Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Hi Kathy

My oh my, how I love being the instigator. The trouble is, Kathy’s response to my post is one of emotion, not reasoned thought. While this is typical for a liberal, I always hope for more.

I’m going to respond to Kathy’s “Suppositions”, but I have to tread lightly so as ot to fall into the black hole of her logic.

Supposition 1: I would feel bad if a pharmacist denied be his/her services on moral grounds.

Response 1: My argument is based on religious beliefs which, by nature, are much less transient than one’s morals and are actually cited in the constitution. Kathy is attempting to change the premise and, therefore, the playing field by creating an equivalency between morals and religious belief.

Response 1A: I would not be happy if denied service, but I would “feel” no differently about my position.

Conclusion: Kathy’s attempt to blur the issue by introducing morals as equivalent to religious beliefs falls flat. As does her assumption that I would abandon my argument to serve selfish purposes. The fatal flaw in her argument is her belief that I am like her. That I will put my selfish wants above the rights of others.

Supposition 2: I would feel differently if a pharmacist was holding my prescription hostage and forcing their morals down my throat.

Response 2: Again with the feelings and morals? Can we not stick to the original premise of refusing service on the religious grounds? And pack up your feeling in your old kit bag. Feelings have no place or meaning in a debate.

Response 2A: I never have and never will approve of holding one’s prescription hostage. Nor would I stand for someone cramming their moral or religious beliefs down my throat. Nor would I run to the Nanny State if a pharmacist, or any other professional, was doing one, the other or both. There’s a simple solution Kathy: Raise hell, walk away, protest the store, spread the word, go to management, etc., etc., etc.

Supposition 3: The establishment clause isn’t going to shield a pharmacist from a lawsuit when someone dies because of their refusal to dish out drugs they might have problems with.

Response 3: I don’t know how a court would rule in this case, but I do know that no rights are absolute. After all, shouting “fire” in a theater is not protected speech nor is smoking peyote a protected religious exercise. But neither of these exceptions to the first amendment negate the first amendment.

Bottom line: Kathy does not have a leg to stand on. I cite the Constitution, she responds with the most extreme example – death – to argue against it. I talk about the free exercise of religion, she responds with talk of morals and feelings. I say let the market work, she prefers the Nanny State.

She is Left...I am Right.

No comments: