Would you say that it is acceptable for the government to deny welfare checks to Jews under the guise that giving said checks promotes the Jewish faith?

Apparently, I should have made my statement more precise. Withholding funds earmarked for hospitals because of the religious affiliation of those who own/run said hospital is a tacit form of prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

No offense, but I thought that you had more class than to stoop to the Dennis Olson bit.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 22, 2000.

hmm,

With the 1828 Webster's dictionary entered into evidence, I would say that "forbidding" is a more likely definition than "hindering". With that said, I would say that the using of "free exercise" rather than just "exercise", was to prevent laws which would still allow the exercise of religion, but in some diluted form. For instance, if the Catholic Sisters of Mercy wanted to freely exercise their religious belief to offer hospital services, then there should be no law passed that would prohibit the Catholic Sisters of Mercy from not only exercising that belief, but also from freely exercising that belief.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 22, 2000.

Dean Wormer,

The question is not whether we took a few liberties with our female party guests... we did.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 22, 2000.

FutureShock,

You didn't. I extrapolated your, "A hospital that chooses to not offer me or mine a medical option because of their belief set is violating that fundamental principle" (where the principle is the right of humans to make free choices), to the hypothetical question of abortion as a medical option.

The rest of your post is hopelessly out of touch with reality, old chap. If you really believe that religion doesn't enter into the equation- AT ALL, when a Catholic run hospital chooses not to offer abortions, then you are an idiot. I know that you are not an idiot, so there must be some other answer for your little trip into never never land.

By the way, are you Alec Baldwin?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 22, 2000.

I was wrong about the tax code.

WHO'S YOUR DADDY?

Sorry,I couldn't resist indulging myself. ;-)

I confused the child tax credit, which is non refundable, with the earned income credit, which is refundable. Of course, you do not qualify for the earned income credit unless you have earned income, hence the name. Again, I was mistaken about the tax code.

The Child Tax Credit is similar to the EIC, but not the same. Don't take this the wrong way, but for the love of Mike, please consult a competent tax accountant before you file next April. These things are too easy to mess up and too costly if you do, both financially and in terms of free time. Plus, a visit to H&R Block will give you the kind of peace of mind that's difficult to buy.

Try again I will. Let me ask you a different question, since you are so intent on dodging my original question.

Not at all. I've answered it three times already.

Would you say that it is acceptable for the government to deny welfare checks to Jews under the guise that giving said checks promotes the Jewish faith?

Once again, no, because that individual has paid into the public system at some point and will pay into the system again, including tax on some of their assistance, including unemployment and social security. Only religious institutions do not pay into the public system.

Once again, your analogy fails because it attempts to treat a religious institution as an individual. As I pointed out, laws that exist for protection of individuals do not apply to institutions, just as laws for the regulation of institutions do not apply to individuals.

In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Apparently, I should have made my statement more precise. Withholding funds earmarked for hospitals because of the religious affiliation of those who own/run said hospital is a tacit form of prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

No, it's not. Those who run that hospital can exercise their religion wherever, whenever and (with a few extreme exceptions) in whatever way they wish. No one is preventing them from expressing their religious belief by preventing them from receiving federal money to promote their religion. By your line of "reasoning", everytime the government refuses to use Peace Corps money to send missionaries over seas, they are prevengint the free exercise of relgion by those missionaries.

No offense, but I thought that you had more class than to stoop to the Dennis Olson bit.

And I thought you were smarter than to make such a simple mistake with regards to the tax code.

Seriously, all trolling aside, it sure LOOKS like you're Dennis. Same posting style, same opinions, same (unique) life experience. Coupled with the fact that Dennis obviously monitors this forum regularly and has not come to defend himself against this case of mistaken identity, well, it looks suspicious. Moreover, you refused to let OTFR know what ISP you post from so the troll could be eliminated. Strange behavior that. If someone were claiming that I was Mr. Polly, I'd sure be willing to sacrifice a little privacy in order to clear matters up, especially considering your ISP says next to nil about who and where you are.

Tell you what. If you're willing, I'll come up with a dummy yahoo address and post it. If you respond and let me know the name of your home ISP (not your address mind you, just the name) and it's not one that Dennis Olson used, then I'll work to clear your name. How 'bout it?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 22, 2000.

