kimmy

So, anyway, I hope it didn't go unnoticed that despite all the accusations of "Aryans" and racism and "Stormfront" being thrown around, the only person here who actually claimed that anybody's genetics makes them inferior was... Posit: Wow. That's pretty astounding. Imagine if he had made comments like that based on *any* *other* superficial characteristic, and imagine how people here would react. Don't believe me? Try swapping "blond" for some other superficial characteristic. Brown skin, "slanted eyes" (tm Andre Boisclair), whatever. *Then* how does it make you feel? Anyway, just thought this merited some special recognition. I'd thought that making sweeping assumptions about people's genetic fitness based on superficial characteristics was an idea that went out of vogue with the fall of the Third Reich. But not for Posit! Good for you, little buddy. Let's have a big round of applause for Posit. -k

Anger? Desire to strike back at the Western Imperialists for injustices they believe had been done to their people or their religion? The promise of heavenly rewards if they die in the service of their religion? Brainwashing-like effects of cult-like devotion to religious-like leaders? Some combination of the above? Doesn't that seem likely? The fact that there were no medical doctors among the hijackers proves that 9/11 was a frame-up? I'm at a loss. You've outdone yourself this time, Drea. I can only assume that your enthusiasm for your "special" tobacco has finally caused you some sort of permanent impairment. Good grief, we have a 2175 post thread devoted to that nonsense. Why don't you go there and make it 2176? I'm sure that the Republicans will do their best to exploit public fears about safety to improve their election chances. It's a big leap from trying to spin current events to your advantage to actually going out and committing murder and mayhem against your own people. Democratic Underground? If I want to make myself ill, I'll just visit "PrisonPlanet". At least his garbage journalism is entertaining. I don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists. I don't think that very many at all are, in fact. I have a Muslim friend on the internet too, and I don't believe she'd ever blow up herself or anybody else. I had many Muslim co-workers when I was in my tech-support job, and they all seemed like nice people too. But I haven't let any of that blind me to the fact that there are some within the faith who really are angry enough to kill and die over it. -k

Genetic inferiority? You've determined that I'm genetically inferior? Based on hair-color? This says far more about your intellect than it does about mine. That's not a genetic flaw. But I can understand why my words might seem strange to you. That's because they're expressive and concise. They can convey humour or logic, science or emotion, all with clarity and precision. This is what the English language can be in the hands of an expert. Don't despair, perhaps someday you too will be able to express yourself with this kind of grace and power. My suggestion would be to keep reading as much Kimmy as you can, to watch my artistry in action, and see the beauty of language at the command of someone who knows how to use it. Good luck to you, my little friend.---- As I said earlier, the thing I've found most interesting about this thread is the angry or accusatory tone of some of the responses. From Hollus and his "you do not see the beauty of other skin tones!" to Stignasty's "Stormfront" and Xman's "Aryans!" the finger-pointing has been prominent. And now Posit has joined the fray, trying to disrupt things with trolling, trash-talk and by flinging about that most trite and stale of all ethnic stereotypes, the dumb blonde. Another thing I noticed was the similarity between the two following posts, one just recently by Posit, and one from early in the thread by Xman: Interesting. One wonders whether there might be some deeper ...frustration... at the heart of these responses. -k

Again. Walk down Sherbourne St. or a local trailer park. Are they more deserving of special treatment than a hard working, law abiding Chinese family? Where has anybody advocated for special treatment? -k

