Obama Tries To Force Catholic Institutions To Provide Contraceptives

[Strike For The South]

The free excise clause come to mind.

You cant force them to do this. As much as I love the tyrinical power of the state, you cant force them to cover this

Contraceptives are extremely important but the government cant not force the church to fund them

However I would love to see how much the catholic institutions are being subsidised by momma gov't then we could talk turkey

[Tuuvi]

I agree, the Catholic Church, or any other church, shouldn't be forced to insure contraceptives or anything else that goes against their conscience. If you decide to get a job with a religious organization, you shouldn't expect to be provided something that goes against their moral code.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Baloney. You can't disallow preventative medicine on the grounds that it might encourage behavior. It's morally incoherent. They have no more right to not provide it than they do to not provide vaccines:


Some conservative U.S. Christian groups oppose mandatory vaccination for diseases typically spread via sexual contact, arguing that the possibility of disease deters risky sexual contact. For example, the Family Research Council opposes mandatory use of vaccines against the human papillomavirus, writing, "Our primary concern is with the message that would be delivered to nine- to 12-year-olds with the administration of the vaccines. Care must be taken not to communicate that such an intervention makes all sex 'safe'."

Though they are in nice company:


In Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Taliban have issued fatwas opposing vaccination as an attempt to avert Allah's will, and as an American plot to sterilize Muslims. The Taliban have kidnapped, beaten, and assassinated vaccination officials, including assassinating the head of Pakistan's vaccination campaign in Bajaur Agency.[9]


BAN SEAT BELTS, THEY ENCOURAGE SPEEDING

[PanzerJaeger]

Baloney. You can't disallow preventative medicine on the grounds that it might encourage behavior.

Is contraception really preventative medicine?

[Strike For The South]

Baloney. You can't disallow preventative medicine on the grounds that it might encourage behavior. It's morally incoherent. They have no more right to not provide it than they do to not provide vaccines:


A catholic hospital/institution should be able to run itself as it sees fit as long as it takes no monies from the gov't. What is being prevented isnt the issue wether its having to wear blue on tuesday or contraceptives.

[Subotan]

WHEYYYYYYY

(http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/uses-for-bayer-aspirin/?ref=opinion)I get such a chuckle when [questions about sex] come out. Here we have millions of our fellow Americans unemployed, we have jihadist camps being set up in Latin America, which Rick has been warning about, and people seem to be so preoccupied with sex. I think it says something about our culture. We maybe need a massive therapy session so we can concentrate on what the real issues are. And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s such inexpensive. Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.

(http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/uses-for-bayer-aspirin/?ref=opinion)

[Strike For The South]

It's not about sex. It's about catholics being able to excise there rights as per the constitution. If they take no money and give no money, leave the institutions alone

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Is contraception really preventative medicine?

Morally speaking. How do you feel about the vaccines? What percentage of catholics use contraception?


A catholic hospital/institution should be able to run itself as it sees fit as long as it takes no monies from the gov't. What is being prevented isnt the issue wether its having to wear blue on tuesday or contraceptives.

It's no different than forcing a hypothetical car company who had a thousands year old ban on seat belts* to put seat belts in their cars. They have a strong stance on speeding being immoral? Fine, preach directly. But you can't make speeding more dangerous to discourage it.

*hypothetical car company :laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

Morally speaking. How do you feel about the vaccines? What percentage of catholics use contraception?



It's no different than forcing a hypothetical car company who had a thousands year old ban on seat belts* to put seat belts in their cars. They have a strong stance on speeding being immoral? Fine, preach directly. But you can't make speeding more dangerous to discourage it.

*hypothetical car company :laugh4:

There is no law requrieing cars to have seatbelts, just that you wear one on the road

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There is no law requrieing cars to have seatbelts, just that you wear one on the road

"Most seat belt legislation in the United States is left to the states. However, the first seat belt law was a federal law which took effect on January 1, 1968 that required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted with seat belts in all designated seating positions."

[Fisherking]

Regardless, government dose not have the right to mandate services that private or religious institutions must provide.

Are we a totalitarian state?

Has the constitution stopped being a factor?

Government has no business ordering what charities and non-government facilities should or should not provide.

[PanzerJaeger]

Morally speaking. How do you feel about the vaccines? What percentage of catholics use contraception?


