Oh, mind you, I would generally agree that an individual business owner has a right to hire or fire whoever they want. That’s their right. Just as it’s my right to say “lousy excuse for a Christian, shameful despicable act, embarrassment to the faith” when I see such inexcusably attrocious behavior.
The business owner’s rights aren’t in question. His despicable behavior is. I would hope any decent person knowing this story would refuse to do business with him.
Assuming it’s true.
(Thanks Nick.)
{ 1 trackback }
{ 40 comments }
Awfully charitable of ya to throw him that bone there after the tirade preceding it.
The story is in the ‘he said, she said’ phase but it’s powerfully clear whose side you’ve chosen.
The phrase, “With friends like you…” comes to mind.
Do you have an equally powerful rebuke prepared for the woman should it come out the doctor did nothing wrong? Care to publish that one on the front page right away, you know, in the name of balance?
Because, as you so graciously put it, “Assuming it’s true.”
from eth article, they asked teh doctor in question for his side of teh story. his own words are pretty damaging:
Aziz,
I read that bit too. And if you want to read it that way you can.
You can also read, for example, in paragraph one that “Amanda” was once a believer and it’s the Doctor’s opinion her husband changed that.
I find nothing wrong with paragraph two. If I’m running a business, and part of the attraction of my business is that I’m a known Christian business, then it’s in my best interest, and the interest of my employees, that I protect that. You gonna fault, for examples, kosher delis for not serving pork as bigoted? (Yes, I know you don’t eat pork, but the point remains).
Paragraphs three simply reiterates paragraph two. He’s running a Christian business and doesn’t want to hire non-Christians.
So, with just this I think the following argument can be made:
The good Doctor is running a Christian medical practice and hired Amanda because she could do the job and was also a Christian. Later, due to the influence of her husband, Amanda left the faith. The Doctor, knowing his business is known as a Christian-centered establishment, has a problem that could well cost him money so he decides to let the once-Christian employee go.
Now he’s on the defensive because he’s getting bombarded with accusations of bigotry and whatever else – from both atheists and his so-called brothers in Christ.
Am I right? I don’t know. But I’m going to give a brother in Christ the benefit of the doubt until all facts can be discerned.
But neither will I condemn the woman because, the story is “he said, she said.”
Wisdom bids me to wait and see. So I will.
if that was teh scenario, then hes essentially punished her for apostasy. it may be his right, but its nothing to defend him over. the best scenario for him is that she was in fact totally incompetent, he fired her, and she made the whole thing up.
And if he hired her because she was a Christian? She then got the job because of her beliefs. Why shouldn’t she lose it if she loses her beliefs?
She, and you, can’t have it both ways.
If an employer hired me because of trait X, then I stopped exibiting trait X, why shouldn’t I be fired?
The Doctor has made it clear that the religious beliefs of his employees is central to the successful conduct of his business. If he hires someone because they fit that criteria, and they later change their minds, then that directly influences his business.
Also, it should bear mentioning, Amanda never once says that the Doctor is lying when he claims to run his business like this. But then she professes she was never a Christian. This begs the question:
If the Doctor only hires Christians, how did an athiest get a job there?
1. Amanda lied during the interview.
2. Amanda was a Christian when she was hired and changed her views later.
If the latter is true, why doesn’t she just say so? Maybe because it would strengthen the Doctor’s case?
This thing stinks if you look at it objectively. Especally the way Mr. Cline is covering the story. Did you know she had cancer? Yeah, she did. Now she doesn’t have insurance because the mean doctor fired her. And how will she ever get a job with the terrible economy! Just look at the mean Christian hurt this cancer-ridden atheist. Boo! Hiss!
Give me a break.
Did you know, according to Mr. Cline, that this, “is ultimately also a case of trying to hasten a person’s death simply because they don’t share your religion. ”
Not only did the doctor deprive Amanda of health insurance, something she’s never going to get ever again, he secretly wants her to die because she doesn’t share his religion.
