So what if all employers suddenly find religion? And their religion doesn't believe in any kind of health care, would this be a way to avoid the costs?
The Catholic Church's War on Healthcare
- Thread starter spidergoat
- Start date
more likely what if all employers suddenly found that they believed obstetric services "violated their religion". Of course adoucette would be over the moon if this happened because anything a company, government or other authority does to screw an individual must be correct. He doesn't believe people have rights due to them
In this country an employee has the same rights no matter whether they are public sector, private sector or not for profit. They get a few extra tax benefits if they work for a not for profit so that sector has a chance to attract staff when they cant afford to pay as much as the for profit and government sectors but basic rights such as the anti discrimination acts, the fair work act, unfair dismissal legislation and the OH&S acts apply across the board. Of course health care isn't an issue because unless your job takes you outside the country health care is a GOVERNMENT responsibility, not an employer one. Its a basic human right which means it falls under the purview of government
So then you would have no qualms with a religious organization refusing to hire Asians, say, because it violated their belief system?
If you are going to stick with the stupid system of employer funded health care (a breach of Article 25
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights i might add) then its incumbent on employers to supply ALL health care, not that which suits there own desires. No one says that if its against your religious belief you have to get it but if a church wishes to be an employer then its incumbent upon them to provide the same conditions which everyone else must provide. Say a hospital was bought out by Jehovah's witnesses you think that it would be acceptable for them to say to a car crash victim who happened to work there as a doctor, "sorry you cant have blood because it breaches MY belief and that outweighs your right to determine your own health care". I'm sure you were one of those up in arms about GOVERMENT deciding what health care you could potentially have and even IF that became an eventuality it would have been a) across the board and b) based on a cost benefit analysis NOT some idiots religious belief
I think it is an unintended attack on religious freedom, a textbook example of the dangers of absolutism, dogmatism, fundamentalism and authoritarianism. Its almost as if these people are stuck many centuries in the past - clinging to and defening their beliefs, opposing modernity [science, medicine and technology] and opposing progress [stem cell research and animal experimentation], etc.
I disagree, its not an attack on anyone's religious freedom, its a case of the church "rendering unto caesar". Its state law which sets the requirements for employers. In some situations these requirements may vary, for instance fitness requirements for the army and different work place OH&S requirements because of course solders die during war and though the state is liable to help the families this is no a case of work place manslaughter against the employer and to some extent this may go towards a church as well. In some circumstances for instance it may be necessary to discriminate based on religion for instance a Muslim couldn't be a catholic priest. However the catholic church does far more than just provide pasteral services and administrative services. They run schools, universities, hospitals, outreach programs for street kids and other services and this means employing professionals from all areas to run these services and that means that the church has to become a normal regular not for profit employer with all the responsibilities that entails and one of those in the US is health care for the employee and there family and that may mean providing services that the church on a doctrinal level disagrees with but there choice is either get out of the service provision area and pull back to pastoral services only or render unto caesar and provide what the employees are entitled to.
Religious freedom doesnt mean they religions and there employees are compleatly free of state control, they are still required to follow the laws of the land, if a priest commits murder they are going to a state court to face trial and are going to a state jail and this is another STATE law that they must follow. There is nothing like "diplomatic immunity" for the churches anymore.
Yes, it is the church rendering unto ceaser, but it IS also an attack on religious freedom, which includes both freedom of religion and freedom from religion - in both cases the freedom of the employees of a different or No religion to avail government health services is being attacked.
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
Why should an entity that is clearly operating as a business be considered a church?
What prevents any business from declaring itself a church in order to avoid the law?
Because the entity doing the business is also a entity for the organisation and institutionisation of a religion - christianity.
Nothing really - Scientology has done it - but its practices must follow the definition of religion - organised and institutionalised set of beliefs. If they are their followers/employes do that, any business can be considered a church/temple/place of worship.
I think it's actually a war on women and it's nothing new. Women have control over life, and they don't like that. They only want God to have that power.
Birth control is not a medicine for the sick. Most birth control is needed for recreational sex and/or for professionals who sell sex. This is different than a medicine needed to treat a health condition. Pregnant is not defined as a disease, unless PC has a new definition. Maybe alchohol can be covered under healthcare insurance plans since this too is for recreational use.
Title VII of the Civil Rights act on employment specifically excludes religions.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00002000---e001-.html
Nothing in that article 25 says that paying for Birth Control is mandated.
You read WAY too much into that article.
The FACT is the person is paid a competitive salary for working there and if they want to buy birth control the Church is not stopping them from doing so.
No it's not.
Indeed few systems work that way and none anywhere our size do.
No particular reason why that is true.
The issue is about minimum coverage, and certainly there is no obvious reason why Birth Control has to be part of the minimum coverage.
This argument would have more validity if BC was very expensive.
But it's not.
Even "Plan B" only costs $25 and is now available from vending machines.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...s-plan-b-120/2012/02/07/gIQAQhmTxQ_video.html
There were several options, (none taken) which would have made this a moot point.
One was the "Hawaii model". In that case female employees of religious institutions can purchase contraceptive coverage directly from the insurer at the same price offered to employees of all other employers.
Of course the other solution would be to allow these women to get contraceptive insurance from the exchanges created under Obamacare, rather than from their employer's insurer.
Last edited:
It most certainly does not.
Here is an excerpt dealing with that specific title from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website, www.eeoc.gov:
The exception basically allows religious organizations to hire preferentially based on religious views (e.g. a Catholic organization wanting to hire Catholics).
So I pose my question to you again: Do you think a religious organization should be allowed to discriminate based on sex, age, race, or disability?
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
Is this religious activity? Clearly not as one need not be a member of the church to be hired as an employee. So why are non-religious activities protected by religion?
Precisely, what's more, any church could choose to buy a business; ignore employee rights, pay themselves huge salaries, and then claim they are non-profit. You don't consider this abusive? Is this what you are trying to protect?