Pregnancy isn't a disease, and you cannot randomly catch it.

I have no problem with contraception. My problem is that the administration is claiming that this is a women’s health issue that trumps religious freedom. I could buy that for, say, an expensive breast cancer vaccine, but this isn’t equivalent. Why is free contraception for all a women’s rights issue?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Baloney. You can't disallow preventative medicine on the grounds that it might encourage behavior. It's morally incoherent. They have no more right to not provide it than they do to not provide vaccines:

BAN SEAT BELTS, THEY ENCOURAGE SPEEDING

Analogies are always unhelpful, because there's a subtle difference from the original case. Otherwise people would never raise them, they would just study the original case itself.

First off, as far as I am aware it is government agencies themselves that are responsible for promoting road safety to the public, which is completely different from forcing non-governmental institutions to toe their line. And while obviously there is government legislation that forces car manufacturers to include seat belts in their design, these private companies have a direct role in ensuring decent levels of road safety. Safety is an inherent feature of their product, the same cannot be said for the church and its relationship with contraceptives and sexual disease. The comparison doesn't work - unless you feel the government has a right to dictate the role of the church in society.

And as for vaccines you could cause an epidemic just by virtue of being around to catch a disease. Whereas to affect other people with your STD's you have to be a bit more active in catching and spreading them. The existence of people demands the use of vaccines to protect against certain diseases, the same cannot be said for contraceptives and STD's.

Also, since its cool to be as vague as possible without providing any links so people know what is actually being discussed, I'm going to be all emo and counter-cultural and throw a link out there. This (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120216/NEWS01/302160053/Kurtz-Mohler-decry-Obama-s-contraceptive-compromise?odyssey=nav%7Chead) is what I got with my first google.

[PanzerJaeger]

Does anyone know if condoms are covered?

[Papewaio]

If a insitution is getting government money or a tax break (which is effectively the same thing) then the government can attach whatever conditions it requires. This applied to stem cell research so it is fair to apply that thinking across the board. Separation of church and state doesn't mean the state writes the church a blank check or that it's members can ignore the rule of law.

If a church is totally self sufficient with no government handouts or tax breaks then it's should be able to freely spend its money on any lawful activity or choose where not to spend its money.

=][=

Not all diseases have a single vector. And the larger the pool of diseased individuals the higher the chance the disease will have a more virulent variation. So you can either choose to wipe out a disease like polio or you can do a half arsed job on it like TB. Just don't assume because it spreads by bodily fluids today that it can't be sneezed out tomorrow. Oh look someone sneezed and on the train and the whole carriage now has herpes.

[Xiahou]

Baloney. You can't disallow preventative medicine on the grounds that it might encourage behavior. It's morally incoherent. They have no more right to not provide it than they do to not provide vaccines:



Though they are in nice company:




BAN SEAT BELTS, THEY ENCOURAGE SPEEDINGYou obviously don't understand the reasons for Catholic opposition to birth control....

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Pregnancy isn't a disease, and you cannot randomly catch it.

I have no problem with contraception. My problem is that the administration is claiming that this is a women’s health issue that trumps religious freedom. I could buy that for, say, an expensive breast cancer vaccine, but this isn’t equivalent. Why is free contraception for all a women’s rights issue?

I don't know why they call it a women's rights issue.

There are lots of things that you can't randomly catch that are covered. And I mean, I know medicine has improved since the old days when women often died giving birth, but they still do.



First off, as far as I am aware it is government agencies themselves that are responsible for promoting road safety to the public, which is completely different from forcing non-governmental institutions to toe their line. And while obviously there is government legislation that forces car manufacturers to include seat belts in their design, these private companies have a direct role in ensuring decent levels of road safety. Safety is an inherent feature of their product, the same cannot be said for the church and its relationship with contraceptives and sexual disease. The comparison doesn't work - unless you feel the government has a right to dictate the role of the church in society.

I can't follow you at all here.

Car companies have many unsafe features in their cars, features that are designed for entertainment or enjoyment. Sometimes they make the cars safer to sell well, sometimes not. There are certain things that the government mandates for safety. Seat belts are not an inherent feature of the product because maximum safety is not an inherent feature of the product. For many cars the opposite is true.

Religious people can be morally against sex. But that has nothing at all to do with contraception. So why doesn't the comparison work--you can be morally against speeding, but not seatbelts, and you can be morally against certain kinds of sex, but not vaccines for std's, condoms, and birth control?


