Trump's 'religious conscience'

allnurses Guide · Jun 19, 2019

1 hour ago, DancRN said:
Ever hear of freedom of speech? Just because you’re offended doesn’t make you right. And before you play the victim card and say that what I wrote is hate speech, which is not, even then it is considered free speech by the scotus.

My younger sister is a constitutional law attorney and in actuality the free speech clause of Constitution does not guarantee one can speak anything anywhere. It does not protect private e-mails between individuals. It does not protect speech on privately owned property. The owner can limit what types of speech they will allow on their property. There is no protection afforded to a person who berates, insults or harasses another. It does not cover most social media which is why people get fired from their jobs for things they say on social media.

The Free Exercise amendment does not say that religion cant be a part of government - only that government cannot make laws with regard to religion or the free exercise thereof.

For a better understanding of the intent of the Bill of Rights please read the Federalist Papers.

Hppy

NurseBlaq · Jun 19, 2019

How about we just take care of patients who need our help because that's what we signed up for and knew the program when we became nurses? Leave your personal feelings at the door and become a professional. You can pick your bigotry back up on your way out, although that's just trashy behavior.

morte, LPN, LVN · Jun 19, 2019

On 6/17/2019 at 5:23 PM, Lane Therrell FNP, MSN, RN said:
Your question is probably best answered by a Constitutional Law scholar, which I am not. But I think you’re raising an important point that we’d all do well to ponder. The constitutional concept of separation of church and state as I understand it specifies that the US government cannot set up a “national religion” of which all citizens must be a member, nor may it require anyone holding public office to be part of a certain religion. It helps to understand the context for why this was important when the US Constitution was being written: In those days Britain was requiring everyone to be part of the Church of England. Freedom to practice the religion of one’s choosing was a BIG factor leading up to the American Revolution.
And as a side note, it’s important to remember that one of the hallmarks of the British monarchy at that time in history was the idea of the divine right of kings—which meant that the monarch was not subject to earthly authority. In other words, the king was above the law. This was offensive to many, and more than problematic over time, as you can imagine. While it’s an idea that has somewhat faded with time, it was truly fight-worthy in its day, and this is part of why the founders of the US made such an effort to infuse the “In God We Trust” ideal into the new republic… to demonstrate that the new nation would NEVER place its governmental authority in any one individual human being. Our governmental authority comes from the rule of law, and because laws are made by human beings, ultimately we must trust in a higher power when the laws are insufficient.
Understandably, this has become confusing over time because if we have separation of church and state, then why do we have “In God We Trust” on our currency, and say “one nation under God” in our pledge of allegiance, etc, etc, etc. It all goes back to historical context: The US founders were being very wise to set up a nation where the nation's moral compass is guided by something outside and bigger than any one individual human being… The rule of law as opposed to the rule of any one individual (or group of individuals) is extremely important. And we must never forget it.
Incidentally, I think this may be part of the reason why there's so much political hysteria going on right now, because our situation is bumping up against all this and testing it mightily.

"In god we trust" IS NOT original!!!!! put in under Eisenhower, during the cold war. a minister wrote the pledge, and purposefully left it out.

Guest219794 · Jun 19, 2019

8 hours ago, DancRN said:
Ever hear of freedom of speech? Just because you’re offended doesn’t make you right. And before you play the victim card and say that what I wrote is hate speech, which is not, even then it is considered free speech by the scotus.

Oh good. You are back.

So, back to my question. Do you support the right of a nurse to refuse to care for a transgender patient?

And, your confusion about the constitution is impressive.

The right to freedom of speech is not abridged when somebody on an online forum blocks offensive drivel. That right deals with the government which deliberately protects your right to be offensive.

Just like these "conscious rules", which are also completely unneeded, as the right to follow your conscious is already protected by the constitution. From a nurse perspective, that means DON'T TAKE A JOB THAT INVOLVES DOING SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES YOUR CONSCIOUS. Sorry about yelling, but that is so obvious it should not have to be said. The supporters of this rule, are the same crowd that supported that bigot who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple because it violated her consciousness.

Horseshoe, BSN, RN · Jun 19, 2019

On 6/19/2019 at 7:41 AM, hherrn said:
Oh good. You are back.
So, back to my question. Do you support the right of a nurse to refuse to care for a transgender patient?
And, your confusion about the constitution is impressive.
The right to freedom of speech is not abridged when somebody on an online forum blocks offensive drivel. That right deals with the government which deliberately protects your right to be offensive.
Just like these "conscious rules", which are also completely unneeded, as the right to follow your conscious is already protected by the constitution. From a nurse perspective, that means DON'T TAKE A JOB THAT INVOLVES DOING SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES YOUR CONSCIOUS. Sorry about yelling, but that is so obvious it should not have to be said. The supporters of this rule, are the same crowd that supported that bigot who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple because it violated her consciousness.

hherrn, you're killing me. It's CONSCIENCE, not conscious!

But I agree with you completely.

Guest219794 · Jun 19, 2019

9 minutes ago, Horseshoe said:
hherrn, you're killing me. It's CONSCIENCE, not conscious!
But I agree with you completely.

Yup. Saw that, but for some reason could not edit it. But, pretty sure anybody who protests with a sign "G*d made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" won't get the distinction.