And you’re taking this asshat at his word? Really? Are you insane?
I don’t have a problem with this. Christianity based chiropractors are very common around here. My wife went to one for a few years. It was called “Helping Hands” or something biblical sounding. They played Christian themed music, had pictures of Jesus about, etc. And they always offered my wife “service with prayer, or without”. My wife usually chose “without”, and she enjoyed it.
Now I have no idea what the religious significance of this stuff is, but it is apparently important to some folks. I didn’t spend too much time googling, but I did find this:
http://www.christianchiropractors.org/state.htm
So if this guy was running such an operation, and he suddenly found out that an employee was blogging about atheism, well, I can see issues with that. That could be very bad for business.
Kevin: I thought my very first line was, “Appalling if true.” No?
I won’t presume to tell you which side you’ve thrown in without you saying so, but I will simply ask you to answer a question: if the story is true as written, do you agree that it’s inexcusable? Yes or no will do. It’s a statement of principle, so that should be easy to make.
Oh, and Kevin? The “asshat” Cline is quite correct. No one with a pre-existing terminal condition can get medical insurance. Except, possibly if they’re lucky, what’s offered by the state, or if they get incredibly lucky and they have a spouse or something that gets into one of the very rare jobs where you’re automatically covered no matter what.
As a rule, private insurers DO NOT take on people with terminal conditions. If she recovers or goes into remission, she may have a chance of getting insured, although there are still considerable odds stacked against her.
Otherwise he’s got it exactly right: if this so-called Christian fired her simply for being an atheist, he is hastening her death and imposing an incredible hardship in an incredibly unChristian way upon her. I don’t give a good God damn what it does to his business–he should absolutely be ASHAMED to call himself a Christian to do something like that to one of his employees.
If it’s not true, then maybe he should say “it isn’t true.” He hasn’t. He’s evaded the question, and had folks trying to defend it as a “business decision.” Since when did Jesus say “do unto others as you would have them do unto you–unless it affects your bottom line?”
“he is hastening her death…”
You’ve gotta be kidding ?
A. And she’s probably covered under her husbands health insurance.
B. These bone cracking chiros will just twist you all up in knots, until you scream, then throw you out the door.
C. Remember, Jesus only hired joos when he started his corporation and didn’t offer any health insurance plans.
Yeah, those dirty atheists they just lie, so no reason to just say something simple like “if what she says is true then it’s shameful behavior.”
Better to attack her than make a principled statement I guess.
Dean,
There are no hard facts whatsoever. The entire bizarro story is based on hearsay, innuendo, victimhood, and rumors of a husband of an employee blasting her employer on the internet. Meanwhile the cretin, Dr. Chiropat is obviously one of the worst slime in any health profession.
Its all generalizations from which you have conjured up a what if scenario and blasto— unchristian, despicable etc … ensue.
Meanwhile, nevermind.
20/20 vision is always accurate, even if invented.
By the way, Jaymaster: I would expect a non-christian to have your response. “Hey, not my religion, not my business.”
But a Christian needs to be holding fellow Christians to higher standards than this. Indeed, I’m rather surprised at Kevin as he’s usually one of the first to say that: you hold your fellow Christians to HIGHER standards than those outside the faith, because if they claim to be part of the faith they have an OBLIGATION to represent its values.
What this chiropracter, if the story is to be believed (and his denials really are not as weak and mealy-mouthed as they come across as quoted) then he most is definitely NOT acting with Christian values. In fact, he’s violating them on several levels at once. If so that’s shameful, and if he’s being misquoted he should be saying “I agree that would be shameful, but that’s not what I did.”
I should have said “If my theoretical scenario is true, then I have no problem with it”, or some such.
And Dean,
IMO, it goes beyond Christianity, at least from a legal perspective.
What if an owner of a halal or kosher (or even vegan) restaurant suddenly finds out their cook is chopping up bacon in the kitchen or slipping lard into the pastries, and even blogging about it? I wouldn’t have a problem at all with firing the cook on the spot.