And as for vaccines you could cause an epidemic just by virtue of being around to catch a disease. Whereas to affect other people with your STD's you have to be a bit more active in catching and spreading them. The existence of people demands the use of vaccines to protect against certain diseases, the same cannot be said for contraceptives and STD's.

Yes. Freedom of religion does not include the right to be immoral. We often let religions do things that are wrong, but it's not inherently wrong to step in. A religion saying "an essential tenet of our religion is that all vaccines are wrong even though lacking them could cause epidemics" would not be protected by religious freedom.

Pregnancy prevention and disease prevention are not different with regards to what's morally important here. They would still have to cover vaccines for non-communicable diseases, don't you think?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You obviously don't understand the reasons for Catholic opposition to birth control....

Regular Catholics, or the church hierarchy? Real reasons or stated reasons?

[Myrddraal]

There are certain things that the government mandates for safety.
Just because I can't resist getting caught up in an analogy argument:

If you wanted to compare seat-belts to this situation, the seat belt situation would have to be something like this:

a) It is not a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt.
b) Some car companies offer a free seat belt option, some don't offer seat belts at all.
c) The government is now forcing all car companies to provide the option of free seat belts, even though seat belts are not a legal requirement.

After all, the government does not mandate the use of condoms. If they did, we'd have to lock up all the parents... So in brief, the seat belt analogy completely misses the point.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Just because I can't resist getting caught up in an analogy argument:

If you wanted to compare seat-belts to this situation, the seat belt situation would have to be something like this:

a) It is not a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt.
b) Some car companies offer a free seat belt option, some don't offer seat belts at all.
c) The government is now forcing all car companies to provide the option of free seat belts, even though seat belts are not a legal requirement.

After all, the government does not mandate the use of condoms. If they did, we'd have to lock up all the parents... So in brief, the seat belt analogy completely misses the point.

Why are these differences relevant? Why would the seat belt situation have to be like that?


The hypothetical christian car manufacturer would be wrong to oppose seatbelts because regardless of their opposition to speeding, it is immoral to ban something life saving because it might encourage people to speed. That moral belief is not respected by law, religious by not, as many other moral beliefs are not respected by law, religious or not.

Some with the hypothetical christian health care provider--an opposition to certain kinds of sex* does not make a ban on contraception legitimate. Do you think the taliban's opposition to all vaccination is legitimate? If there was a government funded program for it do you that would be wrong cause it took there tax dollars? Besides the point that everyone in our country pays taxes despite the fact that their money is used for something or other that they think is immoral.

Economic and legal trivia are not relevant to the analogy. It's an analogy about moral reasoning and when it's legitimate.

*in whatever strange theological way it is expressed

[Myrddraal]

Why would the seat belt situation have to be like that?
Because that would make it a direct analogy:
a) It is not a legal requirement to wear a condom.
b) Some medical institutions offer free condoms, some don't offer condoms at all.
c) The government is now forcing all medical institutions to provide the free condoms, even though wearing a condom is not a legal requirement.


Why are these differences relevant?
There no law enforcing the use of condoms. There are several laws enforcing the use of seat belts. Surely that makes the legal arguments for enforcing the provision of condoms and seat belts quite different?

I have a question (not rhetorical): In the US, does the government legally require a medical institution to provide any other form of 'treatment'? To be clear, I'm not talking about life saving or health restoring treatments, I'm talking about preventative treatments such as vaccines.

Edit: clarifying question above

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's not "Since we have seat belt laws, we must have this law, to be consistent". That's one kind of analogy. It's "If you understand why the seatbelt law is wrong (figuring you already do) then you should understand why this law is wrong". This is another kind of analogy, the kind people almost always use. And then the person they say it to generally spends a lot of time arguing that it isn't the first kind, qed.

[Xiahou]

Regular Catholics, or the church hierarchy? Real reasons or stated reasons?That wasn't an ambiguous statement. Catholic opposition to birth control is doctrine and the real reasons are the same as the stated reasons. Birth control encouraging sex is not that reason. In marriage, sex is encouraged- in fact it's required for a marriage to be considered valid. Yet, married couples are also told not to use birth control.

