Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act

RNsRWe, ASN, RN · Dec 13, 2014

Yeah, but there's also the burn the witches, stone the gays, stone the non-virgin female parts, too. People seem to pick the parts of their holy books they like, and throw out the rest. But it's all still in there.

Ok, gonna have to go digging through the Torah to find the parts specifically encouraging witch-burning, gay-stoning, and non-virgin-female stoning as well. Might TAKE me awhile.... :rolleyes:

Regardless of what is picked and chosen from whatever anyone reads, I think the bigger problem is that people in a position to create laws are considering deliberate, depraved indifference NOT as against the law....but sometimes allowable by law. Much bigger issue than whatever anyone likes to believe in their heads, without ever once acting upon it. Unless, of course, anyone here's been to a really good Public Stoning lately?

Chisca, RN · Dec 13, 2014

I've been to a really good Rolling Stones concert.

RNsRWe, ASN, RN · Dec 13, 2014

I've been to a really good Rolling Stones concert.

ROTFL! Wonder if anyone was keeping track of witches, gays, and non-virgins? :nailbiting:

ANnot4me · Dec 13, 2014

The USA is viewed by much of the world as a country full of [Christian] fundamentalists not dissimilar to their Islamic "enemies". Many Christian people preach that their faith is superior and that this justifies their hate-based fear and prejudice. Since the inception of Christianity, Christians have justified a great deal of their evil deeds based upon their faith.

I was born and bred into a fundamentalist Christian American family and thank God almost all of us have abandoned fundamentalism for a more loving and inclusive form of Christianity. Just leave me and everyone else [whatever their relgion] alone to answer to God. I am not afraid.

tnmarie · Dec 13, 2014

I think regardless of your religious beliefs or lack there of, most people can agree that this would be a freaking awful law to pass. Our job is not to judge who is "deserving" of our care. We treat rapists, murders, pedophiles, etc. because it is our JOB and our ethical responsibility to provide care for ANYONE who needs it.

Ok, gonna have to go digging through the Torah to find the parts specifically encouraging witch-burning, gay-stoning, and non-virgin-female stoning as well. Might TAKE me awhile....

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Source

RNsRWe, ASN, RN · Dec 13, 2014

My, you spent some time on this! Ok...

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

The words are not interchangeable, nor are they matched by current definitions. My understanding was the the original text was warning against those who would use 'evil magic' or 'evil magicians' who would work against G-d. In other words, not innocent bystanders following their own philosophies, but those actively seeking to do harm. Often mistranslated to mean "Witch" in the Christian texts, mostly by those who feared Pagan worship (which harmed no one) but....not correct.

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Yep, knew this gem would come up But it does not recommend "stoning" which is the picky specific I was going for, but if we're gonna throw "stoning" around specifically, it really ought to be a correct quote. Nope, you've gotta be creative in killing 'em in ancient times, apparently...

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Got me on that one. I suppose because so much of these absurdly punitive portions of the Torah have been "written off" as something that should not be implemented verbatim about a millenium ago by the rabbinic sages of that time (they were clearly more on the ball than some people today, apparently!)....I don't pay it much attention either. The Talmud is the law, the interpretation/commentary of the Torah by many wise men charged with the task (kinda like an ancient Jewish Supreme Court!) and this was dropped out of practice WAAAYYYYY back when. Kinda hard to use it to justify much of anything today. Technically, you could say people "pick and choose", but in my own religious doctrine, these long-changed ancient updates negate whatever what was originally dictated.

So...not picking and choosing, but following today's (and some very old, long-standing) practices.

Actually, an example of this would be me being on this computer at this very moment: in ancient times, one would need to strike a fire to create light in a room, and this was forbidden as "making effort, doing work" on Shabbat. Over time, lighting options evolved, electronics were introduced, and although many people still hold to the tradition of not flipping a light switch ('creating' light), most of us have no issue with it as it doesn't relate to 'creating fire'...at least, not for most of us. So...we turn on light switches, use the oven, and play on the computer for entertainment :) But yes, you'd still find plenty who will sit without light or new heat, whatever. To each his own....which is REALLY what the point of all this is, isn't it? To not allow anyone to negatively impact someone else's health and say it's ok because it's "against their religion"?

