The Catholic Church's War on Healthcare

Nasor said:
You do not appear to actually know anything about constitutional law, civil rights, or the first amendment, so I doubt very much that you would be qualified to explain anything about it to anyone. For example, it seems that in your fantasy world it is a violation of the 1st amendment to NOT grant special privileges to religions.
Click to expand...

That's what the phrase about not prohibiting the free exercise thereof is all about.

Indeed, that is the basis of why they are not taxed on their income or their personal property and why Churches indeed can preferentially hire within their own faith and Churches don't have to allow women equal rights to be a Priest.

All of which are special privileges reserved for Religions so as to not prohibit their free exercise.

The 1st prohibits the government from establishing a state religion (with public funding, special privileges and/or penalties on other religions, as was done in England at the time) and secondly, the feds could not interfere with the individual’s right to freedom of worship, and so an important part of the 1st is to protect religion from government intrusion.
 
adoucette said:
That's what the phrase about not prohibiting the free exercise thereof is all about.

Indeed, that is the basis of why they are not taxed on their income or their personal property and why Churches indeed can preferentially hire within their own faith and Churches don't have to allow women equal rights to be a Priest.

All of which are special privileges reserved for Religions so as to not prohibit their free exercise.

The 1st prohibits the government from establishing a state religion (with public funding, special privileges and/or penalties on other religions, as was done in England at the time) and secondly, the feds could not interfere with the individual’s right to freedom of worship, and so an important part of the 1st is to protect religion from government intrusion.
Click to expand...

You do realise that you have just proven the point as to why this is NOT an atack on religion dont you? Your own words state that the first amendment only stops congress making a STATE religion. The second part has nothing to do with the church, its about inderviduals. Of course goverment can make laws which relate to churches, I cant say "its my religion to be a canabal" and have the goverment accept that and this is another example of that. Employment conditions aren't a matter of religion, they are a matter for the state
 
Asguard said:
You do realise that you have just proven the point as to why this is NOT an atack on religion dont you? Your own words state that the first amendment only stops congress making a STATE religion. The second part has nothing to do with the church, its about inderviduals.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

It's about Religions (and thus their members) being free to practice their religion.

Not forcing members to pay for something they consider to be a sin, would be an example of that freedom.

And as expected, the Obama Admin has agreed with my position (see previous post 67), and today modified the rule to avoid that specific issue.

if a woman's employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan. The insurance company--not the hospital, not the charity--will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care ... With that distinction, Obama said those organizations won't have to provide the coverage, pay for it or refer their employees to it.
Click to expand...

See, not really that difficult a problem to solve now was it?

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...2/source-obama-to-change-birth-control-rule/1
 
In light of the current debate, it occurred to me that one might apply the same objection to taxes generally. How is my right of religious choice protected if I am forced to pay taxes for activities I don't support?

For example, if war violates my religious beliefs, shouldn't I be exempt from taxes that pay for wars?
 
adoucette said:
No it's not.

It's about Religions (and thus their members) being free to practice their religion.

Not forcing members to pay for something they consider to be a sin, would be an example of that freedom.

And as expected, the Obama Admin has agreed with my position (see previous post 67), and today modified the rule to avoid that specific issue.



See, not really that difficult a problem to solve now was it?

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...2/source-obama-to-change-birth-control-rule/1
Click to expand...

As I explained, no one was ever forced to buy insurance from the exchange, so this whole thing was a non-issue, unless of course, those Catholic institutions had their heart set on taking advantage of Obamacare.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
As I explained, no one was ever forced to buy insurance from the exchange, so this whole thing was a non-issue, unless of course, those Catholic institutions had their heart set on taking advantage of Obamacare.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't a non-issue, and it had nothing to do with the exchange.

Do you not understand the change that Obama just announced?

President Obama announced Friday that the government will not force religiously-affiliated institutions such as schools, charities and hospitals to directly provide birth control coverage as part of their employees' health care coverage.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57374717-503544/after-uproar-obama-tweaks-birth-control-rule/

To JDawg: note how CBS correctly identifies these schools, charities and hospitals
 
Last edited:
It had everything to do with defining what comprehensive coverage means, and it's still going to be provided. The only thing Obama did was allow the Catholics a way out of their guilt complex by saying they don't technically pay for contraception. In fact, the insurance companies want to offer contraception, since it lowers their overall costs.
 
Did you forget how this started?

Spidergoat said:
So apparently there are provisions in the new health care bill that would force employers like Catholic hospitals to provide birth control and the morning after pill to their employees as part of providing health insurance.
Click to expand...

After today's change that is no longer the case and that's the only thing they were asking for.
 