It is really bogus argument. Taking a job with certain duties, then objecting to those duties is horsecrap.

Personally, I am morally opposed to breast augmentation. My conscious is really sensitive in that regard. For me to get hired to work in cosmetic surgery, then claim a constitutional right to refuse to do my job is ridiculous, and the supporters of these rules know it.

If you are morally opposed to abortion, that is your right. Don't voluntarily take a job in which providing abortions is your responsibility. Apparently, despite the promiscuity found in nursing homes, those nurses avoid this moral dilemma.

Lane Therrell FNP, MSN, RN, NP · Jun 19, 2019

2 hours ago, morte said:
"in god we trust" IS NOT original!!!!! put in under Eisenhower, during the cold war. a minister wrote the pledge, and purposefully left it out.

Thanks for the clarification, and there's another post in this thread that has some great insight about the legal/statutory aspects of "In God We Trust," too.

The point I was making (albeit anachronistically) is that the sentiment of granting authority for governance to a higher power rather than to an individual human being has been there from the beginning... (and you are correct, "inalienable rights," "endowed by our Creator," etc. would be more accurate founder-era language). It's fascinating to me that throughout US history, we've been testing and questioning this idea, and feeling a need to continually reinforce it (or not, as the case might be). Was it Ben Franklin who said, after the Constitutional Convention, "You have a republic-- if you can keep it?" Why is keeping it so difficult?

Tyranny is a terrible thing. And I believe a Constitutional Republic is the most effective antidote humans have ever invented to prevent tyranny and preserve individual liberty. As imperfect as it is, it's the best we've got.

BrentRN, PhD · Jun 19, 2019

6 minutes ago, Lane Therrell FNP, MSN, RN said:
(and you are correct, "inalienable rights," "endowed by our Creator," etc. would be more accurate founder-era language).

Some points of clarification: References to a god or higher power are only found in the Declaration of Independence but there are none in the US Constitution. The Declaration has no legal bearing.

In God We Trust started appearing during the Civil War. It officially became the US motto in 1956.

BrentRN, PhD · Jun 19, 2019

20 minutes ago, hherrn said:
My conscious is really sensitive in that regard.

Use Pinocchio to help you:

Conscience = Jiminy Cricket

Conscious = Pinocchio after he became animate

Lane Therrell FNP, MSN, RN, NP · Jun 19, 2019

1 minute ago, BrentRN said:
Some points of clarification: References to a god or higher power are only found in the Declaration of Independence but there are none in the US Constitution. The Declaration has no legal bearing.
In God We Trust started appearing during the Civil War. It officially became the US motto in 1956.

YES. Absolutely. Thank you. I'm referring to the sentiment in the founding era.

As a society, we seem to be constantly pushing the boundaries of the big idea of power not residing with individuals. And why is that? It seems prudent to me to hedge against tyranny, no matter what words you use to refer to a higher power.

Asystole RN · Jun 19, 2019

11 hours ago, NurseBlaq said:
How about we just take care of patients who need our help because that's what we signed up for and knew the program when we became nurses? Leave your personal feelings at the door and become a professional. You can pick your bigotry back up on your way out, although that's just trashy behavior.

I understand the sentiment but to be honest that is a very narrow and bigoted viewpoint yourself.

People have different cultures and religions. The problem is that there is no universal definition of "care" or "right." Most people want to do what is right and not cause harm but not everyone agrees what is right and what is harm.

Abortion and euthanasia, although rare, are the clearest examples. Some would see assisting an abortion or euthanasia to be assisting in harming patients, including the fetus.

In some cultures ritualistic scaring is considered the social norm and baseline. As a very outside and exaggerated example, what if your employer wanted you to take a ritual semi-dull, non-sterile knife to a 6 month old's face and make several cuts? Would you feel comfortable doing that?

Some of these items discussed make others just as uncomfortable.

Asystole RN · Jun 19, 2019

4 hours ago, hherrn said:
Yup. Saw that, but for some reason could not edit it. But, pretty sure anybody who protests with a sign "G*d made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" won't get the distinction.
It is really bogus argument. Taking a job with certain duties, then objecting to those duties is horsecrap.
Personally, I am morally opposed to breast augmentation. My conscious is really sensitive in that regard. For me to get hired to work in cosmetic surgery, then claim a constitutional right to refuse to do my job is ridiculous, and the supporters of these rules know it.
If you are morally opposed to abortion, that is your right. Don't voluntarily take a job in which providing abortions is your responsibility. Apparently, despite the promiscuity found in nursing homes, those nurses avoid this moral dilemma.

The problem with your line of argument is that it is also used to discriminate against protected classes. "Don't like being sexually harassed? Don't work in a male predominant place of employment."

There must be a balance to protecting individuals and protecting organizations.

I do not think these kind of laws are aimed at someone who is opposed to abortion seeking a job at Planned Parenthood. These kind of laws are aimed at the OR nurse who is forced to participate in an abortion the 1 time in the last 10 years one was done at whatever hospital. Stuff like that.

Sometimes people work at a single hospital for years and sometimes they are transferred or floated to other units. Maybe someone does not believe in breast augmentation so instead works in GI but on some random day the hospital wanted to float her to plastics to help with breast augmentation. These laws are there to protect those nurses.