It has to do with the nature of sexuality. Simply, sex is for enjoyment and as an expression of love, but it's also an act of procreation. Birth control removes half of the purpose of sex and corrupts its nature. This is why the Church opposes it. Incidentally, it's also why the Church will never recognize gay marriage.

I'm certainly not a model Catholic, but I do remember some things from religion class. :yes:

[CountArach]

This is old news now (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/obama-shift-on-contraception-splits-catholics.html).


The near-unified front led by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to oppose a mandate for employers to cover birth control has now crumbled amid the compromise plan that the Obama administration offered last week to accommodate religious institutions.

The leaders of several large Catholic organizations that work directly on poverty, health care and education have welcomed the president’s plan as a workable compromise that has the potential to protect religious freedom while allowing employees who request it to have contraceptives covered by their insurance plans.

The bishops, however, have continued to voice strong objections to the White House plan. And they have taken it one step further, arguing that individual Catholics who own businesses should not have to provide birth control to their employees in their health insurance coverage.

Oh and this new policy is immensely popular (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-omero/on-birth-control-gop-male_b_1282731.html). Unfathomably so.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh and this new policy is immensely popular (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-omero/on-birth-control-gop-male_b_1282731.html). Unfathomably so.

Of course it is. It's free stuff. I'm sure a policy that covered everyone's car payments would also be very popular.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Reality of the situation is that churches are more than happy to play in the political game when they want government to stop something. Now they want their moral indignation to protect them against government actions they dislike. Can't have it both ways. :shrug:

Call me when the Mormon Church in Utah is punished for spamming Prop 8 ads all over California and then I will agree that the law shouldn't be passed.

[CBR]

If they are at such odds with the real rest of the world, maybe religiously-affiliated organisations should just focus on the spiritual health of their own followers?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Church is the Church. They can scream and yell and cuss all they want, but that's all it is. When you use the Church's use of Free Speech as an excuse to give the government more powers of imposition, we all lose--whether you're a fan of the church or not.

If you want a separation of church and state, it must be a complete separation. You can't have religions able to talk and lobby government all they want with complete immunity.

They are either part of society or they are not. If they want their hands in everything, then they need to pay taxes and face up to the fact that sometimes government does things we don't like. I find war on middle eastern countries disgusting and possibly morally wrong depending on which country we are talking about. But my moral indignation doesn't protect my money from paying for such wars.

[Xiahou]

The Church is the Church. They can scream and yell and cuss all they want, but that's all it is. When you use the Church's use of Free Speech as an excuse to give the government more powers of imposition, we all lose--whether you're a fan of the church or not.That's alot more succinct then what I was typing- let's go with that.

The "compromise" Obama offered is bunk. There are no free lunches. If insurers are still forced to cover contraceptives even when the employer's plans don't cover it, what happens? Rates will go up to cover the costs. There is virtually no distinction between that and the organizations directly offering the coverage.


If you want a separation of church and state, it must be a complete separation. You can't have religions able to talk and lobby government all they want with complete immunity.

They are either part of society or they are not. If they want their hands in everything, then they need to pay taxes and face up to the fact that sometimes government does things we don't like. I find war on middle eastern countries disgusting and possibly morally wrong depending on which country we are talking about. But my moral indignation doesn't protect my money from paying for such wars.Wait, what? Tax exempt status is an entirely separate issue- that's not in the Constitution. :dizzy2:

[Strike For The South]

2 wrongs dont make a right

And in any case this is just another example of why we should have a single payer secular health system