I was wrong, they aren't forced to buy that particular insurance, and still aren't. They just couldn't be bothered to be independent of the government, it might cost more. This is about money more than anything. If they didn't take government money, they wouldn't have to answer to the government.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
I was wrong, they aren't forced to buy that particular insurance, and still aren't. They just couldn't be bothered to be independent of the government, it might cost more. This is about money more than anything. If they didn't take government money, they wouldn't have to answer to the government.
Click to expand...

The Church takes Govt money?

How so?
 
The universities take government grants. That's the only reason they are "forced" to abide by anti-discrimination laws.
 
adoucette said:
No it's not.

It's about Religions (and thus their members) being free to practice their religion.

Not forcing members to pay for something they consider to be a sin, would be an example of that freedom.

And as expected, the Obama Admin has agreed with my position (see previous post 67), and today modified the rule to avoid that specific issue.



See, not really that difficult a problem to solve now was it?

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...2/source-obama-to-change-birth-control-rule/1
Click to expand...

You do realise under your idiotic rules ANYONE could say they have a religious objection to anything and you think that should exempt them from the laws of the land. Hate to tell you, doesnt work that way, even churches must abide by the laws that the goverment sets in place, criminal law, planning laws, OH&S laws, building codes, and yes laws in regards to workers entitlments.
 
JDawg said:
Once the church starts taking on employees, they've entered the realm of the state, and as such they have to follow the same rules as everyone else. If it were a violation of religion rights for the state to force the church to provide the same healthcare as everyone else does to their employees, then by your logic it would also be a violation for equal opportunity employment to apply to them as well. Do you think church-based organizations should be able to discriminate in the hiring process if it were a part of their belief system that, say, women shouldn't be allowed to work for wages?
Click to expand...
Please try for a moment to put yourself in the position of someone who can't in good conscience use or help another person use birth control or arbortificient drugs. Before these new laws that would have seemed like a really personal choice. But now all of a sudden that person can no longer be an employer.

A person who otherwise could have found employees willing to work for him without being given birth control, all of a sudden is prevented by law from doing that. He can no longer function as a full citizen. And the law seems like a very abitrary intrusive government intervention into the freedom for people to contract with each other. Being an employer shouldn't require someone to be part of the state, it should be based on free agreement between employer and employee.

Now, if someone were to, for example, be against the use of money, it would be obvious why that person might not be able to be an employer. But why does a moral opinion on birth control have to prevent someone from being an employer? The two shouldn't be linked through law.

You might still say "tough luck" but understand that you're taking away the ability of a segment of the population to earn a living. This is really serious business. Everyone has a right to earn a living and being forced out of business because of your religion is not something people should accept . A government that forces you out of business because of your religion does not deserve any loyalty from its citizens.
 
What if the government forced Muslims who were in the food business to sell pork? It doesn't matter if most muslims eat pork or not, because they're not following their religion. If a person doesn't want to follow their religion, they don't have to, but a religion shouldn't have to follow the people who claim to follow that religion when they don't. You shouldn't force religions to go against what they believe.
 
JDawg said:
Once the church starts taking on employees, they've entered the realm of the state, and as such they have to follow the same rules as everyone else. If it were a violation of religion rights for the state to force the church to provide the same healthcare as everyone else does to their employees, then by your logic it would also be a violation for equal opportunity employment to apply to them as well. Do you think church-based organizations should be able to discriminate in the hiring process if it were a part of their belief system that, say, women shouldn't be allowed to work for wages?



Nonsense. As an employer, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Again, following your logic, the CEO of Google, if Catholic, should have the right to deny his or her employees birth control coverage. You see how stupid this is yet?



It's not the same thing at all, but one can make an argument as to the necessity of birth control in a health care bill. I think it's one of those "for the greater good" things, personally.
Click to expand...
Were it the case that some religion didn't believe in women working, I would say, yes they would have the right to not hire any women. That's like saying that the Church must be required to appoint woman as priests and pastors of churches, even though the Church doesn't believe a woman can be a priest. I'm a woman and I don't know why I'd want to work for a religious institution against their will anyway. No, I don't think my point of view is "stupid". If the law can't be followed by everyone in good conscience, then it's probably an immoral law in the first place. Yes, I think that the president of Google should be allowed to deny coverage for birthcontrol if he or she wants to for moral reasons. I haven't heard any convincing arguement as the the necessity of birth control at all, much less in a health care bill. Contraceptive medications run the risk of doing harm to the health of the person who is taking them and do absolutely nothing to make them healthier. (Unless you count pregnancy as a disease.) I certainly don't see where they are a "greater good" or even any good whatsoever. If the "good" you are refering to happens to be population control, than you have to conceed that the issue really isn't people's health at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top