4 ms·

You might want to try reading the article. All the hospital is saying is that if you request a religious exemption based on the use of fetal tissue, then you sh

You might want to try reading the article. All the hospital is saying is that if you request a religious exemption based on the use of fetal tissue, then you should also avoid similar products. The appropriate pork analogy would be pointing out that if you are avoiding pig products, you probably also want to avoid eating bacon ...

jeffrwells 5y ago
A more accurate analogy is that if you avoid eating pork you must also avoid eating anything with gelatin made from pig bones, such as licorice, pudding, and some baking mixes.
- nullspace 5y ago
  Which is correct right? Someone who avoids pork would definitely avoid those.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    It works as a thought experiment. If someone at a restaurant refused to handle pork products, but was seen on Facebook eating a BLT. Is it the employers place to interpret their religion? Similarly many Jews disagree on the definition of work on the Sabbath. If a Jewish person took off on the Sabbath for religious reasons, is the the employers place to tell them they can't turn any lights on, or use the oven?
  - ulucs 5y ago
    (16:115) He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. So only meat is banned and only when it's not "necessary" (which is really open to interpretation)
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  Except the hospital is even more justified. Because the relationship between the COVID-19 vaccine and fetal tissue is exactly the same as the relationship between those other medications and fetal tissue. It's directly a 1-1 relationship even more than pork and gelatin.
ulucs 5y ago
Yeah that falls apart too: people don't get to judge others' religious consistency (again, it's blasphemy). It is only between god and them. That's why it's religion and not law.
ulucs 5y ago
So I just pulled up Nahl 115, and I can make an argument that I can deny preventative care (ie vaccines) while still accepting medicine that suppresses my symptoms if they contain the wrong substances. So the hospital is definitely wrong, and anyone who thinks they can be an arbiter of religion is blasphemous and has not learned the lesson from Europe's dark ages.

jeffrwells 5y ago

A more accurate analogy is that if you avoid eating pork you must also avoid eating anything with gelatin made from pig bones, such as licorice, pudding, and some baking mixes.

nullspace 5y ago
Which is correct right? Someone who avoids pork would definitely avoid those.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  It works as a thought experiment. If someone at a restaurant refused to handle pork products, but was seen on Facebook eating a BLT. Is it the employers place to interpret their religion? Similarly many Jews disagree on the definition of work on the Sabbath. If a Jewish person took off on the Sabbath for religious reasons, is the the employers place to tell them they can't turn any lights on, or use the oven?
- ulucs 5y ago
  (16:115) He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. So only meat is banned and only when it's not "necessary" (which is really open to interpretation)
lalaland1125 5y ago
Except the hospital is even more justified. Because the relationship between the COVID-19 vaccine and fetal tissue is exactly the same as the relationship between those other medications and fetal tissue. It's directly a 1-1 relationship even more than pork and gelatin.

ulucs 5y ago

Yeah that falls apart too: people don't get to judge others' religious consistency (again, it's blasphemy). It is only between god and them. That's why it's religion and not law.

ulucs 5y ago

So I just pulled up Nahl 115, and I can make an argument that I can deny preventative care (ie vaccines) while still accepting medicine that suppresses my symptoms if they contain the wrong substances. So the hospital is definitely wrong, and anyone who thinks they can be an arbiter of religion is blasphemous and has not learned the lesson from Europe's dark ages.