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wait, what? Tax exempt status is an entirely separate issue- that's not in the Constitution. :dizzy2:All I am saying is that religion tore down the wall to get government goodies and now they want to build it back up again when it suits them. In order for them to learn, they gotta take some sort of punishment.
Society is not something you opt into or opt out of. Society simply is. The Church is something you opt into or opt out of, and very few people are influenced by the Church's views who have not already made the choice to "opt in" to the Church. Be careful what you advocate, because we live in a society where laws are based on precedent. You don't engineer society, but you do engineer governments--is this a power you want the government to have? It's not a big leap of imagination to go from unjustly imposing your views on the church to unjustly imposing your views on anything else. You give the church too much credit. Its a voluntary establishment, and you can't take issue with someone because they exist and they exercise the same rights that you would want in their position.Who said anything about engineering society? I am not the one that wants to dictate what marriage is and spend millions of dollars in another state to force government to keep the definition I want. I am not the one that wants to restrict what kind of knowledge kids in sex education learn in order to make sure their minds don't become "deviant". I am not the one that wants to tell the future scientists what science is in the classroom in order to "not feel left out" or "get both sides of the story". I am not the one that demands that third world countries stop using condoms to protect against rampant AIDS infections because it "disgraces" the act due to preventing childbirth.You have it completely backwards GC. Churches have been trying to engineer society to what they feel is right. They don't stand on the sidelines and go about their business. Everyone and everything is a part of society, that is correct. But you can opt in or out of the public sphere. We call those citizens that habitually do so, apathetic. Churches can do it as well. They can even say, "we feel this is wrong" in a public statement. But when they have lobbyists in our Congress, when they have votes on the MPAA review boards to determine what movies are ok for the public to see, and when they post blatant lies all over my television screen about how if we don't pass Prop 8, then gay marriage will be taught in schools, they have already decided to tear down the separation of church and state.The wall works both ways. Government stays out of religions affairs and religion stays out of government affairs. One side broke down the wall, and now they must lie in the bed they made. I don't like it. I wish it didn't come to this. But you honestly can't tell me that religions aren't power players in politics and government polices, if you wanna play the game, you gotta accept the rules. Sometimes you lose.

[rvg]

2 wrongs dont make a right

And in any case this is just another example of why we should have a single payer secular health system

Okay I'm gonna have to play devil's advocate here. The thing is that birth control drugs are used for purposes other than birth control. Example: women go on the pill to prevent ovarian cancer or various cyst growths and such. They take those drugs regardless of whether or not they are sexually active. The Church unfortunately makes no distinction in this case and gives a blanket denial for all use of contraceptives, which is unwise. Thus Barry O. is correct in his approach.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't have a personal problem with birth control. This isn't about birth control - it's about free exercise, freedom of conscience and religious liberty.

Birth control cost 9 bucks for a 3 month supply without insurance. This fight does nothing for anyone other than harm all faiths and increase the likelihood that catholic institutions will stop providing health care to their employees and give them a pay raise to offset, which I would support. Let the government tell the millions of those employees who have been responsibly insured for years that the new law doesn't do anything to their existing coverage. What malarky.

The administration is going to start advocating for taxing Religious institutions in the next 4. The financial penalty for no health coverage will be the first step.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That wasn't an ambiguous statement. Catholic opposition to birth control is doctrine and the real reasons are the same as the stated reasons. Birth control encouraging sex is not that reason. In marriage, sex is encouraged- in fact it's required for a marriage to be considered valid. Yet, married couples are also told not to use birth control.

It has to do with the nature of sexuality. Simply, sex is for enjoyment and as an expression of love, but it's also an act of procreation. Birth control removes half of the purpose of sex and corrupts its nature. This is why the Church opposes it. Incidentally, it's also why the Church will never recognize gay marriage.

I'm certainly not a model Catholic, but I do remember some things from religion class. :yes:

:shrug:


"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law."

I don't see why you believe the stated reason is the same as the real reason. Since priests can't have sex in catholicism, doesn't it seem possible that they allow sex for procreation just because they realistically have to?


Any way you slice it, this seems like a pointless attack on the church. I do not approve. Everyone's trying to cut around the main point which is that the Catholic Church is a life-style choice that hurts nobody but the people who make the choice to follow it


And their employees (of not primarily religious institutions). GCube, don't you think with freedom of religion same as with freedom of speech, the right doesn't necessarily extend into things that are actually immoral? Granted we do allow a ton of leeway, and rightfully so. But there's nothing necessarily wrong with disregarding immoral religious beliefs. Why don't you think this qualifies? It's laughable that they call themselves anti-abortion and don't encourage contraception.

Anyway, it seems likely that this proposal violates the law:


The policy announced by HHS was not only controversial, but potentially illegal as well. Whether or not the contraception mandate violates the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause (and I doubt it did, at least under current doctrine), it is almost certainly violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a law enacted in 1993 to provide additional protection for religious institutions under federal law (for reasons explained by Ed Whelan in these posts). Under RFRA, the federal government is barred from imposing a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion, even if the burden is the result of an otherwise-valid government policy that does not target religious practice, unless the policy satisfies strict scrutiny (i.e. it is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest). This is a substantially more demanding test than is currently imposed under the First Amendment and it is a test the Administration’s policy would have had a hard time satisfying. (Indeed, it’s a test it’s unclear the Administration even considered.)