J-

I do not think I ever said religion does not come into the equation. What I believe I said is that it SHOULD not-that hospitals are about medical care, and the hippocratic oath mentions nothing about the exercise of religion. Medical care does not belong in the arena of religion.

As long as your hypothetical catholic hospital accepts federal funds, they CANNOT deny treatment, any legal treatment, a patient can afford. It is like anything else-you are bound by federal law if you are a recipient of federal funds. This is like that Boy Scouts of America thing-they are getting away with the travesty of open discrimination against gays because they receive no federal funds.

Anyway-you use a mighty broad stroke to state the rest of my post is out of touch with the reality. I know you can do better than that. Broad sweeping statements like that would be laughed out of the room in a forensics debate. Please be more specific.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 22, 2000.

Jefferson believed that no worthy religion would seek the power of the state to coerce belief. He argued that disestablishment would strengthen religion, holding that it would "oblige its ministers to be industrious [and] exemplary."

It seems most people have not found religion to be industrious and exemplary and so religion feels it needs to seek the power of the state to coerce belief. They are seeking power over women's bodies, in our government, in the United Nations, in health care insurance and EVEN HEALTH CARE ITSELF!

Both presidential candidates are talking about "Expanding Charitable Choice to all federal social service programs, allowing religious organizations to be eligible for funding on the same basis as any other provider, without impairing their religious character."

Following is a Press Release from August 16, 2000. I didn't realize the extent to which the Catholics have gone to push their agenda. I think we are in trouble here.

CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS FILE LAWSUIT OVER PUBLIC HOSPITAL RUN BY RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS

RELIGIOUS CONTROL OVER FLORIDA HOSPITAL VIOLATES SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, FEDERAL LAWSUIT SAYS

Four national advocacy organizations, along with four concerned community residents, filed a federal lawsuit today against the City of St. Petersburg, Bayfront Medical Center and BayCare Health System over the operation of a public hospital under religious doctrines.

The suit charges that direct and indirect support of the hospital with taxpayer funds violates the separation of church and state because the medical facility operates under the religious tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, an unconstitutional religious entanglement for the city-owned hospital.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc., Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Organization for Women Foundation, Inc. and Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, Inc. Local Pinellas County residents Jeanie Blue, Beth Lindenberg, Lee DeCesare and Irene Miller are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Attorneys in the case are Marcia S. Cohen of St. Petersburg, Florida, lead counsel, and Prof. Mark R. Brown of Stetson University College of Law. They are joined by Ayesha Khan, Litigation Counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Kim Gandy, counsel for the National Organization for Women Foundation. The National Women's Law Center is providing assistance in the case as part of its national health care provider merger project.

"Public services should never be forced to conform to religious dictates," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "This arrangement violates church-state separation by allowing one denomination to exercise control over an essential public service.

"Other communities are facing this problem as well," continued Lynn, "so this case could set important national precedent."

Since 1968, St. Petersburg has agreed to allow the city-owned medical facility to be run by Bayfront Medical Center. Problems began, however, in 1997 when Bayfront entered into an alliance with several other hospitals in the Tampa area, including religiously run hospitals.

To implement its new alliance, Bayfront agreed to operate the city's hospital according to the "Ethical and Religious Directives" of the Roman Catholic Church. After the agreement, staff at the publicly owned and supported facility, including physicians, employees, volunteers, students and other contracted agents, were expected to sign a statement expressing a commitment to follow the ethical directives of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops as applied to Bayfront.

Under the directives, patients are restricted from receiving a variety of legal medical procedures, including "abortion, sterilization, emergency contraception and artificial insemination." The directives also may limit the full implementation of patients' wishes identified in living wills to the extent they do not comport with Catholic doctrine.

"It is unconstitutional for a religious gatekeeper to determine the nature of health care services in a public hospital," said local attorney Cohen. "Bayfront serves patients of many different faiths and backgrounds whose religious freedom must be protected. Their health care choices should be based on the best medical advice, not on religious restrictions."

The suit, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, asks that the court find reliance on the religious directives at the public hospital to be unconstitutional and prohibit the facility from being run according to religious dictates in the future. The lawsuit also alleges that the Joint Operating Agreement of the hospitals in the BayCare alliance, including Bayfront, was negotiated in private, violating Floridas open meetings law, and that Bayfronts refusal to provide various documents requested under Floridas public records law violates that law as well.

) Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 2000. All rights reserved.

518 C Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20002 202-466-3234

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), September 22, 2000.

So the Catholic Church is opposed to artificial insemination? Good thing they weren't around during Mary's time.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 22, 2000.

With that said, I would say that the using of "free exercise" rather than just "exercise", was to prevent laws which would still allow the exercise of religion, but in some diluted form. For instance, if the Catholic Sisters of Mercy wanted to freely exercise their religious belief to offer hospital services, then there should be no law passed that would prohibit the Catholic Sisters of Mercy from not only exercising that belief, but also from freely exercising that belief.

However, in the case of CANTWELL v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, the Supreme Court stated the following regarding the Free Exercise clause:

On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.

Since withholding government funds from a hospital does not infringe on their freedom to believe in a particular religion, it does not necessarily violate the Free Exercise clause. Furthermore, the act of "offering hospital services" is not exclusive to religious institutions, since secular hospitals do exist and also "offer hospital services." Since there is no case precedent to classify the offering of "hopital services" as a strictly religious act, it appears unlikely that one could even claim a violation of the First Amendment in a court of law, much less at the Supreme Court level.

As a sidenote since the subject has been brought up, although there appear to be similarities between the situations of Y2J and Dennis Olson, the evidence would suggest that it is more likely that they are not, in fact, the same person.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 22, 2000.

Thanks for posting that article Debra. It demonstrates the problem with conflicts of religious beliefs going on all over the nation with the new trend in hospitals to merge and consolidate services. As I posted before, the (Sisters of) Mercy Corporation is a titan in the hospital business, taking over many secular and community hospitals all over the country. Some are bought outright and the name (and philosophy) changed to Mercy (something) Hospital, but many are partnership deals like the case in your article. I suspect the problem is not confined only with Catholic hospitals, but probably other religion as well, although in lesser degree.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 22, 2000.

Tarzan,

You really shouldn't use "competent tax accountant" and "H&R Block" in the same paragraph. : ) Around here, anyway, H&R Block is like getting investment advice from your plumber. Come to think of it, I think some of their tax "experts" are plumbers. Not that I have anything against plumbers, just not as tax experts.

Anyway, I appreciate your concern for my tax situation. After my gaff, it will probably be hard for you to believe, but I am competent enough to follow instructions AND understand what they mean. A few years back, I helped a friend with the child tax credit/ earned income credit, and the details muddied together as I was bringing them back to the present. Onward.

The whole crux of your answer seems to be that a recipient of public funds has either paid into the system in the past, or will in the future, so the receipt of funds is like a tax refund. That is why it is okay for a Jew to receive a welfare check, and that doesn't promote religion, but it is not okay for a religious run hospital to receive public funds, because that hospital has never and will never pay taxes, thus receipt of public funds by said hospital is promoting religion. Does that accurately state your position?

As far as the Dennis Olson deal, I will try to shed some light on why my privacy FAR outweighs some online trolling. As much as I enjoy debating online with you and the others at this forum, it is something that I could live without. When I come here, I try to get into my debate mode as I become Y2J. I am not Y2J to my wife and children, I am husband and father. They are what really matters. Them, I could not live without; this forum I can live without.

After Andy Ray found out that OTFR had been sharing ISP addresses with some others on this forum via e-mail, it became very clear to me that I don't "know" the moderator. In fact, I don't really "know" anyone here. I "know" online personas. Some may be very close to the actual underlying person, some may be complete alter egos. There could be a psychopath lurking, or even posting here.

The point is, I have been using an anonymizer since the Andy Ray revelation, and no amount of flak that I receive online will persuade me to compromise my privacy. My family is too important for me to do that. As far as my home ISP, all that I will say is that it is small. Probably so small that providing more info might be compromising to my privacy.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 22, 2000.

FutureShock,

What you said was, "Religion does not enter the equation-AT ALL".

You may not want it to, or think that it should, but it does.

You are wrong about my hypothetical Catholic hospital. In fact, existing Catholic run hospitals CAN and DO deny abortion, a legal medical treatment, while receiving federal funds. What do you think that Tarzan is so upset about? He's not upset that it MIGHT happen, it is happening TODAY.

The Boy Scouts? Are you serious? Do you think that heterosexual men should be able to be troop leaders for the Girl Scouts, and take a dozen or so young girls out on overnight camping trips?

