"Religious bigotry": Beck smears Coakley over her remarks on emergency room procedures and treatments

Hey, Glenn...what if a person's religion forbade eating or even handling chicken meat and she got a job as a cook in a hospital whose kitchen served chicken? What would you tell her if she refused to cook any dish containing chicken because of her religion? What if you were a patient in that hispital and eating chicken would be good for what ails you?

Glenn, do want doctors and nurses who treat you only according to their own personal religious convictions?

Ummm NO! Brown voted for a bill that would allow emergency room workers to deny emergency contraception to rape victims if it was against their religious beliefs. Coakley was saying that if your religious ideals could interfere with your profession THAT MUCH as to refuse rape victims emergency contraception based on staunch religious beliefs then, you should probably not work in the emergency room. This follows with the hypocratic oath that says no no harm! Its the same thing for any profession - ifs one's belief are interfering with their ability to do their own job, they should probably not go into that profession or they may be fired. Way to take it COMPLETELY out of context Beck! That is so you!

Even if this isn't what Coakley meant to say, I agree with it. If you're such a thin-skinned Religious Twit that you get your panties in a wad over stuff like this, then you shouldn't be working in a hospital or a pharmacy.

Not that I'm a Democrat but I hope that Coakley wins just so the Republicans heads can explode simultaneously. I don't exactly know how has more hubris in this debate.

If a person's religious convictions hold that they must not treat anyone with a genetic pathology or congenital disorder because that person is cursed by God, then I'd appreciate it if that person didn't work in a public hospital. If a person's religious convictions conflict directly with their ability to perform their legal and professional obligations, then yes, I'd suggest that such a person needs to find a way to reconcile his or her personal beliefs and faith, professional ambitions, and the law -- just like everybody else.

Once again, the Right doesn't understand what freedom means.

Religious Freedom means that the government cannot impose a state sanctioned religion upon me... it does not give the individual the right to practice religious beliefs that are illegal.

Example, Christian Scientst pray for their 11yr old daughter with diabetes instead of taking her to the hospital isn't practicing religious freedom, but are guilty of second degree murder.

If a hospital worker refuses to perform their duties because of religious beliefs, than they have no business working in the hospital.

I wonder how receptive Beck is to Muslims who work in grocery stores and won't handle pork. Why do I doubt he applies the same standards? Oh, right, because he already accused a sitting Congressman of being an al-Qaeda fifth columnist based on his religion.

Coakley's comments are actually good advice. I did not see a problem with them when I first heard her say it. It is the equivalent of a conscientious objector going into the military. There is always that possibility out there that your beliefs could be tested.

Um yeah. If I'm in the emergency room and need a transfusion and your religious beliefs conflict with that action I don't want to die because of your conflict of conscious. Your religious freedom ends at my doorstep. If my actions cause harm to another then I should not be in a position to do that harm to anyone else. Go work in the nursery! Go work in geriatrics! Go work in the lab! This ain't rocket science but then again this is coming from the same group that feeds on a persecution complex. Yep, 70% of the population and they are sooooooooo persecuted. How do they ever do it?

I'm a Catholic. I do not believe in abortion. I would not assist in the performance of an abortion and I wouldn't pay for one or take someone to get an abortion. However, I will not protest outside abortion clinics because there are people who choose to have abortions after much consideration. It is not MY place to make their decisions for them or prevent them from making choices that I disagree with. There are plenty of hospitals and pharmacies that are privately owned that receive no Federal funding and therefore can choose not to perform certain functions. Were I a health care professional, I would not choose to work in a hospital or pharmacy that would force me to choose between my faith and my job. There are lots of places to work; this whole war on faith is a fraud.

When you hear the entire conversation, you understand Coakley and there's nothing shocking about it. If you just heard this snippet that Beck played, wouldn't you be suspicious of the context? wouldn't you be curious if this was the whole story. It seems a little bit interesting that someone (a politician) would make such a potentially controversial comment like that. Maybe there's something more to it?

O wait, I'm talking about Glenn Beck fans. Never mind.

Why should a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Scientist, et cetera get to use their personal religious views to decide what emergency room treatment someone gets? Absurd.

Nice quote editing, Glenny.

The law says that people are allowed to have that. And so, then, if you... you can have religious freedom, you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.

There is NOTHING I despise more than a repetitive and pathological liar... and every time this slime ball pulls that crap, I hate him even more.

"Religious bigotry": Beck smears Coakley over her remarks on emergency room procedures and treatments

It is funny that a man who makes almost 18 million dollars a year, will listen to what Ruppert Murdoch or Roger Ailes tells him and then open his corporate shill of a mouth. No wonder he won misinformationer of the year for 2009. He doing something smart, even if it is smears. Corporate properganda!

I'm an atheist who won't be getting a job as a priest anytime soon. According to Beck, is this fact detrimental to religious freedom?