So Richard Reinsch has a good article on the limits of James Madison’s religious thought–as expressed in the overrated MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE. There the duty each of us has to our Creator is private or merely “conscientious.” It’s a limit to government, to be sure. But it’s a personal–or not social–limit. It’s far from clear that Madison is saying that government is limited by the freedom the church as an organized body of thought and action. . . [Read more]
Protect rights for health workers
Rebecca Mastee
A recent viewpoint column regarding Michigan Senate Bill 136, the Religious Liberty and Conscience Protection Act, proved a disservice to the LSJ and its readers. The column was factually inaccurate and relied on scare tactics by highlighting a case in Ireland which, of course, has different laws than the United States. Let’s set the record straight about SB 136.
The purpose of the bill is to maintain civil liberties and conscience rights that our nation has cherished for over 200 years. Unfortunately, these constitutional rights are slowly eroding as government mandates are forcing individuals and institutions to act contrary to their religious teachings. . . . [Read more]
Religion: A Public or a Private Right?
Originally appeared in Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good
Online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, NJ
Twentieth-century religious liberty jurisprudence developed on the far side of a great historic chasm that separates us from the traditional definition of religion. Between Americans in 2012 and the American founders in 1776 stand William James and the beginnings of the “science of comparative religions.” If we are to grasp the founders’ idea of a natural right to religious liberty, we must perform a labor of historical imagination and recover the longstanding definition of religion that has been lost to us.
The classic book that launched the social scientific approach to the study of religion was James’s The Varieties of Religious Experience (1903). The book was initially his series of lectures at the University of Edinburgh—the prestigious Gifford Lectures. James deliberately refused to accept the usual title “Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology” for his series of talks and chose instead to call them lectures in “Natural Religion.” He assumed that religion was not, as the word “theology” implied, subject to any rational justification. Rather, he saw religion as essentially experiential and the study of religion as essentially empirical—the collection of a variety of accounts of wildly divergent spiritual experiences. . . [Read more]
Christian Medical Professionals support Alberta bill
News Release
The Calgary and Edmonton Chapters of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada are in support of Bill 212, The Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, which would protect healthcare workers’ conscience rights.
Increasingly, we hear of institutions and organizations placing pressure on healthcare workers to act contrary to their convictions, especially as technological advances challenge traditional ethical boundaries. Canada has a long history of recognizing the rights of freedom of conscience; however, healthcare workers are feeling increasingly vulnerable. Many are calling for explicit legislation to protect them from being required to refer for or participate directly or indirectly in medical procedures or treatments that violate their convictions without fear of discrimination, dismissal, or harassment.
Certainly, physicians and other healthcare workers must provide care in life-threatening emergencies to all people regardless of ethnic origin, creed, etc.: this is consistent with the Hippocratic tradition. Also in keeping with the Hippocratic tradition is the inviolable tenet that human life is sacred, regardless of stage. Consequently, those who solemnly hold these principles must not be pressured to act contrary to them as they are foundational to the integrity of the profession and the trust of the public. In matters of choice, healthcare workers are positioned to fully inform patients of all their legal options, but they must not be obligated to participate in a patient’s choice of treatment.
CMDS desires an open discussion of the issue of conscience-protection legislation and, to this end, invites healthcare workers to bring their concerns to the attention of their professional organizations, politicians, and members of the public.
For further information: In Calgary, contact Dr. W. Joseph Askin at 236-1500 In Edmonton, contact Dr. Gunnar Myrholm at 465-0951
Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS) #26, 7740 18 St. S.E. Calgary, AB T2C 2N5 Tel: (403) 236-1500 Fax (403) 236-2839
Developments in Ireland
The Irish government has promised to introduce legislation and regulations concerning abortion in July. [Irish Independent] Meanwhile, the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) has rejected motions seeking the group’s approval of regulations for circumstances in which there is a “real and substantial risk to the mother,” abortion in the case of rape or incest, and abortion when a foetus is diagnosed to have a fatal abnormality. The vote at the IMO annual conference reflects sharply different views from the results of some Irish public opinion polls, and contrasts with a 2011 poll that found 75% of 300 Irish general practitioners surveyed supported some form of legalization of abortion.[Irish Independent]
Related:
- Ireland announces abortion law reforms, leaving no one satisfied
- Abortion controversy in Ireland
- Irish panel of appointees recommends compulsory referral for abortion
- Message to Irish lawmakers: “Exceptions don’t work”
- Controversy in Ireland over death of woman after abortion refused
- Submission to the All-Party Oireachtais Committee on the Constitution
- Conscientious Objection in Ireland