[Lemur]

Everyone's clear that the insurance rules relate to religious-run institutions, and not religious institutions, right? In other words, St. Yowza Hospital would be required to offer contraception as part of its health plan, but the St. Yowa Cathedral and Nunnery would not. I'm not sure anyone in this thread gives a damn, but that is a distinction. Moreover, you can bet your sweet prehensile tail that every single one of those hospitals takes public money.

Meanwhile, it's nice to see that at least one Bishop (http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=13263) is not a WAR ON RELIGION victim of hyperbole:

A return to civility will be needed for us to fully seize the opportunities this newest development offers us. While the outrage to the HHS decision was understandable, in the long run threats and condemnations have a limited impact. Leaders especially have a responsibility in this regard. They should always be leery of letting a situation escalate to an undesirable degree, particularly if it has the potential of bringing lasting harm to both the church and the nation, and even worse, disproportionately impact the least among us.

[Strike For The South]

Everyone's clear that the insurance rules relate to religious-run institutions, and not religious institutions, right? In other words, St. Yowza Hospital would be required to offer contraception as part of its health plan, but the St. Yowa Cathedral and Nunnery would not. I'm not sure anyone in this thread gives a damn, but that is a distinction. Moreover, you can bet your sweet prehensile tail that every single one of those hospitals takes public money.

Meanwhile, it's nice to see that at least one Bishop (http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=13263) is not a WAR ON RELIGION victim of hyperbole:

A return to civility will be needed for us to fully seize the opportunities this newest development offers us. While the outrage to the HHS decision was understandable, in the long run threats and condemnations have a limited impact. Leaders especially have a responsibility in this regard. They should always be leery of letting a situation escalate to an undesirable degree, particularly if it has the potential of bringing lasting harm to both the church and the nation, and even worse, disproportionately impact the least among us.

Well, it was fun while it lasted

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm still wondering if my Trojan Magnum XL's are going to be covered. And if not, why is the administration discriminating against me? ~:(

[ICantSpellDawg]

The Church isn't violating any of these things. The Church can say "Teach creationism in school!" all they want, but if it actually happens then you have the government to blame. Don't blame the church for the failings of voters. The Church can do nothing to you, and forcing them to do things that are against their religion simply because the current political climate makes it easy to do so amounts to nothing more than a cheap shot that has dire political ramifications whenever your viewpoint is the one that's politically easy to target. Don't think it can't happen, because public opinion is fickle and the government is always happy to expand its powers.

Do you honestly think a law that says "We are allowed to force private religious institutions to break their SELF-IMPOSED beliefs because we find them distasteful" is a good precedent to set? So what if you have problems with the church--be the bigger person and take the high road, and stand up for equal rights. The Church cannot hurt you, ever, no matter how much they irritate you--but the government can.


Yep, you get it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not one for technicalities and legalities, so I'm not going to argue "The Law." Fortunately, I don't think that's what you're doing either, you're trying to engage me in a philosophical debate--and that's just fine, that's something I'm more comfortable doing. However, there are some things we need to get clear:

I'm doing what I always do here. I throw out ideas that pop into my head when I read a thread and I try my best to defend it against people with more life experience.



1. For something to be "good" it has to be fair, or at least attempt to be fair. Right?
Hmm, I would disagree about this. Fair is a nice side effect to try and achieve along with the good, but what is often good is not often fair.



2. Although the church has stood for many terrible things in the past (IMO) and still stands for many things I consider unacceptable, they do have the right to practice their religion. Right?
Of course, but only up to a point. You can't have human sacrifices under the guise of freedom of religion correct? To suggest so, would be....interesting imo.



3. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom to peaceful assembly is still garunteed right?
Yes.



The Church isn't violating any of these things. The Church can say "Teach creationism in school!" all they want, but if it actually happens then you have the government to blame. Don't blame the church for the failings of voters. The Church can do nothing to you, and forcing them to do things that are against their religion simply because the current political climate makes it easy to do so amounts to nothing more than a cheap shot that has dire political ramifications whenever your viewpoint is the one that's politically easy to target. Don't think it can't happen, because public opinion is fickle and the government is always happy to expand its powers.

