US: Manhattan Declaration

I hope this stays in News and doesn't spiral down into Pettifog...
A group of prominent conservative Christian leaders signed a declaration implying civil disobedience if the government disagrees and 'forces' their institutions to accept gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

Well, I feel that while nobody should be forced to carry out a procedure or provide a service which is against their conscientiously held beliefs, equally nobody should be permitted to prevent or obstruct a person from exercising their legal rights.

In Britain, the Abortion Act 1967 carries a conscientious objection clause, allowing doctors to refuse to participate in terminations but obliging them to provide emergency treatment when a woman's life may be jeopardised. The BMA (British Medical Association, the professional body for doctors) advises that doctors who feel unable to participate in abortions still have an ethical duty to refer patients to another colleague and that preliminary procedures such as clerking in the patient and typing referral letters (as in a test case) are 'incidental to the termination' and are to be considered outside the scope of the clause.

There have been cases of NHS interview panels asking candidates whether their beliefs would prevent them from carrying out incidental and non-incidental procedures to do with elective terminations, and of refusing to appoint based solely on answers given to such questions. This is deemed "inappropriate" and in 1994 the NHS Executive issued guidance to all English and Welsh hospital trusts, instructing them not to question candidates about their personal views on abortion.

However, although health is a devolved matter in Scotland, abortion is reserved to Westminster, and the NHS guidance has never been issued in Scotland. Scottish trusts have stated that they feel it is "reasonable" to ask such questions.

As for gay marriages, I guess I feel that there would probably need to be opt-out clauses for priests who felt unable to perform a ceremony. In the Uk, only men and women can be married, so the question does not arise.

Many doctors have known since time immemorial that the Hippocratic Oath carries a hidden subclause "... thou shalt not strive officiously to keep alive", and while I am not saying there are dozens of Shipmans practising, there have been some odd cases, notably the Eastbourne one in the 1950s, involving Dr John Bodkin Adams. (Look it up in Wikipedia).

This really isn't about people being forced to sacrifice their personal beliefs for their jobs.  It's a ploy in the so called "cultural wars" and an attempt to strike a blow against health care reform.

A priest isn't going to be forced to perform same sex marriages by the government.  If they are forced to do so, it would be by their church establishment.  In that case, I would think that they probably are minstering in the wrong church.  JOP may eventually be forced to perform same sex unions.  A couple of months ago, a JOP got in trouble for not performing an interracial marriage.  That person was objecting on the basis of their beliefs.  Just where do we draw the line?  If a JOP can refuse gay couples, why not the interacial ones?  What about if they refuse to marry interfaith couples?  People who haven't joined a church?  An old man and a young woman?  Someone who has been divorced?  Or countless other things that might be against someone's conscience but ultimately none of their business?

As for the abortion bit, I highly doubt anyone is going to force a doctor to perform elective abortions.  This is stuff like forcing pharmacists to dispense BC pills, which has been the subject of much hubabaloo in recent years.  When a store like Walmart is the only place for miles dispensing drugs (because they've crushed the competition), it should be required that they have someone there who would be willing to dispense not only BC pills, but things like the morning after pill.  Sure hire the Evangelical or Catholic who will object to dispensing BC pills, but make sure that their choice doesn't become the choice of every woman for a 40 mile radius.

But as I said, this is not really about doctors being forced to pull the plug on grandma, but a ploy.  I am signed up for a lot of conservative websites/mailing lists, and this has been in the works for a while, and the motivation is exactly what I said.

What exactly is the govt trying to make them do? Force them to marry persons not associated with their church?

Not sure where abortion fits in as it is doctors, not priests, that perform operations. Or are there church run hospitals? Just asking as I don't know.

I don't think the govt should be allowed to tell them how to run their business. If they are not obstructing others personal freedoms, they should be allowed to do their thing. If the church doesn't want to marry gays or interracial couples, then that is their prerogative. But why would anyone want to marry in an institution that does not recognise them?

Non religious marriages, ie at a JOP, should not be in the same category as churches as these are state funded institutions.

I don't think the govt should be allowed to tell them how to run their business. If they are not obstructing others personal freedoms, they should be allowed to do their thing

If you're referring to Walmart here, I'd agree with you for most things.  The government shouldn't tell Walmart what they can and can't sell with certain exceptions.  However, when Walmart takes on the responsibility of providing part of people's health care, especially when their business practices lead to the closure of all competitors in some markets, then they open themselves up to some sort of regulation.  It is not enough to refer someone to another pharmacy if that pharmacy is miles away.  Individual pharmacists should be able to object, but people should be able to pick up their BC pills, condoms, and yes, even morning after pills without undue delay or long travel.  If not, we are allowing Walmart employees not only to be imposing their values upon us, but making de facto decisions that should be between a person and their health care provider.