The other comments you posted were interesting, thank you, but not part of what I had addressed, so I dropped them out of this one.

liberated847 · Dec 13, 2014

Wow, the mental gymnastics used by the previous poster here to explain and justify what really amounts to atrocities on the bible are exhausting to read. Do you really think a perfect "god" would choose to communicate through a book filled with contradictions and atrocities? So this God is evil in the Old Testament and good in the New Testament? Bipolar ? The more plausible explanation is that this god is imaginary and the bible is just a reflection of a barbaric generation of scared sheep herders.

MrChicagoRN, RN · Dec 13, 2014

This moved from discussion of a state bill, that it appears that none of us has even read, to a religious debate.

if anyone has actually seen the bill, could they produce a link so we can discuss the actual bill and its ramifications?

liberated847 · Dec 13, 2014

This moved from discussion of a state bill, that it appears that none of us has even read, to a religious debate.
if anyone has actually seen the bill, could they produce a link so we can discuss the actual bill and its ramifications?

Here you go:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(wmx5xyrv1a24n5qbo3yxr555))/mileg.aspx?page=BillStatus&objectname=2014-HB-5958

RNsRWe, ASN, RN · Dec 13, 2014

Wow, the mental gymnastics used by the previous poster here to explain and justify what really amounts to atrocities on the bible are exhausting to read. Do you really think a perfect "god" would choose to communicate through a book filled with contradictions and atrocities? So this God is evil in the Old Testament and good in the New Testament? Bipolar ? The more plausible explanation is that this god is imaginary and the bible is just a reflection of a barbaric generation of scared sheep herders.

Excuse me, but your tone...and, actually, your word use...is rude here. Your frequent use of atheism as a reason to BE rude is tolerable only in the context of the Spirituality board debates....and sometimes, not even then.

If you would like to declare all religion as ridiculous, I don't mind having those exchanges with you on the Spirituality board. However, HERE, in the context of the original thread's topic, it is inappropriate.

Back to the point of the thread: religion used in creating legislation allowing for personal discrimination in the healthcare setting.

liberated847 · Dec 13, 2014

Excuse me, but your tone...and, actually, your word use...is rude here. Your frequent use of atheism as a reason to BE rude is tolerable only in the context of the Spirituality board debates....and sometimes, not even then.
If you would like to declare all religion as ridiculous, I don't mind having those exchanges with you on the Spirituality board. However, HERE, in the context of the original thread's topic, it is inappropriate.
Back to the point of the thread: religion used in creating legislation allowing for personal discrimination in the healthcare setting.

My tone? Go on making assumptions.... Never mind

RNsRWe, ASN, RN · Dec 13, 2014

This moved from discussion of a state bill, that it appears that none of us has even read, to a religious debate.
if anyone has actually seen the bill, could they produce a link so we can discuss the actual bill and its ramifications?

Since this thing irritated me so much, I DID go and read exactly the Bill as was being presented, and what was passed by the House just yesterday.

Finely cloaked, finely worded text that appears to "protect" an individual from an obtrusive government's requiring one to "act" on behalf of something that individual believes is contrary to his own religious confines. As I see it, it really allows anyone to refuse to care, treat, or respond to anyone who represents anything they see as contrary. Interesting, I think, that all one has to do to invoke this legislation on his behalf would be to declare his "sincere belief" that acting would go against whatever religious belief he chose to offer. Quoted from the Bill itself:.. whether or not compelled by or central to a system or religious belief". So...even if one's Church is not "compelling" him to refuse care, he's "protected" by this statement that since HE believes it, it's 'good 'nuff'?