For me (I can't speak for Scott or Jefferiah) attraction is *not* a fundamental value. My values and beliefs are things that I have put a great deal of thought into. They're ideas that I have been developing and shaping and adjusting for my entire life. They are things that I have invested a great deal of thought into, and they're based on my most rational and sober reflections. Attraction? For me, it could not be more opposite to "values" and "beliefs". Attraction and love, for me, are not rational or thoughtful processes. They're completely the opposite. They are the result of factors that are beyond the control of my rational mind. They just happen. I don't think anybody who considers attraction or love to be the result of "fundamental values" actually understands the emotions he's speaking of. I have had a monogamous relationship with my special guy for over 6 years. And at such time as we decide we're ready we will be having children together. Yes, white children, as he is caucasian. Blond? Blue-eyed? As those are recessive traits and he has dark hair and brown eyes, the odds of my having blond or blue-eyed children is rather low. (If I had been serious about having blond kids, I would have picked someone else. It wasn't actually something I gave any consideration to.) I picked him out, and I pursued him because I had a strong sense that this was what I had always wanted. I did not come to that conclusion after philosophical chats or a rational examination of his bank-book and future earnings potential. I knew as soon as I saw him, and before we'd even spoken, that this was a man I needed to meet. Not rational. Not an issue of values. Just a powerful emotional sense based on visual stimulus. What visual cues did I sense from him that caught my attention? I honestly can't say. He's tall and athletic, and watching him run for the bus I was waiting on made me feel all squishy inside. Certainly his dress and deportment made him stand out in a positive way. Is that it? I doubt it. I suspect there are other factors hard-wired into our brains that help us choose likely mates in the same way that females of other species are interested in the males with the healthiest horns (for instance.) Wouldn't it be rather arrogant of us to presume to have weeded all of that animal attraction stuff out of our human minds? Wouldn't it be conceit to pretend that choose mates strictly on the content of their character and not physical appeal? And wouldn't it be presumptuous of us to assume we know everything that goes on inside our minds when we're choosing a prospective mate? I think it would be extremely presumptuous to claim that race and skin and hair don't factor into peoples' choice of mate, whether consciously or subconsciously. Ooh, maximum burnage. Hey, Posit, have you heard that children inherit their intelligence from their mothers? If that's true, then whatever color my kids' hair winds up being, and whether they're smarter than me or not, they'll wind up a hell of a lot smarter than you. -k

Good luck! I think you face an uphill battle because of your age and inexperience. However, I congratulate you for becoming involved in the political process and I am sure that this experience will be valuable to you in the future whatever happens. I have two suggestions: Stand for something. Try to make something that you believe in a part of the discussion. Whatever else happens, you still accomplish something if you make something you believe in a priority for other people as well. And, above all, be honest. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" if you don't know. A young mayoral candidate in Edmonton's last election tripped himself up when he made up an answer to some questions. It hurts you more if you don't tell the truth than if you don't know the answer. The young man in Edmonton might have been caught exaggerating his qualifications; I don't recall the specifics. Be sure to maintain your integrity. -k

(WTF?) What does that even mean? Conflict will occur because people find conflict alluring? -k

Will future versions of the show have characters of uniform hue? Will it be renamed "Sepia Street"? Do you really want your great grandchildren to grow up in a monotone world? Wouldn't it be a boring world if everybody looked the same? (insert other nuggets extolling the intrinsic value of diversity. I'm sure one could find a trove of them at the Canada Ministry of Culture and Heritage website.) ...and I still haven't figured out what prompted that. Because I waxed poetic about my skin and hair? Because I said I hope those characteristics live on in future generations? I don't get it. How does someone interpret that as an attack on other skin colors? Sorry for such a late reply to that; maybe my sinister impression was wrong: I thought you were speaking of race when you stated "However, I'm not too big to admit that I am influenced by appearance. My suspicion is that only the visually impaired can truthfully say otherwise." I don't see how else your comment could have pertained to our discussion. If you had read the two paragraphs (the original message is here, for your reference) which follow the soundbite you've quoted, you'd have noticed that I go into some explanation of this. I muse on the way in which humans form attachments and associations with others, suggest a biological predisposition to do so, and suggest that visual cues (including skin and hair color) are a significant factor in the way in which we form these attachments. I even mentioned an experiment supporting the theory. I mentioned all of this by way of talking about the my sentimental hope that people who share my phenotype exist well into the future. -k

uh, whose tinfoil hat needs adjustment? Muslims don't all live in caves, Rita. Some of them have houses, even jobs. The ones in the UK this month were doctors, in fact. And yet it was Britain that had the attempted terror attacks this month. -k

Angry, hollering old woman verbally abuses some girl, then falls face-first in a garden? If I didn't know the back story, I'd assume she was drunk. -k

