Sometimes I think they’ve won

Or…done so much damage that there’s just no going back.

First, read this and weep.

“No, I am not just making it up,” Frisby says.

At least half the students in this class of 14 don’t believe him, though, and they aren’t about to let him off.

Two decades of political and legal maneuvering on evolution has spilled over into public schools, and biology teachers are struggling to respond. Loyal to the accounts they have learned in church, students are taking it upon themselves to wedge creationism into the classroom, sometimes with snide comments, but also with sophisticated questions – and a fervent faith.

As sophomore Daniel Read put it: “I’m going to say as much about God as I can in school, even if the teachers can’t.”

Such challenges have become so disruptive that some teachers dread the annual unit on evolution – or skip it altogether.

Incredibly depressing. And then everyone wrings their hands at how America is losing its scientific and technological edge…

Then there is this:

The Bush administration yesterday announced plans to implement a controversial regulation designed to protect doctors, nurses and other health-care workers who object to abortion from being forced to deliver services that violate their personal beliefs.

The rule empowers federal health officials to pull funding from more than 584,000 hospitals, clinics, health plans, doctors’ offices and other entities if they do not accommodate employees who refuse to participate in care they find objectionable on personal, moral or religious grounds.

“People should not be forced to say or do things they believe are morally wrong,” Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said. “Health-care workers should not be forced to provide services that violate their own conscience.”

Okay, so some dweeb can refuse to give me legal medical treatment, withhold information about all viable and (repeat) legal options, and they don’t lose their job?  But I, if I want to sit behind a desk and work at a computer all day, have no right to refuse a random drug test in order to continue employment? How about if I morally object to it?  Oh wait, right to privacy? No way. Right to inflict my religious and moral views upon another? Hunky dory.

Okay, just where do these conscience clauses stop? Well, if you pick up the trash in a medical or research facility that provides abortions or any other medical procedure that you find morally objectionable, well, hey, come on down, because according to the new regulations you are “assisting in the performance” of the morally objectionable procedure, and you have a right to refuse to do your job and Not Get Fired.

Therefore, the Department proposes to interpret this term broadly, as encompassing individuals who are members of the workforce of the Department-funded entity performing the objectionable procedure. When applying the term “assist in the performance” to members of an entity’s workforce, the Department proposes to include participation in any activity with a reasonable connection to the objectionable procedure, including referrals, training, and other arrangements for offending procedures. For example, an operating room nurse would assist in the performance of surgical procedures; an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure would be considered to assist in the performance of the particular procedure.

Not only that, but these institutions can’t refuse to hire you if you have moral objections to the medical or research work done there. I assume they are aiming at stem cell research with this, but does that mean animal rights activists can’t be refused employment at research facilities that receive federal funding?

I’ve got an idea. How about we apply the same standard that the Americans With Disabilities Act does? That is, the employer makes a good faith effort at accommodating a person’s disability if by that accommodation the employee is able to do the job they were hired to do. ADA doesn’t force an employer to hire someone whose disability prevents them from doing the job (no blind air traffic controllers). So why should an employer be forced to hire an employee whose “personal beliefs” prevent them from doing the job, the complete job, they were hired to do? Will they be forced to hire Jehovah’s Witnesses who object to blood transfusions? Will they be forced to hire Muslim doctors who refuse to see a woman undressed? What about Scientologists who object to psychiatry? Where do we stop?

Furthermore, under this new regulation, what institution is considered a health care entity? Again, the largest possible interpretation applies and anything from the largest research facility all the way down to your neighborhood “crisis pregnancy center” fits the bill. 

…we propose that the term “health service program” should be understood to include an activity related in any way to providing medicine, health care, or any other service related to health or wellness,

Well, that certainly narrows it down.

Oh, and finally, it appears that the merging of the Democratic and Republican parties is complete and that my choices in November, barring a miracle in Denver, will be between two Republicans and a variety of third-party candidates.  My proof?  Joe Lieberman will be speaking at the Republican convention and Obama has tapped an anti-choice Republican pastor to deliver the benediction at the Democratic convention - this is the bookend to the “Faith Rally” that will open the convention. (H/T to lambert at CorrenteWire)

Once again, the Democratic Party appears to be a day late and a dollar short.

In the week after Barack Obama and John McCain explored the connections between their beliefs and political convictions in one of America’s biggest megachurches, a new poll shows that a slight majority of the public now thinks that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of politics.

The Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life say that this is the first time since they began asking the question more than 10 years ago that a majority has not been in favor of religious institutions speaking out on political and social issues.

Surprisingly, the biggest change of heart has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago, only 30 percent thought religion should keep its nose out of politics. Now, a full half does. That brings self-identified Republicans more closely in line with Democrats (51 percent in 2004, 52 percent in 2008 ) on the question.

The public in general is also now more uncomfortable with politicians who talk about their religious convictions, with the biggest shift again taking place among Republicans. (US News & World Report)

[walking away, muttering under my breath, suppressing the urge to scream]