Or is your point that a Christian is expected to be above such actions because of compassion related to her health issues? Or because a Christian should be more open minded? Or???? Honestly, I ‘m not getting the outrage here (again, assuming my theoretical scenario is true, which I admit, we just don’t know at this point)
jaymaster,
apples to oranges – in the halal/kosher/vegan scenario the cook is failing at the job asked of them – irrespective of their religious beliefs. has the same charge been levied against the employee in question?
zach,
IMO, we don’t know enough yet to make a good decision whether it’s apples/apples or apples/oranges.
But I think the apples/apples scenario I spelled out it very plausible, so I ‘m not outraged yet.
fair enough.
I get the point on chopping bacon, but I find the comparison not quite right; by chopping bacon in the kosher restaurant, you’re actively violating the well-known religious precepts of your customers’ religion.
There IS no Christian precept that “we don’t do business with non-Christians.” There IS no Christian precept that “medical care shall not be at the hands of unbelievers.”
This, on the other hand, IS a Christian precept:
“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’”
That’s from Matthew. Similar examples abound. The chiropracter is openly in violation of Christian precepts. He’s the one chopping bacon in the kosher restaurant, not the woman he so cruelly dismissed in her hour of greatest need.
Changing the subject to his “rights” as an employer isn’t helpful. Of course he has a right to do this, just as he has the right to eat a sumptuous meal in the middle of a crowd of starving people. We just have a right to call it out for what it is: shameful, unChristian behavior.
Dean,
It’s obviously not an exact parallel (depending greatly on how significant the “christian chiropractor” thing is), but what would you think about a church which fired its pastor because he was an atheist?
If this chiropractor blended spirituality into his practice, an atheist would obviously be unable to continue to do his job honestly. Would you suggest that the chiropractor should continue to employ the person and just say that she shouldn’t bother showing up for work? Or give her janatorial duties so she doesn’t come into contact with customers any more?
Anyhow, I think that C.S. Lewis made an excellent argument that it’s a bad idea to use the word “christian” as a synonym for the word “good” (and hence “unchristian” for “bad”); we already have the word “good”. Besides which, there’s a good chance that you’re projecting. The variety of Christianity which you’re in holds that mercy and forgiveness trump all (with caveats), but many types of christianity which at this point are at least as much cultural as they are religious, don’t. There are plenty of forms where punishment for leaving the group is far more important than mercy, forgiveness, or charity.
This is a bit like honor killings; social order is held as paramount. Social disintegration is akin to an ungoing murder, and in all but the most gentle forms of christianity, you only forgive a murderer after you stop him from murdering.
I’m not saying I approve, mind you, but I think it likely that you’re not using the word “Christian” to mean the same thing that this chiropractor is.
From the source article:
…When AtheosToday contacted Dr. Scott Dawson who owns ‘El Dorado Chiropractic’, he did not feel that an interview would be appropriate since he has been threatened with legal action, but he did go on to state in his reply email to AtheosToday that “…I can tell you that I did not fire Amanda. She walked out after we had a disagreement, which involved communication and work attitude. It had nothing to do with cancer or religious beliefs.”
The jury is still out period about whether this was inappropriate, illegal, or even action (re job termination) on the part of the Chiro-guy; OTOH, if this is the WORST case you can find for “religous persecution” by Christians, there is a loooong way to go before the scales balance.
Perhaps the disconnect is that you think that the Dr. is running a Medical Service with a little Christianity sprinkled in here and there and Kevin thinks he is running a Missionary Service with a little Chiropracty spinkled in here and there.
If the former, then firing someone for their religion is awful. If the latter, well, if the entire point is to evangelize then having someone on your team running around saying “I don’t believe in all this God stuff” is a pretty big problem.