The rest of your post seemed somewhat like a rant, hence my use of the broad stroke rather than a point by point rebuttal. If my broad sweeping statement would be laughed out of the room in a forensics debate, I can only imagine the reaction to your statement, "A hospital practices religion? Fuck that".

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 22, 2000.

hmm,

"Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society".

So child sacrifice is out, even under the claim that it is a religious practice. I agree wholeheartedly. I am not sure, however, how refusing to offer abortion at your hospital harms society. If a religious run hospital believes that it is against God's will to have cosmetic plastic surgery, does refusing to offer plastic surgery harm society?

I appreciate the fact that you voiced your opinion that I am not Dennis Olson. It got lonely a while back when everyone seemed to be jumping on the "Y2J is Dennis Olson" bandwagon.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 22, 2000.

Catholic hospitals can and do refuse to do tubal ligation and vasectomy procedure.

-- helen (b@r.g), September 22, 2000.

FutureShock,

I also wanted to thank you.

Quite some time ago, before all of the recent hubbub, you weighed in with your opinion that I was not Dennis Olson. Despite our differing world views, I didn't want you to think that I was unappreciative of your act.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 22, 2000.

So child sacrifice is out, even under the claim that it is a religious practice. I agree wholeheartedly. I am not sure, however, how refusing to offer abortion at your hospital harms society.

That wasn't my argument, however. I brought up the Supreme Court decision to illustrate that withholding government funds does not violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, since it does not interfere with the "freedom to believe" as stated above.

I appreciate the fact that you voiced your opinion that I am not Dennis Olson. It got lonely a while back when everyone seemed to be jumping on the "Y2J is Dennis Olson" bandwagon.

I was going to mention it earlier, but I thought that that the argument would eventually die out. Since it keeps coming up again, I figured it would be a good idea to point out that evidence indicates that it is more likely that you are not the same person.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 22, 2000.

Anyway, I appreciate your concern for my tax situation. After my gaff, it will probably be hard for you to believe, but I am competent enough to follow instructions AND understand what they mean. A few years back, I helped a friend with the child tax credit/ earned income credit, and the details muddied together as I was bringing them back to the present. Onward.

Remember, "it's not the odds, it's the stakes," ;-)

The whole crux of your answer seems to be that a recipient of public funds has either paid into the system in the past, or will in the future, so the receipt of funds is like a tax refund. That is why it is okay for a Jew to receive a welfare check, and that doesn't promote religion, but it is not okay for a religious run hospital to receive public funds, because that hospital has never and will never pay taxes, thus receipt of public funds by said hospital is promoting religion. Does that accurately state your position?

Not really. Your example is flawed because individuals and institutions aren't analagous. The Jewish person, who has already paid into the public system and who will continue to pay into it (in the form of taxes on his benefits), is more deserving of those funds than the religious institution, who has not and never will pay into the public funds. Moreover, just as secular institutions can receive public funds and religious institutions should not, religious institutions have tax-free status which is denied their secular counter-parts. Therefore, the lack of funds does not put an undue burden on them.

As far as the Dennis Olson deal, I will try to shed some light on why my privacy FAR outweighs some online trolling. As much as I enjoy debating online with you and the others at this forum, it is something that I could live without. When I come here, I try to get into my debate mode as I become Y2J. I am not Y2J to my wife and children, I am husband and father. They are what really matters. Them, I could not live without; this forum I can live without.

No offense big guy, but that still doesn't wash. CPR has pissed off many more people here than you and/or "Dennis Olson" combined, and yet he has received only one so-called threat, which he crowed about long and loud. I'm sure you'll agree that if he ever had reason to fear the people on this board, he would certainly be trumpeting about that, too. I can see it now: Y2K DOOMZIES WANT TO KILL ME TO SHUT ME UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After Andy Ray found out that OTFR had been sharing ISP addresses with some others on this forum via e-mail, it became very clear to me that I don't "know" the moderator. In fact, I don't really "know" anyone here. I "know" online personas. Some may be very close to the actual underlying person, some may be complete alter egos. There could be a psychopath lurking, or even posting here.

An IP address tells little to nothing about who you are and where you live. ISPs guard that information to the point where it takes a court order to pry the info out of them. I could see your concern if you were posting from your office (which none of us ever does, right?) or you had a T-1 connection since that gives you a permanent IP address, but if you did, you probably would have already said so.

