|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 17, 2008 11:58:48 GMT
A letter to the irish independant:
Someone should really take Cardinal Sean Brady aside and explain to him that Hallowe'en is over and he can no longer pass from one jurisdiction within the United Kingdom to another in the Republic of Ireland scaremongering that the bogeyman is going to get everyone if the Government therein does not do exactly what the Catholic Church wants. ('Church will go to court over marriage rights bill', Irish Independent, November 5).
This was precisely Cardinal Brady's church's Balkrickian cunning plan which failed so miserably in the Divorce Referendum in 1995, and one is surprised to see it given another run-out.
The Republic has increasingly matured politically in the intervening decade and the day is now long past when it was commonly accepted that Catholic dogma should automatically become State writ.
If the Catholic Church is unable to control its members' conduct through its own teachings, example and sanctions, why should the State be expected to do the job for it?
Moreover, why should it feel it has the right to impose Catholic dogma on Protestants, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists and everyone else?
Nigel P Cooke Pro, Divorce Action Group 1995 St Helens Lancashire
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Nov 18, 2008 21:44:33 GMT
Nice to see Nigel still on the go. I worked with him about 25 years ago. Nigel, if you happen to read this do send me a PM.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 25, 2008 18:51:04 GMT
Hazel: Any society will have a predominant ethos and everyone in the society as a citizen is entitled to input into what that ethos should be. We win some, we lose some. As Mr Cooke is so opposed to the imposition of Catholic dogma on non-Catholis, perhaps he will be equally vocal in protesting the imposition on Catholics of practices contrary to their own beliefs (e.g. the fact that Mr. Patrick McCrystal of Human Life International Ireland, having qualified as a pharmacist, found himself unable to obtain work because he refused to dispense contraception, or the closing-down of Catholic adoption agencies in Britain because they wouldn't place children with same-sex couples). I won't hold my breath whiel waiting for this.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 26, 2008 9:01:32 GMT
That is indeed a dangerous area. I would also stand up myself and protect the rights of a catholic to open a pharmacy and not sell contraception.
However if a pharmacist goes to someone ELSES pharmacy and refuses to do part of the job that is advertised then there is no reasons he SHOULD be given the job.
The owner of the pharmacy has a job description and a position to fill and if the person in the interview does not fill it then there is NO onus on him to hire that person.
Why would, or should, anyone hire a person who does not fill the role you need filled? It is lunacy to suggest otherwise. I do not know how anyone could say this is the imposition of non catholic practises on a catholic. It is not. It is the advertising of a job vacancy with the stipulation that someone who cant or wont do the job advertised will not be hired.
So if a catholic doesn’t want to dispense contraceptives then let him open his own pharmacy and I will defend to the death his right to sell or not sell what he wants in his own store. I will not defend a right he does not have however and he has no right to dictate to his employer what his job description should be.
I would give an identical answer to the adoption agency point.
|
|