Dean,
I find questioners that only want a yes or no answer typically deceitful. Even if the answer to the question gives the yes or no answer desired it’s the context the questioner doesn’t want known. A context they’re aware of but don’t with others to share in. I’m not saying you’re like this but I just want you to know how much I dislike such requests. They’re typically used to create false context in the minds of listeners.
But, to answer anyway, if the story is accurate as presented, then what the doctor did is wrong – I will reserve the strong terms you use for use by those he’s spiritually accountable to. I don’t know the man and have no right to condemn him so.
However, speaking of context, the “Christian precept” you quote above is taken out of context. It’s a passage on charity and charity alone, not a message on how to conduct one’s private business. It’s not a call to keep the sick on staff even if they’re a threat to your livelihood.
And that is something I think you’ve callously chosen to ignore. You’ve chosen to accuse this doctor of disregarding Biblical principles to “protect his bottom line.”
This woman wasn’t just a threat to whatever you think the doctor’s bottom line is: She was a threat to his family and the lives and families of his other employees.
What about them? Doesn’t he has an obligation to them as well? If Amanda was a threat to the income that the doctor’s business would bring in, then she was a threat to the bread the doctor put on his own table and the tables of Amanda’s former co-workers.
It’s a shame what happened to Amanda. But, a greater shame may have been averted by her firing.
Here’s a yes or no question for you Dean: Yes or no – Does the doctor have an obligation to protect the income and livelihood of as many of his employees as he can? And, as a followup: Is it not a Christian precept to make sure those that work for him work in an environment where they don’t have to fear a shortage of income that would adversely effect their own families?
You’re correct, I do hold Christians to a higher standard. And while you may believe the story as presented, I don’t. I question the motives of the reporters. Especially one that claims the doctor secretly wishes Amanda would die because she isn’t a believer.
Why do you believe the story so quickly? Why do you not extend a brother in the faith the benefit of the doubt? How is he not deserving of your empathy as much as Amanda is? Why are you so quick to judge? Is that a reflection of your Messiah? Or did Yeshua extend mercy first, only reserving judgment for those that did not seek forgiveness?
You are quick to judge, Dean. And you are particularly quick to judge your brothers and sisters in the faith while bending over backwards to defend non-believers. Again, why are non-believers more deserving of your empathy then believers?
Yu-Ain,
Amanda admitted that the doctor and staff laid on hands and prayed over her and her cancer, if memory serves, more than once.
So, I think it’s not unreasonable that, at the very least, the missionary service was practiced with the same intensity as the chiropractic medicine.
I’m not saying you’re disagreeing with me but I’m just pointing out the “laying on hands with prayer” bit in case you weren’t aware of it.
Yu ain,
While you mentioned Kevin, you actually did a better of summarizing my point of view than I myself did.
Also, another point. I Am Not A Laywer, laws vary from state to state, etc., but I am a manager who makes hire/fire decisions. Firing someone because of a health related issue can be a major no-no.
So if she is truly considering legal action, I think there is a much better chance of success on that angle. But of course, that won’t generate the same level of internet buzz…
Kevin, since I can’t see the source article, I’m not agreeing nor disagreeing with anybody at this time.
I’m just trying to see if I can help clarify what the positions appear to be because it seems as if everyone is talking past everyone else.
If it’s accurate and helps, great. If it doesn’t, well, you get what you pay for. :-)
Yu-Ain:
You can find it here: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8948-Dallas-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m5d17-Religion-in-the-workplace-the-Christians-side-of-the-discrimination-story
Well, he’s probably not an atheist, but I really like how our government leadership (cf: Obama) re-assign loyal military personnel to retirement because they don’t have the right “thinking”.
McKiernan ‘embarrassed’ by removal from top post in Afghanistan:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/15/mckiernan-embarrased-by-removal-from-top-post-in-afghanistan/
Apparently, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates praised the gentleman for 37 years of loyal service by telling him,
“you’re fired.”
I’m praying the new guy — Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal knows how to think right —or he’s headed for an early retirement as well.
