"I respect the Jehovah's Witnesses for fighting to keep the government from forcing them to violate their religious principles by saluting the flag or abridging their ability to proselytize, all valid First Amendment rights. But to go from those rights to demanding that I pay for their more expensive medical treatments to satisfy their religious scruples is outrageous. If they have special medical needs, let them turn to members of their faith community for financial support. That is what religious communities do, after all.
To demand that the government finance their religious preferences, while refusing to salute the flag of the government that will pay for them, is blatant hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment."
What do you think? Click here to read the rest of the article and letters: Transplants and the First Amendment — Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com
I'm not so sure the alternative treatment is more expensive. It might be. But recovery time is less after bloodless surgery. Complications generally fewer. But medical costs are so astronomically absurd these days it's a little hard to tell.
ReplyDeleteThe flag has nothing to do with anything. After all, one might say of many persons "while refusing to obey the laws of the government that will pay for them" or "while refusing to pay the taxes (more appropriate, since we are talking expenses) of the government that will pay for them" But JWs are notable for doing all these things, even if, for religious reasons, they decline to salute the flag of any nation.