I am shocked! Shocked and appalled! Well, somewhat appalled, but mostly shocked! I am in shock, I tell you! All these years of hearing that there is intrinsic value in our diversity. Funny hats and wacky music. Tasty ethnic food. Zany dancing. All the different skin colours... a rich tapestry, that was what they told me. I mean, the CBC. Sesame Street. National Film Board. The educational video I had to watch the time I got sent to the principal's office. It sounded so ... so right. I wanted to believe in it. And now I find out ... it doesn't matter? It's "the quality of a person's character"? But... the funny hats... the ethnic food. "All the colours of the rainbow." There's no intrinsic value in our diversity? I so feel betrayed. I don't know if my belief system can recover from this. That aside, I think the most interesting aspect of this thread has been the angry and/or accusatory tone of some of the responses. From Xman's "Aryans" to Stignasty's "Stormfront", the mere question seems to draw angry reactions, and I'm a little puzzled as to why. Hollus directed this at me earlier: ...and I still haven't figured out what prompted that. Because I waxed poetic about my skin and hair? Because I said I hope those characteristics live on in future generations? I don't get it. How does someone interpret that as an attack on other skin colors? -k

Since many people consider "Newsmax" to be a garbage source of information, here is the Israel Today article to which this Newsmax report refers: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?...d=178&nid=13407 I suspect that an Israel strike against Iran, even if it avoids harming anything other than nuclear research sites, would be the start of something huge. I'm not opposed to the idea, because the idea of that idiot having nuclear weapons at his command is rather unsettling. But lordy, the after-effects might be with us for decades. -k

I omit the discussion regarding genocide, as I too think it's an irrational fear. But with regard to interbreeding, some of the points you've mentioned were indirectly addressed in (I believe) the original post. The significant difference between us compared to these groups that still persist in spite of their tiny numbers was mentioned early on. They are highly insular, and have their own territories where outsiders simply aren't found. White western democracies are not insular. We invite others to our territories, and make a concerted effort to integrate them into our fabric. We make an intentional effort to work against isolation and xenophobia, the very factors that have ensured the survival of the Amish and the Bushmen et al. I suppose one could argue that Amish country and Huttorite colonies will constitute enclaves that will ensure that an undiluted Caucasian gene pool exists into the future. Not exactly the future I want for "my people", though. But what happens will happen. I believe that genetic scientists have been doing research and study which indicates that migration and interaction and interbreeding between different populations has been happening for a very long time. Now our transportation and communication technologies will allow this interaction to happen at a far greater rate. It's not something that I "fear" per se, but as I mentioned earlier, it's something that I don't want to happen, for purely sentimental reasons. -k

This video is extremely offensive to people who worship the jug of milk! This video is completely intolerant to their beliefs! You should be ashamed of yourself, Cybercoma, because you are lactose-intolerant! -k

What a bunch of crybabies! Since when is the amount of time you've wasted in Cyberspace anything to BRAG about? Since member title is an editable field, I see little reason for concern. Move along. -k

I have a highly developed sense of values. I am with Argus and August in preserving those values is a much more important legacy than preserving any particular skin-tone.However, I'm not too big to admit that I am influenced by appearance. My suspicion is that only the visually impaired can truthfully say otherwise. Well I would have thought you would have replied in such a manner rather than stating how you see it as your duty to pass on your radiant skin and straw coloured hair. And ofcourse everyone is influenced by appearance. However, my suspicion is that if you don't recognize beauty in the opposite sex of people with darker skin than yourself you are either visually impaired or have some kind of prejudice towards them. Where did I ever say I don't recognize beauty in other races? I simply said that I'd like to see my own phenotype survive into the future, for sentimental reasons. Why would that be seen as a snub to people of darker coloration? Is a Gay Pride parade a snub directed at heterosexuals? Is Caribana a snub directed at everybody who isn't Caribbean? Is it somehow a threat to darker people if I describe my skin as "radiant"? Maybe it's just a healthy self-image. A few weeks ago I described myself as "whiter than sour cream," and nobody objected to that. Should I consider my appearance in only self-deprecating terms, rather than romanticized ones? Isn't a black woman who describes herself as "ebony" doing the same thing? And you didn't address my earlier question: don't you want the children of the future to come in "all the colors of the rainbow"? I have been taught since childhood how "diversity makes us stronger", and "we are richer when we paint with all the colors of the wind" and how living with people of many colours opens our minds and how living in a monochrome world shuts them, and (...uh, I'm trying to remember all the other slogans I learned from elementary school and Sesame Street...) But it seems as though the politically correct crowd here are now saying that it doesn't actually matter if there are no "white people" in the future, that colour is just an artificial construct, and that contemplating whether "white" might vanish in the future is, in itself, a racist thing to ask? So, uh, aren't we richer when we paint with all the colours of the wind? Do you really want your grandkids and great-grandkids to grow up in a monochrome world that shuts minds (etc)? -k