The point is, I have been using an anonymizer since the Andy Ray revelation, and no amount of flak that I receive online will persuade me to compromise my privacy. My family is too important for me to do that. As far as my home ISP, all that I will say is that it is small. Probably so small that providing more info might be compromising to my privacy.

Look, I don't care what you call yourself. You can claim to be Kublai Khan for all I care. However, the skeptic in me finds it extremely unlikely that you aren't Dennis Olson. But whatever. If you ever want me to help you "clear yourself" you know how to do it. I'll leave the light on for you.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 22, 2000.

After Andy Ray found out that OTFR had been sharing ISP addresses with some others on this forum via e-mail, it became very clear to me that I don't "know" the moderator.

Actually, Andy Ray only accused OTFR of sharing IP addresses with some others on this forum. However, he was unable (or unwilling) to provide any information to back up his accusation.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 22, 2000.

However, the skeptic in me finds it extremely unlikely that you aren't Dennis Olson.

You may not have considered all of the evidence, however. In a previous post you stated that you believe Y2J is Dennis Olson based on:

Same posting style, same opinions, same (unique) life experience.

In fact, the only compelling element that ties the two people together is the same (unique) life experience. The opinions Y2J has are hardly unique, which you already know from the "Citizen Ruth" threads. And as for the same posting style, you may want a refresher of Olson's posting style which I've taken from this famous thread which some may remember:

Or are you just "Horrified" that the method of getting the word out didn't live up to your "standard of decorum", or whatever other twisted criteria you may have. Hey, you want to adopt a baby? Put up or SHUT UP, jackass....

Oh, and if any "official" shows up here without a warrant, it's gonna get ugly, so FOR THE GOOD OF ALL, go tilt at some OTHER windmill. This is really NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Proper procedure WILL be adhered to. Maybe you just need more to occupy your time...? Try getting a JOB.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 03, 2000.

If you compare the quoted post with those of Y2J, I think you will see that the posting "style" is actually quite different.

This is not to say that they still can't be the same person. But consider this:

Olson's opinions of this forum are well-known. He continually refers to this forum as "The New Debunkies House Of Trolls" and, as he does in this thread, he relishes in the disruptions caused here as he continually hopes the forum is brought down.

Y2J's posts, however, have the opposite effect. They provide interesting, if controversial, viewpoints that always stir up plenty of debate and conversation. Indeed, rather than disrupt the forum, they help keep it alive and kicking.

Finally, regarding the fact that Dennis has never chosen to defend himself against this case of mistaken identity, I reiterate that he despises this forum and everyone in it. It would serve him no purpose to defend himself against "Debunkers." No doubt he feels it is beneath him to address us.

It is therefore my opinion that the two are not the same person. For if they were, then the "Dennis Olson" personality currently residing on EZ-Board would be a sham and a fraud, pretending to relish in the problems of the "Debunkie House Of Trolls" when, in reality, he chooses to participate here more than he does there.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 22, 2000.

I disagree. You chose a very emotional post from Dennis and while he was certainly no prize he was also quite reasonable from time to time, as you can see from his posts on the other board. He is very capable of controlling himself and Y2J is very capable of loosing control.

At the same time Y2J isn't always reasonable. Remember when he called Samaritan a nazi? Samaritan was the poster who confessed to telling the child care authorities that Dennis was trying to aid an illegal adoption. That's not the first time he attaccked someone like that either.

Your choice of posts is interesting too. Dennis got very upset because he took in a teenaged mother and her newborn just before rollover. Did you know Y2J did the same thing? Do you think this is something everyone does at some time like taking in a stray kitten? Remember that we're talking about a very small number of people who post on this board.

I also disagree with your statement that Dennis wouldn't come back to this board to defend himself and that he considers us beneath his contempt. Dennis has posted links from this board on the other board several times and seems to know a great deal about what goes on here. This alone makes it hard to believe he wouldn't be tempted to post a response to some of the conversation.

There was a thread started by Y2J (or someone who was pretending to be him) that had Dennis address on it. Each time I posted to it all responses were still going to him. Dennis got a good portion of the 60 or so responses to that thread. Don't you find it difficult to believe that he wouldn't come back and say "leave me along you f% #$ing trolls"? Don't you find it difficult to believe that he wouldn't ask OTFR to make it stop? He didn't do that. A little out of charecter don't you think?

