I thought Religious don't force their views on other people?

[sherminator]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8586344.stm


I find this absolutely shocking!

No question just a bit of early morning venting!

[Ankou]

ludwig - where have i said i wouldnt complain ?

[AB Editor]

[Have re-stickied as this seems to be a popular thread - Spare Ed]

[Ankou]

urgh, that puts me right off !

[ludwig]

// ludwig - where have i said i wouldnt complain ? //

Apologies - I haven't read all of the replies on this thread (life's too short), so I simply assumed from your recent postings that you were fully supportive of the chemists actions and wouldn't have a problem if you were put in the same situation as that particular customer.

[Ankou]

ok no worries.

"fully supportive of the chemists actions" is a bit strong. i think i was mildly agreeing to the conscience clause in that i believe an individual should be allowed action/inaction according to their own conscience. to varying degrees of course depending on the situation.

for example, chakas conscience compelled him to demand the removal of voodoo widgets from boots as he felt they were being irresponsible, so i would let him have his half hour of sunshine.

the difference here is whether a chemist (or pharmacay assistant, whatever) should be allowed to act in accordance with their conscience (religious belief if you prefer) providing that they advise someone where it can alternatively be sought, or whether someone else in the shop can serve them instead.

ultimately, i think along the lines of the pharmacy code of ethics which states "make the care of patients your first concern". after all, if (using a muslim example) they would not only refuse birth control measures to a patient, but presumably alcohol based medicines and other prohibited ingredients as well. but if they immediately pass a patient on to someone who can meet their needs, then perhaps they are meeting that requirement.

it seems that lloyds didn't know about the religious convictions of the employee and how that would affect the role, so it is a choice for them whether to sack the person or not for being unable to accept the nature of the job and carry out those duties according to the code of ethics. if they did lknow, then they should have implemented a system to overcome it.

[vulcan]

It's pure hypocrisy acting on religious grounds to deny selling something but at the same time telling that person where they can buy it. It's as ludicrous as, seeing somebody standing on bridge railing and saying " you shouldn't commit suicide because it's against my religion, but there's a much nicer spot up the road".

[Ankou]

dont be ridiculous vulcan. that would be like telling someone that strapping a bomb to their abdomen and setting it off in a crowded shopping centre would be very holy indeed and probably get them into heaven with vip access to several virgins.

keep it real, please.

:o]

[jno]

raisins, Ankou

http://www.salaamthea...nsnotvirgins2002.html

[Ankou]

oh dear, i spot a riot and whole new era of jihad.

[ludwig]

//In a re-translation of specific passages, it has been suggested that the word "virgins" really means "raisins", giving rise to various hilarious possibilities. //

I'm splitting my sides just thinking about it - where can I get tickets?

[chakka35]

Akou, it would help if you would read the responses to your posts. I have aleady explained that my battle with Boots had nothing to do with conscience but with recognising that people were being misled. In the end Boots agreed.

I also explained why the behaviour of the shop assistant in question had nothing to do with conscience either, merely her decision to force onto the customer an arbitrary rule of the particular organisation to which she belonged.

Do try to keep up.

[Ankou]

"seemed to me a con of the customer for a respectable pharmacist to sell quackery"

so in that thought and subsequent fist waving letter waggling protestation, you did not use your aptitude, faculty, judgement or intellect.

thats fine by me.

[mibn2cweus]

                 THIS THREAD IS CLOSED

Spare Ed, Happy April Fools Day!

[naomi24]

:o)

[TCL-MUMPING]

"TCL Mumping, I haven't looked at all because I know it isn't there. If you had an answer, you'd make sure we knew about it - but you haven't. Your continuing refusal to address the question simply confirms your intellectual cowardice - and you're fooling no one but yourself. "

I'll add the above statement to the existing list of presumptions you have made.

[naomi24]

Priceless! :o)

[TCL-MUMPING]

Naomi24 said “//'Conscience' is more important than just obeying some artificial rule, having no basis in normal morality, invented by a particular group of people. The term should not be so devalued. //

Chakka, Quite right”

Is obeying the law not an overriding matter? If the law permits an action and that action is taken, why should the person taking that action be criticized?

[ludwig]

//Is obeying the law not an overriding matter? If the law permits an action and that action is taken, why should the person taking that action be criticized? //

Don't be so daft. Just because someone takes an action that's within the law it doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it. The law permits me to have sex with my best friend's wife behind his back, but the fact that it's legal doesn't make it right.
You need to get away from this thinking that everything is morally justified if there's no law against it.

[ludwig]

...and vice versa. Homosexuality was illegal not so long ago. Laws change. Morality and the law might be loosely related but they're separate things.
You can't justify this person's actions by saying there's no law against it.

Good morning by the way.

[naomi24]

Good morning. ^^ Yes, absolutely right.