Every so often, Sam sends me an email with a story of a Christian doing something stupid and asks incredulously if I could possibly approve of the horrible actions. Sometimes I agree with Sam’s take. Sometimes I disagree. Occasionally, I take a more liberal, nuanced view of the situation. This is one of the nuanced times.
On the surface, it seems idiotic that a doctor would refuse to treat a young girl with an ear infection because the girl’s mother has a tatoo. On the surface, I agree with that. But there are issues beyond the surface that must be considered.
Personally, I think the doctor is doing more harm to Christianity than good. As Sam, points out at his blog – this runs contrary to the way Jesus and devout followers such as Mother Theresa ministered to those around them.
Jesus was notorious for attracting the outcasts of society. If he were alive today, it is a sure bet that he would spend more time on the streets with the “bad seeds” of our culture than with the stained glass community.
This doctor could show more Christian principles by going out and offering a free clinic in the inner city or in a local trailer park. I don’t know that the doctor is not doing this already, but it seems to run contrary to his office standards.
Having said all that, as a private business, the doctor has the right to refuse to see anyone for whatever reason he would like. (There are exceptions with life and death, but this was not the case with the little girl.) He has posted in his office that he has a dress code of sorts for his office. If someone violates that, he is well within his rights to refuse treatment.
He says that he wants to create a certain atmosphere in his office and does not want tatoos and other things there that may cause people to be uncomfortable. It is also true that the parent and child may go to another doctor that will see them without any problem. Their insurance company has already said that would be the case.
The mother however has decided that she doesn’t care what rights the individual business owner may have, she’s demanding the policy be changed and an apology issued for making her feel like an outsider. One can assume a lawsuit will be forthcoming. The mother had more sympathy from me until she took this position.
So as a Christian, I find it appalling that one would use their faith in Christ as a reason to discriminate, especially when the most harm is done to a small child, who had no control over her mother’s apperance.
But as a private property advocate, I support his decision to enforce whatever type of treatment policy he wants. I simply wish, he wouldn’t use Jesus to hide behind.
This is no different from Muslim Taxi Drivers vs. Seeing-Eye Dogs
November 14, 2005
“Muslim lore has it that dogs are impure, so pious Muslims often try to avoid the animals. In most circumstances, this does not present a problem in the West, but it can when seeing-eye dogs are involved, for they have legal rights of entry. Interestingly, the Council on American-Islamic Relations often rushes to the defense of Muslims behaving illegally.”
If Christians defend the doctors rights to refuse treatment of little girls whose mother’s are tattooed, by the same token Christians should defend Muslims who refuse rides to blind owners of seeing eye dogs. To me this seems unfair to both the little girl and the blind. Removing the religious hang ups from both these situations would make it a better world. Secular people are not this intolerant.
I believe the Muslim drivers should have the right to do that, but I also believe just like with this Christian doctor, the decision is a poor one at best.
Where do you stand then? Should Muslims and Christians be allowed to discriminate (poor decisions) legally? Or, should they be required to service babies whose mother's are tattooed and blind people with seeing eye dogs?
I mean Aaron, come on. If the doctor had wanted to refuse the woman treatment here, maybe I could make an exception. (Despite his obvious lunacy.) But he decided that the young child should be punished for the actions of the mother. That is absolutely counter to everything I am supposed to believe about how Christians think children ought to be treated.
Or is it okay to use children as punishments to make a point?
In a free market, they should do as they wish. If they are sponsored by govt or accept government payments in any way (medicare), they should be required to service all patients.
If I were a cab driver, I wouldn't want to pick up people with dogs either – they are smelly, hairy, noisy, and I'm allergic to them – and I'm allergic to the dogs too.
According to this logic I should be able to discriminate against Christians and Muslims anytime I like. If I owned an apartment building, I'd refuse to rent to them; if I owned a restaurant, I'd refuse to serve them, etc. Where does it end?
According to this logic I should be able to discriminate against Christians and Muslims anytime I like. If I owned an apartment building, I'd refuse to rent to them; if I owned a restaurant, I'd refuse to serve them
Good point. It's a double edged sword.
Louis, if you own a private business I think you should be able to do that. Now, the federal government disagrees and says that you can’t discriminate on religion (among other things).
Why is this so shockiing? Private businesses have the right to do that according to the Constitution. The government has limited those rights by not allowing discrimination based on religion, sex or race (may be another one or two as well), but the principle still stands. You cannot force a private business owner to violate his religious beliefs in order to accomodate a potential customer.
Is it a good reflection of their faith? Depends on the situation. In this case, most definitely not. Is it good for business? Hardly ever. But again, private business have the right to make dumb business moves.
Sam, somehow you missed my entire point. What the doctor did is idiotic and contrary to everything Christian, but it is not illegal. That was my point. No, he should not have used the child to make a point.
I have no problem with tatoos, don’t have one personally, but don’t really care, even if I did have a problem, the answer is not to refuse to treat a sick little girl. I think he is a horrible example of Christianity, but I also believe he is excercising his constitutional right – to be a moron in this case, but he is still free to do so.
Unless you are saying you want the government to legislate what you think is right on this doctor? You wouldn’t be insinuating that would you Sam?
The government has limited those rights by not allowing discrimination based on religion, sex or race (may be another one or two as well), but the principle still stands. You cannot force a private business owner to violate his religious beliefs in order to accommodate a potential customer.
Aaron, I believe the government should have the power to step in when religious ignorance becomes lethal. Here is an example, similar to Sam's example but more serious, I sent to Seeker.
B.C. intervened to save 3 sextuplets after 2 died
The government has limited those rights by not allowing discrimination based on religion, sex or race (may be another one or two as well), but the principle still stands.
Aaron, when you say this, it sounds as if you lament the fact that discrimination is not allowed based on religion, sex, race, etc. Do you think this country was founded on the principle, "freedom do discriminate against others?" Religious discrimination is what the puritans were fleeing. Why recreate that? Discrimination is wrong and good sense should not take a back seat to religious sensibilities. It's not civilized.
No, I was not lamenting that, just stating the fact. I do not wish to see discrimination based on those factors or really any other factors. But when you enshrine religious freedom in the constitution, it comes in conflict with other things and causes difficult decisions like the one you reference. When two freedoms conflict with one another, we should be careful to balance those freedoms in order to preserve them for future generations.
So, do you agree with the government intervention in this case?
Hard to say, not being involved or having any real knowledge of what’s going on except from the media.
But based on my limited surface understanding of the case you brought up, I would agree that the government should save the lives of the babies. I would place high qualifiers on government intrusion though. It would have to be life or death and confirmed as such by numerous doctors.
I’m glad I do not have to make such difficult decisions.
Aaron,
Of course I don’t want the government “fixing” this guy. He’s an idiot, and will remain an idiot. But his “Christian” justification for his behavior is what is both stupid and vexing. I’m routinely asked to believe that Christians act in one fashion, and yet we get these cases where they clearly act very, very differently. Then, I’m asked to ignore this sort of nonsense when I talk about Christians. Oh, if only every group was allowed to be freed from those crazies on the extremes.
I’m routinely asked to believe that Christians act in one fashion, and yet we get these cases where they clearly act very, very differently.
I guess it depends who you are listening to. The media doesn’t provide a thorough view of what is happening in the world, nor in Christendom, esp. the MSM. Not only are they looking for titillating and obtuse stories that will draw viewers, they are often liberal and just looking for the Christian weirdos in order to “objectively” deride faith.
If you want to know what people of faith are really doing, you need to read some of their periodicals, read what they say to themselves about things other than politics, look at charity work done, visit some churches even.
In fact, I’m gonna post about the guy who starred in the movie “Save Me” to show how people outside of Christendom have a totally skewed view of Christendom (and I have accused you of that plenty) based on what the media tells them and what they may want to believe, or in their limited exposure to real, often immature believers.
Well, Seeker, you’re right about one thing: when I stumble across crazies like the Christian doctor, or you, I do get a skewed view of Christianity.
Sam, you know you are placing us in a lose-lose situation here. If we condemn the guy and say he is not representing true Christianity, then you say that we are the only group that asks to be freed from the crazies (which is only true if you ignore Islam, liberalism, conservatism, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, enviromentalists, gays, straights, Catholic priests, Boy Scouts, and basically every social group known to man), which proves your point that Christians are hypocrites.
But if I were to say agree with this guy or not chastise him hard enough (which you seemingly thought I was doing early in the comments), then we are embracing the loons and proving your point that Christians are really crazy.
Every group has individuals which act in a manner that reflects poorly on the group as a whole, but for some reason you single out Christianity as a group that wants to distance itself from their fringe illustrating the hypocrisy.
You also place the standard that Christians can hold their beliefs, but essentially it better line up with your feelings on the issues because if it doens’t then the Christians must be wrong or hypocritical. I don’t expect you to think your beliefs are wrong (it would be silly to hold them if you did), but I do expect you to understand that not everyone accepts them as correct and it is not automatically crazy if we don’t agree with your way of viewing things.
Funny, isn’t that what you acuse us of doing?
Hi Aaron:
You can agree that he has a right to refuse service to whomever he wants, but I take it you do agree with the principle elucidated by the Apostle Paul that as Christians we ought to choose not to press those rights our rights when that conflicts with Christ's commandment to love. We are to imitate Christ and while Christ has a right not to be executed–having committed no crime–he chose to give that right up because his love for us sinners was far more important.
your friend
keith