If Walmart doesn't want the government in their business, they should stick to selling cheap crap that breaks so you really save nothing really affordable items that don't include prescriptions, and allow the pharmacies to stay in business.

I shouldn't single out Walmart. If a mom and pop pharmacy are the only place dispensing medications in an area, they should be subject to the same requirements.  It's really not that hard to find pharmacists that have no problem dispensing BC pills or morning after pills.  If it's a legal prescription (or in the case of condoms OTC item), there shouldn't be a long, difficult, expensive, or embarrassing process to get them.

I do believe the scope of this declaration isn't just for ministers. I know of a few lay folk who have signed the document as well. In fact, one of its authors is not a minister but a professor at Princeton who agrees with the basic idea of Natural Law behind this document.
As someone who is a theologian, I think this declaration is, as Legs said, a ploy. There are no bills of substance that I have seen which require anybody to do any of these things. In fact, the only legislation regarding marriage that is getting publicity is the one to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. I think with the recent activity in the UK (where a heterosexual couple is fighting for civil unions to include heterosexual couples) and Sweden (where the Church of Sweden just voted to recognise gay marriages as marriage), this declaration is a step backwards. I think it's perfectly fine for someone or an organisation to not approve of abortion or gay marriage, but the response there should be simple: don't do it! It shouldn't be an attempt to legislate that belief and require everyone else to practise it as well. In fact, that should be the normal response: don't do what you don't want to if it doesn't harm anyone else.

If you're referring to Walmart here, I'd agree with you for most things.  The government shouldn't tell Walmart what they can and can't sell with certain exceptions.  However, when Walmart takes on the responsibility of providing part of people's health care, especially when their business practices lead to the closure of all competitors in some markets, then they open themselves up to some sort of regulation.  It is not enough to refer someone to another pharmacy if that pharmacy is miles away.  Individual pharmacists should be able to object, but people should be able to pick up their BC pills, condoms, and yes, even morning after pills without undue delay or long travel.  If not, we are allowing Walmart employees not only to be imposing their values upon us, but making de facto decisions that should be between a person and their health care provider.

If Walmart doesn't want the government in their business, they should stick to selling cheap crap that breaks so you really save nothing really affordable items that don't include prescriptions, and allow the pharmacies to stay in business.

I shouldn't single out Walmart. If a mom and pop pharmacy are the only place dispensing medications in an area, they should be subject to the same requirements.  It's really not that hard to find pharmacists that have no problem dispensing BC pills or morning after pills.  If it's a legal prescription (or in the case of condoms OTC item), there shouldn't be a long, difficult, expensive, or embarrassing process to get them.

Sorry LK, I may have missed the gist of things. I was only referring to churches as businesses since they are money making machines.

I wasn't including normal businesses like Walmart. I was really looking at the marriage aspect of things. But I agree with your views regarding the pharmacies and the like. Specially ones that have a monopoly in their area.

For a country that, in theory, has a separation of church and state, I feel like all of this is being made out to be more difficult than it really should be.  The government should allow same-sex couples the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple and leave it at that, and all of the religious organizations can decide whether or not to perform ceremonies and recognize these marriages. 

It's not like a requirement of marriage is to have a religious ceremony, therefore no one would be forced to do anything they don't agree with.  Plenty of non-religious people get married by judges or other officiants and go on their merry way without going near a church, synagogue, are what-have-you.  It's so frustrating, because there really shouldn't be a problem here.

For a country that, in theory, has a separation of church and state, I feel like all of this is being made out to be more difficult than it really should be.  The government should allow same-sex couples the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple and leave it at that, and all of the religious organizations can decide whether or not to perform ceremonies and recognize these marriages. 

It's not like a requirement of marriage is to have a religious ceremony, therefore no one would be forced to do anything they don't agree with.  Plenty of non-religious people get married by judges or other officiants and go on their merry way without going near a church, synagogue, are what-have-you.  It's so frustrating, because there really shouldn't be a problem here.

Well put. That is what I was trying to say.

The government should allow same-sex couples the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple and leave it at that, and all of the religious organizations can decide whether or not to perform ceremonies and recognize these marriages.

I absolutely agree with this. However, the issue is that many of the people who signed that declaration don't agree that there is a separation of church and state and that the US is a 'Christian' nation, founded by good, Evangelical Christians, etc. I can see them saying something against abortion as there can be an argument that one is a human early on in the pregnancy, but the strategy there should be to define when life begins (as once that happens, the 'abortion is murder' argument is straightforward). I think I need to write a good, mass-market book on theology and politics arguing why this kind of 'separation of church and state' is a good thing.