Doesn’t it just irritate the heck out of you when your Generals are just not coming with those new winning ideas ?
I’m getting all so choked up knowing that newly minted Senator Al Franken is now on the Judiciary Committee — and will be voting on Obama’s choice for SCOTUS.
America is safe, once, again.
I wonder if Senator Al is an atheist ?
McK,
I think Senator Al is a Frankenstinian.
And I always thought he was even less amusing than I am. And I’m about amusing as a skin wart.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
CTL: To me the difference between employing someone in ministry and employing someone in general is so obvious it does not need explaining. The doctor is not running a ministry, so your question does not apply.
Kevin: I get it. I’m being “deceitful” if I ask you to take a princpled stand. I am being “deceitful” if I ask you to agree that it’s wrong to fire someone for being an atheist.
Got it.
I’m ashamed for you. Here is your opportunity to demonstrate what Christian values are really all about, and you make excuse after excuse after excuse while being unwilling to simply say “you’re right, if the chiropracter did what he’s accused of doing, he made a sinful act.”
Indeed, you constantly dance around the question rather than just acknowledging sinful behavior for what it is.
I reluctantly conclude from this that you will excuse any action by a fellow Christian, and that you have no other principles than “thou shalt not criticize a fellow Christian.”
The very fact that you keep bringing up his bottom line, and you keep bringing up how bad it is that I should judge him even though I’ve said at least a dozen times that he may not be guilty, tells me that you can’t just deal with the question straight on, and makes me suspect that you think atheists actually deserve to be fired just for being atheists.
Dean,
So, this guy’s claims that he’s running what amounts to a dual ministry/chiropracty are what? Inadmissible? Impossible? Just irrelevant to you, since what you want is moral outrage and any consideration of the situation in question that gets in the way of that is bad?
Yes, firing someone for being an atheist when being an atheist has nothing to do with their job is bad. In general, firing someone for anything that has nothing to do with their job performance is bad.
So, why are you so studiously ignoring the question of whether theism had anything to do with the job of the person in question?
Also, why are you in such a rush to conditionally condemn this guy in particular? Why do you have such an emotional need to have people pass judgement on this guy, even if you also want them to footnote that with a caveat? If you want a hypothetical, why not just give a hypothetical? Why pick on this poor bastard before the facts are in?
It doesn’t seem so appalling to me, though legally speaking it’s not a world you want to see your client inhabiting, that’s for sure.
CTL: First off, let me refute Kevin’s claim. The Biblical verse I cited was not about charity alone. It’s much broader than that, and is clearly an obligation we all have at all times to help people whenever we can.
As for the notion that this guy is running a dual ministry/chiropracty: I consider it baloney on its face. In fact, I’d say that if he’s trying to claim that, then he’s sinning just by doing so, and would probably be deserving of even MORE condemnation than he’s already getting. Because unless he runs his “dual ministry/chiropracty” by treating everyone who walks in regardless of their ability to pay, and only asks them to pay whatever they can afford, then he is NOT running a ministry, period. He’s running an ersatz ministry in an outrageously sinful manner. You do not charge people to minister to them.
I am not ignoring any questions about the doctor and the threat to his bottom line. I’ve set them aside and asked for simple acknowledgment that firing someone from a business just because of their faith would be a sinful act. Because it would be. Changing the subject to things like whether he’s actually guilty or not and what his “rights” are in this circumstance are pretty clearly a way to evade the question. It’s already acknowledged that the story might not be true or fair–despite Kevin’s false claims to the contrary, I’ve acknowledged at least a half dozen times now that the story MIGHT NOT BE TRUE–but if it is, this man did something wrong that he deserves criticism for.
As for it affecting his bottom line: I don’t even know what to do with that. A Christian doesn’t throw a starving or sick person out on the streets. Period. If the starving or sick person is a serious problem, then he works to find other solutions, to pass the burden on to someone else in a responsible and thoughtful manner.