Who is the cart and who is the horse? Are we going to pretend that the messages of religion to ask it's followers to do it's bidding in government is the government or the followers fault? These people are looking for spiritual guidance and put their trust in their religious institution, of course they will listen to their pastors. Why do the pastors that tell them to do such and such for the church get off scott free simply because they are a pastor? It's manipulative. Gay marriage and birth control has nothing to do with spirituality or findings ones place in the universe or becoming closer to god, it's moral legislation dictated by the churches that orchestrated the movement towards such laws.

Here is the kicker, religions have been telling other religions what to believe through the government under the guise of freedom of religion. Believe it or not, there are many churches that welcome practicing gay marriages and do not find it an abomination. By having the big churches able to shout the loudest in the political theater and have it's followers dictate what marriage is, they are institutionalizing their particular religious beliefs over all other religions/denominations. Clear violation of the Constitutional principles we are talking about here. You cannot enter the public sphere, tell your followers how to vote and what they should support and cry foul when you lose. You are either in or out. Your notion that the church cannot harm me is very, very wrong. Can you honestly say that the Mormon Church which bankrolled Prop 8 in California is not to blame for the sadness that that proposition has brought to many of my gay and lesbian friends?



Do you honestly think a law that says "We are allowed to force private religious institutions to break their SELF-IMPOSED beliefs because we find them distasteful" is a good precedent to set?
Absolutely! Do you think the world is so black and white? When a group goes too far, you rope them in. We wouldn't allow human sacrifices as an official church practice, so we have already established the precedent that it is ok to intervene despite their moral outrage.



So what if you have problems with the church--be the bigger person and take the high road, and stand up for equal rights. The Church cannot hurt you, ever, no matter how much they irritate you--but the government can.


Equal rights? Like the kind the church has been trying to strip away for decades now? Again, what you are saying is just patently false. It does not match up with reality, only an idealized version of what an organized religion does.

[Centurion1]

I'm not one for technicalities and legalities, so I'm not going to argue "The Law." Fortunately, I don't think that's what you're doing either, you're trying to engage me in a philosophical debate--and that's just fine, that's something I'm more comfortable doing. However, there are some things we need to get clear:

1. For something to be "good" it has to be fair, or at least attempt to be fair. Right?
2. Although the church has stood for many terrible things in the past (IMO) and still stands for many things I consider unacceptable, they do have the right to practice their religion. Right?
3. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom to peaceful assembly is still garunteed right?

The Church isn't violating any of these things. The Church can say "Teach creationism in school!" all they want, but if it actually happens then you have the government to blame. Don't blame the church for the failings of voters. The Church can do nothing to you, and forcing them to do things that are against their religion simply because the current political climate makes it easy to do so amounts to nothing more than a cheap shot that has dire political ramifications whenever your viewpoint is the one that's politically easy to target. Don't think it can't happen, because public opinion is fickle and the government is always happy to expand its powers.

Do you honestly think a law that says "We are allowed to force private religious institutions to break their SELF-IMPOSED beliefs because we find them distasteful" is a good precedent to set? So what if you have problems with the church--be the bigger person and take the high road, and stand up for equal rights. The Church cannot hurt you, ever, no matter how much they irritate you--but the government can.



Huh? I think you misread me, or I misread you, or something. I can't stand many christians, and I find the entire mindset deplorable--but I would sooner die than see it okay for any group of people to have their self-imposed beliefs (which can only hurt themselves, and voluntarily at that) trampled on by an indignant majority. It is wrong. Either way, I wasn't replying to you specifically earlier in the thread, it was more general. Maybe that's where the translation error occured?

Just a quick point. THe church believes in evolution.

[a completely inoffensive name]

BUT! Assuming the Christians are out to take YOUR rights, what can you do about it? I'll tell you: You can take a firm stance and set precedent for fair treatment, no matter what. Impose little sucker-punch laws on the Christians and see how long it takes for the animosity to get out of hand. Much better to set a political precedent of acceptance and tolerance, right? Defuse the entire problem?

No, no.. that'd be too easy.