I have a highly developed sense of values. I am with Argus and August in preserving those values is a much more important legacy than preserving any particular skin-tone. However, I'm not too big to admit that I am influenced by appearance. My suspicion is that only the visually impaired can truthfully say otherwise. And, as Argus postulated, it might be something that is hard-wired into the human mind. There seems to be scientific support for the claim. I believe that one experiment showed the subject photographs of people of the opposite sex, and choose one that they were most attracted to. The collection of photographs included digitally manipulated images of the subject's own face. The subjects chose the manipulated images far more often than sheer chance would suggest. The only reason humans have survived as a species is our social abilities-- our inherent ability to form cohesive groups to unite for mutual survival. And I think you will find that as with less advanced animals, this function centers around family and heredity (which is logical, as the best way to ensure that one's DNA is passed along to future generations is to ensure that one's own descendants survive.) And I think you'll find that as in less advanced animals, visual cues are closely tied to this function. Anyway, don't you want the children of the future to come in all the colors of the rainbow? I'm highly adept at math, and know more than a smattering about biology as well. My comments were not inspired by a lack of grasp of fractions. They were based on the observation that white people who have children with children of other races tend to share more characteristics with the non-white parent. I've never observed mixed-race children to have light skin, light hair, light eyes, or prominent noses, for instance. Could you expand upon this? What persons are now considered "White" who were not previously? Well, I hate to come across as supporting Kuzadd, which I consider to be more or less anathema. However, when my mom's side of the family, eastern European religious kooks, arrived on these shores, they were not considered by Canada's existing British Isles stock to be of the same race. aw, -k

It might just be vanity, but I would like to have a child and grandchild who *look* like me. In fact, I'm considering having myself cloned, just so that future generations will have the same opportunity to "Enjoy Kimmy Today!" that you all do. To paraphrase the politically-correct slogan, I think that the world would be a less interesting place if we didn't have people in all the colours of the rainbow. And more to the point, future generations will be greatly deprived if my radiant skin and straw-coloured hair isn't passed along to my offspring and their offspring. I would really say it's a duty, more or less. If I had a brown baby I wouldn't love it any less. But I'd like to think that my descendants might give the future some visible reminder of Kimmy. -k

I agree with Geoffrey. I also agree with Betsy and BC Chick, which might be a first. I dunno, guys. Who knows more about marketting to youth? John Tory and Peter Kormos? Or Richard Branson? Well, let's see. Branson has build a business empire primarily on the strength of a youth-oriented approach (first trendy record-stores and now contract-free cellular phone service). John Tory and Peter Kormos? If they had any talent for communicating with youth, they probably wouldn't be the opposition right now. I would place my bet on the guy who's made millions at it, rather than the Ontario runners up. I was a youth recently. I vaguely remember occassions when the government has attempted to communicate with me. I remember the whole gamut of approaches, ranging from pathetic little cartoon spokespeople to pathetic attempts to act "cool" or "speak the language". I don't think the government minds that come up with those things have any comprehension of the contempt their target audience has for that sort of pablum. The cartoon spokespeople are for toddlers, and government-scripted attempts to be "hip" and "edgy" invariably come off as absurdly fake... and kids hate "fake" with a passion. "Flick off", on the other hand, that is excellent. Is it offensive? Hopefully. The fact that it seems to confuse and upset old-people will only make it that much more appealing to the target audience. John Tory says they can "educate kids without using language like this." Can they? If the "they" he refers to is the government, then I doubt it. I can't recall a government campaign that has succeeded in educating kids about anything. The problem is that Mr Tory would like to communicate with kids in a way that he is comfortable with, not in a way that they'll actually respond to. -k