-- Susan Waters (waters@excite.com), September 23, 2000.

Sorry, that last post didn't have my whole address. It was just a typo from me and not an imposter.

-- Susan Waters (susanwaters@excite.com), September 23, 2000.

Susan Waters,

You wrote, "Y2J is very capable of loosing (sic) control".

While I will not claim that I have never lost my temper, would you care to back up your statement with an example? Also, would you please cite an instance when I wasn't reasonable?

I believe that I asked Samaritan if she had relatives who were Nazi sympathizers. Not the same thing as calling someone a Nazi, but subtleties are lost on many people, apparently yourself included.

You also wrote, "Dennis got very upset because he took in a teenaged mother and her newborn just before rollover. Did you know Y2J did the same thing"? (emphasis mine)

Actually, I never got "very upset" because of what I did. In fact, I never got upset at all. What I did was to take in a sister and brother, not a mother and child. Further, the children were able to be with a relative quite some time before rollover. I guess that I didn't do the "same thing", did I Susan?

As far as the rest of your post, I have stated before, and will state again: I cannot speak for the whys or why nots of what Dennis Olson does or does not do. I am not, however, Dennis Olson.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 23, 2000.

When medicine ignores morality.....common men play god at any expense without a need to justify their actions.

You know you're a liberal if you believe AIDS is spread by a lack of government funding. I guess this is another glaring example of "Save the Children". It takes a village to fund fetus safaris.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), September 23, 2000.

A friend alerted me that I am being impersonated on this forum AGAIN. I am only posting here today to clear up this misinformation...I DO NOT post on this bulletin board!

-- Susan Waters (susanwaters@excite.com), September 23, 2000.

Really funny troll. I've already sent a note to OTFR.

-- Susan Waters (susanwaters@excite.com), September 23, 2000.

You chose a very emotional post from Dennis

I chose a typical post from Dennis when he is involved in a disagreement.

and while he was certainly no prize he was also quite reasonable from time to time, as you can see from his posts on the other board.

Oh yes, such as this one in which he rails on the sysops themselves for letting the board turn into another "DeBunkie's House O' Trolls." What a reasonable guy, LOL.

I also disagree with your statement that Dennis wouldn't come back to this board to defend himself and that he considers us beneath his contempt.

You don't think he considers us beneath his contempt? LOL. Read the thread I linked above.

Dennis has posted links from this board on the other board several times and seems to know a great deal about what goes on here.

Of course he does. He especially likes to link to threads posted by CPR in a futile effort to show what a "den of trolls" this board is.

This alone makes it hard to believe he wouldn't be tempted to post a response to some of the conversation.

Posting links from this board is irrelevant to his decision to participate in this board.

There was a thread started by Y2J (or someone who was pretending to be him) that had Dennis address on it. Each time I posted to it all responses were still going to him. Dennis got a good portion of the 60 or so responses to that thread. Don't you find it difficult to believe that he wouldn't come back and say "leave me along you f% #$ing trolls"?

He sees us as beneath him as I've already shown above. He would never address us directly.

Don't you find it difficult to believe that he wouldn't ask OTFR to make it stop? He didn't do that.

How do you know?

You also have yet to address the main point, which is that while Dennis Olson appears to revel in the disruptions caused to this forum (as I've noted above), the poster known as "Y2J" has not only not caused such disruption, but has, in fact, kept this forum thriving with interesting conversation and debate.

A little out of charecter don't you think? LOL

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 24, 2000.

Hmm:

Just for the record, I agree with you that J isn't Dennis. Dennis posts here on occasion as Yeah Right, and his posts ARE generally related to this being the new "Debunkers site."

In addition, I've known Dennis' internet persona since we became acquainted on the MSNBC forum in late 1998. He didn't discuss his Christian beliefs on that forum AT ALL. I knew he was LDS, but he never really brought it up. I think his participation in Hyatt's forum led him to think more about his faith. [<--That's cheap psychology 101 assumptions there.] In contrast, J is VERY active in his faith, and I would think has been for a VERY long time.

Personally, I enjoy arguing with both of them. While we never see things the same, we always seem to be able to agree to disagree.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 24, 2000.