I don’t consider it my job to run around the world helping every sick person, but I run into a sick person who needs help I view it as my obligation to help them in whatever way I can. Even if that only adds up to helping them get to someone who can help them more than I can.
That is an obligation of the faith–at all times, everywhere–and is not something you do just when you feel like being charitable, as Kevin suggests.
As to the question of how this affects the doctor’s other employees and possibly his family: if that’s truly an issue, then the doctor reluctantly does what he has to do, being careful to explain very clearly that he’s doing something he knows is wrong because he has no choice, that there is a greater wrong he has to worry about. He apologizes, he makes it clear that he’s sought alternatives, and he admits that it’s awful and is only doing what he’s doing with a heavy heart.
Or, he takes a less gutless stance, and he tells his customers that he would no more fire someone for this reason than he would fire them for being Christian. Or Jewish. And he’d take the hits and would take a public stand and explain to his patients exactly what’s going on and remind them just how unChristian it is to refuse to do business with someone just because they have an atheist on staff.
In other words, at least TRY to emulate Jesus, fer chrissakes. Or at minimum, acknowledge that this is fucking WRONG, dammit.
Dean,
I will answer your question as clearly as I can because if you think I’m dancing around the question I want to clear that up.
Also, because I notice a lot of our conversations on the blog tend to bend confrontational and we’re not like that in real life so I’m attempting to alter the atmosphere.
Is it wrong to fire someone for being an atheist? On the surface, yes. It would be wrong to fire someone for being an atheist.
However, if, as it seems to me, that the person being hired was hired because they professed to be a Christian, and was working in a facility where a professing a Christian worldview was part of the business, and they later became an atheist, then, in that case, I see no reason not to fire them because they cease being able to perform a function of their job by their own choice.
If I run a business where I want my employees to talk openly and earnestly about their Christian faith to my customers, indeed, one of the reasons I have any customers at all is because my employees do that, then the employee that doesn’t ceases being able to do what I hired them to do. Had I known they were an atheist to begin with, I’d never have hired them in the first place because it’s important to my business my employees express their Christian faith to my customers.
My customers come to me because of the religious beliefs of my staff. Why shouldn’t I defend that?
And by the way, I’m going to do this again, even though I’ve done it several times already:
It is enitrely possible that the story isn’t true, is being mangled, and the doctor is being misquoted or quoted out of context. I acknowledge this, again and again and again: I acknowledge it.
But if the doctor hasn’t been misquoted, if important evidence has not been hidden from us? Then the doctor’s done something grossly sinful and hasn’t even gotten half the kicking around he deserves yet. The man did something outrageously sinful that should be an utter embarrassment to everyone of the faith.
If he’s guilty (I guess I have to keep saying this even though I already did that twice on the front page, including in the very opening words of this thread.) I don’t care whether what he did was legal according to Federal or State law, because that’s irrelevant: this man looks to have sinned to me, and embarrassed all Christians in the process. Which is all I’ve ever said, and which I’m damn well sticking by.
Hmmm… interesting…
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”.
The question here is how does the law apply for an openly Christian business? Or is there truly such a thing? Does it have to just be a ministry? Or just be a business?
If it’s an actual ministry then I think they can hire or fire based on belief, but if it’s a business…
We need one of the attorneys who frequent the site to throw in their two cents.
Kevin: Thanks. I guess you’re right, these things do seem to turn confrontational between us in ways they shouldn’t. I’m sorry about that, I’m sure that’s mostly my fault because I get so hotheaded sometimes, especially on spiritual issues.
Anyway, I just can’t say that I really agree with you. If this man is running a ministry, that’s one thing. But if he’s running a ministry, then he treats everyone who walks in the door, regardless of their ability to pay and regardless of their own faith. The bottom line cannot be the ultimate question here, for him or anyone else, unless it’s truly a dire situation and customers are fleeing right and left and everyone else in the employ of the business is beginning to be genuinely imperiled.