No I think Canadians love for multiculturalism goes far beyond superficial stuff. Its easy to vilify a culture by focusing on the dark (and often misunderstood) corners of it. To hold these examples you mention as representative of the culture as a whole is akin to holding white supremicists as representative of western culture. Ok, what do you see beyond the superficial that you can point to as an example of a value immigrants have brought here that Canadians have embraced? And, I'd like to point out that in many cultures, the lack of respect for women is not something that's hidden away in a dark little corner. It's front and center. And of great importance to approximately have of the population? Again, a few horrible examples are used in an attempt to vilify a whole culture. The same cheap tactic could be used on western culture. And it usually is. It seems to me that whenever a white person intentionally harms a non-white person, it's never just an isolated jerk or an isolated incident. It seems like it's described as "an example of the underlying racism in our society". And maybe it is. I don't discount the possibility that sometimes when an immigrant gets beat up, it might be the end result of a kid who grew up hearing his dad grumble every day about how it's the immigrants' fault that he couldn't get the job at the GM factory. Or the result of hearing about terrorism on the news every day. I certainly recognize the possibility. And think one should likewise recognize that maybe hearing from your Imam or your dad every day about how those other women are whores with inferior morals might likewise bring a *cultural* aspect to incidents that one might wish to dismiss as just a bad apple going rogue. And to expand on those further we must build bridges to other cultures without the demand that they conform to what is on our side (ofcousrse Im not speaking in terms of criminal law within our country). Yes some of these cultures have issues to deal with that our culture may have already addressed but that doesnt mean we should be self-righteous and exclusive. We need to build a cultural consciousness that recognizes the good in other cultures as much as we recognizes the good in our own. And what worthwhile elements of other cultures do you see that we might add to our own that would "expand on our tradition of freedoms"? -k

So he can't lie, but if he doesn't say anything at all that's acceptable? What is this, "Don't Ask Don't Tell General Hospital"? I strongly disagree. There are many instances where doing nothing is simply not a moral course of action. (if you see a person in obvious distress lying on the sidewalk, is it moral for you to do nothing? Just keep walking and not even attempt to determine whether he needs assistance? And don't call this one far-fetched, because this has happened to me more than a couple of times.) They make people swear to tell "the *whole* truth" when they testify because neglecting to mention key details can be just as damaging as an outright lie. I have some green stuff in the fridge. It used to be a head of lettuce, but now it looks kind of like guacamole. If a friend comes over while I'm cleaning out the fridge, and says "cool! guacamole!" and goes to put some on a tortilla chip and eat some, would it be moral of me to not warn her that she's about to eat something that's going to make her really sick? Is keeping my mouth shut a moral thing to do? Clearly not. My friend needs to know that what she's about to eat is really bad for her. It's time critical (she needs that information before she swallows that crap) and failing to provide her with that information makes me responsible for the 3 days of screaming diarrhea she suffers because of it. I could have prevented something terrible from happening to her by giving her that information in time. For a doctor, who is trusted and relied upon, to neglect to mention something as important as a time-critical contraceptive is a crucial omission that could have had enormous consequences for the patient. -k

It is being argued, and it is apparently enacted in law in some jurisdictions, that doctors are entitled to allow their religious beliefs affect the care they provide for their patients. It seems to me, then, that as a patient, I should certainly be entitled to ask for detailed information about my doctor's religious beliefs, and to request a different doctor if I don't like the answers he gives me. Normally, I would not feel any right to ask for this information. I would normally feel that one's religious beliefs are a private matter, and none of my business. However, the argument presented in this thread seems to be that a doctor can bring his religion to work with him, so in fact his religious beliefs would become very much my business. If those religious beliefs have an influence over the care I receive, then I'm entitled to have that information beforehand. I also think a hospital would have to have detailed information about its doctors' religious beliefs, and that it would be perfectly justified in not hiring a doctor because of those beliefs if he's unable to provide services that that facility needs from a doctor. Does that seem fair? I am wondering, because the people who are the most avid defenders of Dr Gish's right to allow his beliefs to affect the treatment he provides are also the people most likely to cry "discrimination!" if patients or hospitals choose some other doctor because of the limits his religious beliefs put on his job duties. -k

It is a shame that Leafless himself casts such a dark shadow over this thread, when a number of interesting points have been made by several other people. Sadly, what worthwhile discussion this topic has created (and there was some) is just completely overshadowed. -k

