You Can’t Have Your Friends And Eat Them Too

I am puzzled by the casual way folks throw their friends away.  Some observations include:

• folks who hang on a few friends, sometimes only one friend, and devour their time.
• folks who want from their friends, then ignore them if other interests become more important than their friends.
• folks who need to be needed, and snoot-nose their friends who don’t have pathological needs for them to 'fix'.
• folks who dismiss their friends when distance or time makes staying in touch harder.

Many mental health professionals believe that one human person can only have 6-7 good friends.  Sadly, most people out of high school don’t have that many.

When you think of your friends, does the fact that you have friends warm you?  Threaten you?  Burden you?  Annoy you?  

I believe you should think about friendship.  It’s rare in our fast-paced world, and Twitter and Facebook are no substitutes for face-to-face time that is not hurried.  Even telephone time, if the miles have come between your bodies, is good.  

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.

Freedom -- Individuals or Organizations

The continued chaos surrounding President Obama's decision (and later modification of the decision) to require all organizations employing people and offering medical insurance, including religious organizations, to make contraceptive devices or medications available to employees through their insurance haunts me.  As a former pastor I understand the need to keep religious organizations separate from the government.  Far too much harm has been done by religious groups using the civil government to enforce their doctrinal and behavioral edicts.  Witness England, Italy, Iran, Sudan, and Indonesia, for instance.   And far too much harm has been done by governments "taking over' valid religious expressions.  Witness Communist China and the former USSR, for instance. 

OK, we get it.  But what about individual freedom?  Suppose I am a Roman Catholic and my priests, bishops and cardinals tell me it is wrong (a sin) to use birth control.  But I (an individual) decide to use it for my own sanity and health.  Suppose I work for my church (or some other church).

May I have the freedom to choose  vis a' vis my medical insurance coverage (or anything else) how I respond to the teachings of my church?  Is my freedom to choose as an individual protected by the Constitution, or is the organization of religion (in this case, Roman Catholic) more protected than I am?  If I am female, do I suffer discrimination in the workplace by being denied medical insurance coverage that other female workers in medical insurance plans take for granted?

Individual freedom?

Or, organizational freedom?

I confess I am surprised that libertarians, Tea Partiers and Republicans come down on the side of the organization and against the individual.

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.

Freedom of the Individual

I am thinking today about President Obama's directive that all employers, including religious employers, make the health care option of birth control available to their employees at no charge.  It's part of his health care initiative.

I am thinking about the uproar that many such employers are making about this, if they oppose birth control.

I am thinking about freedom as well.

• Freedom of worship
• Freedom of the religious group
• Freedom of the individual

Scenario 1:  the religious group is FREE to hold it's convictions and impose them on everyone who works for them, whether the individuals are members of their faith or not.  Institutional freedom trumps individual freedom.

Scenario 2:  the religious group MUST PROVIDE the opportunity for birth control to all it's employees and let them freely decide whether or not to use birth control.  Individual freedom trumps institutional freedom.  In this case only those (members or not) who espouse that tenet of the religious group will forgo birth control, as well as those too old to be worried about it I suppose.

I am thinking that freedom comes in various sizes and flavors.

• Should individual people be more free than institutions? 
• Should institutions be free to impose their unfreedoms on individuals? 

My understanding of freedom of religion is that each religious belief can be practiced until it imposes its rules on an individual who doesn't believe that way.  E.g., we can persuade, but not coerce.  Especially, no group can use the services of the government to coerce. 

I am thinking that President Obama has the right of it in this case.  The freedom of the individual (whether a member of a religious group or not) comes first.

What do you think?  Submit a comment and let us know.

P.S. - how does this relate to the religious concern about gay and lesbian marriage?  Blood transfusions for babies who need them?  Vaccinations of children?