And I’m sorry, but this doctor is not helping himself. I’ve said six ways from Sunday (and I maintain) that it’s ENTIRELY possible that he’s been misquoted, ENTIRELY possible that there’s exculpating evidence here that we aren’t seeing. But otherwise, seriously? You fire a terminally ill patient who may not be able to get medical treatment because of her firing? You’ve done something horrible that you feel very bad about, buddy. At minimum. Because you know what the right thing is:
“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead with no clothes. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, and he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, he too passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and looked after him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ “Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Dean,
Where in that parable does it state we’re supposed to employ them? Seek employment for them?
For that matter, isn’t it always evil to fire someone with a pre-existing condition, atheist or not?
Dean, you’re making the text say something it plainly doesn’t mean to say.
EDIT:
Also, answer your phone. I’m trying to call you. And your voice mail isn’t setup. Heck, I could be calling the wrong number for all I know, the way you seem to go through phones.
Dean,
Really first, you seem to be holding this guy to a catholic standard of christianity when the odds are that he’s from some christian sect where his behavior is perfectly appropriate and “christian”. This seems, to me, a little unfair. If you want to pick on his version of christianity, then do that, and don’t pick on this guy in particular.
Second, you’re missing my point. Why do you have it out for this guy in particular? If what you want is a hypothetical case, why didn’t you present a hypothetical case? Why are you demanding a hypothetical condemnation of a real person?
Think about this if we were doing it to you. Take Aziz, for example. If he were trying to take over an airplane to crash it into an office building, you’d agree that anyone on that plane has a moral responsibility to kill Aziz before he can kill others, right? Will you take a public stance right now and say that we need to kill Aziz, if he really is trying to murder people with an airplane? Let’s hear you shout it from the rooftops. We just want to know whether you agree that deadly force is appropriate to stop a murderer, but you have to phrase it in the form of beating Aziz to death with a ball-peen hammer, if he is actually trying to murder people right now. If you’re not willing to shout in a crowded supermarket that everyone has a moral responsibility to beat Aziz to death with a ball-peen hammer (supposing he’s really trying to murder someone right now), you’re a scummy bastard who approves of murder.
Do you see my point? Why are you after this guy in particular, if what you want is a general answer? Why not ask your question generally? Why are you demanding a general answer to a specific question (with caveats)?
Honestly, it looks like you’re addicted to conflict. Why, otherwise, phrase your question in a way that’s minimally likely to get the answer you’ll be happy with, given that you’re asking it of people who probably agree with you in principle?
I agree with, ctl.
I think my initial reaction was so strong because even though Dean began and ended his statement with “if this is true”, the meaty center was so heated and vitriolic it overwhelmed the disclaimer as to make it virtually meaningless. The implication was clear: You didn’t give the man the benefit of the doubt. You accepted the article as likely true but just in case it wasn’t you added “allegedly.”
My reaction was, in large part, an attempt to balance your view, Dean.
If you thought it was possible the doctor was innocent, as you keep saying you do by pointing to your disclaimer, why didn’t you go after the possibly lying former employee with equal vigor? If the doctor’s alleged actions got you so heated, wouldn’t lies to paint him in such a way as to ignite righteous indignation on your part be deserving of equal heat?
I’m not seeing that. And your continued desired to get me to condemn the man’s possible non-actions, I think, only shows how weak your disclaimer really is.
You really do believe he did this thing. You buy this story from people that have everything to gain from it being true whole-cloth.
It’s a story written by atheists with a clear hostility toward Christianity, attacking a Christian on behalf of an atheist, one whose sickness they’re playing up for as much sympathy as possible, and it appears you never once question their motives.
Protestations otherwise, Dean, it really does appear to me that you’ve already decided to condemn a brother in the faith on the word of people that think your faith is infantile and are using this “case” to further their own ends.
Beware of “reporters” licking their chops when a story drops in their lap. They’re interested in agenda over truth.
Comments on this entry are closed.