For another interesting example of how religious doctrine impacts patient care, have a look at the Catholic church's doctrine regarding ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy is one where the embryo implants in the wrong place, usually the fallopian tube, rather than in the uterus. There is no room to for the fetus to grow in the fallopian tube, so as the fetus grows larger it will cause the woman intense pain and suffering, bleeding, and possibly death. The fetus itself also has a harder time getting the nutrients it needs when it is in this location, and a miscarriage may result. If there isn't a miscarriage, the fetus will grow to a point where the mother will have life-threatening internal bleeding. An ectopic pregnancy always ends in the death of the fetus, whether by miscarriage, or surgical intervention, or by the mother's death. But how to treat it? Well, you can do it the easy way, or you can do it the Catholic way. The easy way? An RU486 pill. Or if it's too late for that, then surgery similar to arthroscopic surgery that removes the fetus from the fallopian tube. Yes, this kills the fetus. Remember, the fetus is going to die anyway. It's chance of surviving to birth is zero. But what's the Catholic way? Read about it here: http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57 or here: http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic...ctopicpregnancy The Catholic teaching on ectopic pregnancy, as these articles explain, is that neither RU486 nor the arthroscopic-type surgery are allowed, because either one of them is an attack on the fetus. So what's left? Well, first the woman will endure intense pain, possibly weeks of it, resulting from this condition. She must wait for a miscarriage. Or, if the miscarriage doesn't happen, they can operate on her... once her internal hemorrhaging has become so severe that her life is at risk. Once her condition has become sufficiently severe that operating on her is permitted, the Catholic option is not to remove the fetus from the fallopian tube. As a direct attack upon the fetus, this is not permitted. Instead, the whole fallopian tube is removed. This kills the fetus too, of course. But it's different, you see, because rather than acting directly on the fetus, they have operated on the mother. So rather than deal with this with pill, or a straightforward surgery that leaves her reproductive organs intact... she gets to experience the intense suffering and risk to her health posed by the pregnancy. And then she gets to have a piece of her reproductive organs hacked out for no other reason than to avoid directly acting upon a fetus that is going to be killed in the operation anyway. Utterly astonishing. -k

Of course you won't have any idea at all about everything we're discussing - including how come I'm talking about doctors prescribing painkillers/steroids - when all it seems you do is read and answer what's exactly right infront of you with total disregard for the whole flow of the discussion. Ok, so you're making some kind of effort to show that doctors who might think they're helping patients actually turn out to be hurting patients? Is that what you're trying to say? Yes, it's probably a very important issue when one is talking about chronic abuse of prescription drugs. Still not sure of the relevance to this case, however. Why don't you take a go at expressing it more clearly? I work 3 jobs to support myself. I simply don't have the time to respond to the sheer volume of material that's being thrown at me by someone who seems to have 24 hours a day to spend at this. Particularly now that two more people apparently want to argue with me as well. So I cut out fluff, and I don't bother responding to stuff that I've responded to pages and pages ago, or stuff that doesn't seem to have a point at all. Tell you what, if you feel I've neglected something that was really important, bring it to my attention and I'll have a look at it. Like this one. It seems you've got a lot of re-reading to do. So, chop-chop! Shut up with your "chop chop." It's rather rude. In this case, I think that your "go back and re-read" is just a dodge. Your problem with Ms Boyer's "attitude" is not at all clear from what you've written. So why don't you summarize it in nice clear terms that even confused little kimmy can understand? And while you're accusing people of ignoring issues that aren't convenient for you, I notice you didn't address the issue of how Dr Gish can in good conscience allow a patient to see the rape crisis nurses and counsellors that the hospital will be providing, when he knows full well that they're going to tell the patients about emergency contraception and how to get it, and might even be providing the pills. The fact that he has religion as his excuse has been his only leg to stand on. If it wasn't for religion he wouldn't have people supporting him on the internet. And he'd have been disciplined or fired from his job and it would have barely made a ripple in the news. Because unlike religion, stupidity or incompetence don't have special protections afforded to them. WRONG! The fact that he has HIS RIGHT to his religious belief has been his SOLID leg to stand on! If it wasn't for this RIGHT, he wouldn't have people like me supporting him on the internet! If he did not have this RIGHT, he'd have been disciplined or fired from his job! Because unlike what others may want to believe, a right is a right is a right! And a patient who goes into an emergency room has a right to expect the care she needs. I agree that the hospital should have had some plan in place to prevent a situation like this from even happening. But it didn't. And there should have been something more that could. Don't you think that it's a little strange that of the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of doctors in the US who are also religious and have the exact same rights as Dr Gish, none of the other ones have gotten themselves in trouble over this issue? Do you think a patient who is on the way to an emergency room should be saying to herself "god, I hope I don't get a religious doctor, god I hope I don't get a religious doctor"? I would think that most Christians would probably be somewhat hurt idea that a patient might dread having to deal with a doctor who shares their beliefs. Yet, if being treated by a religious doctor means that she is immersed into this kind of conflict between her needs and his beliefs, then shouldn't she be be hoping she *doesn't* see a religious doctor? -k