Acceptance and tolerance only work when it is acknowledged and practiced on both sides. This is not the case for america's evangelical movement. They do not accept what is not "proper christian" and they do not not tolerate differences from the norm. Muslim's are demonized. Gays are labeled as sodomites. Candidates like Santorum are able to get 40+% turnout in primaries. People who fundamentally are against the values America was built on. You have acknowledged this yourself about Santorum. He blatantly states that he disagrees with the notion that people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others. He is an enemy of America. I say stupid stuff about Romney or Gingrich or Paul a lot, but I know that they are not really bad. I just disagree with many of their views, which as PanzerJaeger or Xiahou has shown me, is still a very legitimate view of the world. Santorum really is a cancer towards american values. And he is a chosen representative of many, many people in the US.

As long as one side shows utter disregard for the other, there can be no tolerance or acceptance written into law. The Civil Rights Act did not cure america's racial problems. If there is one thing I have taken from right wing pundits, it is that there is a culture war in america currently. We live in a very polarized time, while America is having growing pains transitioning from the 20th century to the 21st century. There is a lot at stake here. We must learn from failed experiments like the French Revolution not to go overboard in trying to clean ourselves up, but the hedges are overgrown so to speak, they need to be trimmed dramatically in many areas, not just religion btw, but also with the garbage that modern liberalism brings as well.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sounds like you want a battle in the streets to end the culture war once and for all. In a way, that's the most fair result of all isn't it? I'd rather everyone got along and got over it, but I don't see these issues going away or getting better. I think this century is gonna suck.
Oh no, I don't want blood in the streets. I would rather have this war waged on the battleground of ideas, in a peaceful fashion.



Either way, I absolutely 100% share your sentiment but we've got different conclusions. I'd rather turn the other cheek, until that is no longer an option, because that's the right thing to do. That's a Christian saying, but it has universal application.

I like that option. But I wouldn't want to take the risk of turning the other cheek and finding my country supporting a President Santorum because the ideology and organizations backing him went unchecked in the public sphere.

[Ronin]

Hadn´t the white house already backed off and reversed their stance like a week ago?
At least that's the impression I got when I watched Real Time last Saturday.

I liked his idea that the white house had floated this purposely to get the right wing anti-sex nutjobs to come out swinging.......it would prove good tactical thinking if that's the case.

[Tellos Athenaios]

how many Americans-to-be came accross the Atlantic specifically so that they could worship in peace.

That would be the early 20th century Jews, then.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And in any case this is just another example of why we should have a single payer secular health system

You mean a single-payer Public System, but Public is the dirty word in the US, so you can't say that.

Plus 1 Internets for Strike for "getting it".

[Strike For The South]

Now take off your pants

[Xiahou]

I don't see why you believe the stated reason is the same as the real reason. Since priests can't have sex in catholicism, doesn't it seem possible that they allow sex for procreation just because they realistically have to?Do you understand that sex is required in a Catholic marriage, not tolerated? Not having sex is grounds for annulment. You have some confused ideas about Catholicism. Go google the catechism and read up.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you understand that sex is required in a Catholic marriage, not tolerated? Not having sex is grounds for annulment. You have some confused ideas about Catholicism. Go google the catechism and read up.

No it is not required, you can apply to the Ordinary for a dispensation, which is considered a pious thing to do -provided you can stick to it. Catholicism, notwithstanding modern populism, regards carnal lust as a sin, except within a marriage for the purposes of procreation. Under traditional Catholic sexulaul theology using a condom is basically a form of masturbation, you are using the woman for your own gratification and not consumating a relationship.

Ergo, if you had sex on your wedding night using a condom, or other form of birth control, you could have the marriage annulled.

Now, all of this comes with the proviso that there is a strand of Catholic theology which has sought to overturn much of this, including the bit about masturbation, but those priests aren't in charge.

Basically, in Christianity everything is a sin, but God will forgive you for all of it if you're sorry - doubly true for Roman Catholics.

[Lemur]

Basically, in Christianity everything is a sin, but God will forgive you for all of it if you're sorry
Pretty sure that not every Christian faith takes this tack. Heck, not every Christian faith is fully compliant with the Nicene Creed.

[Xiahou]

Pretty sure that not every Christian faith takes this tack.Nor does Catholicism, what a load of nonsense.


No it is not required, you can apply to the Ordinary for a dispensation, which is considered a pious thing to do -provided you can stick to it. Baloney.
Intercourse is part of the nature of marriage (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM).


Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.

§2. The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.


Further:


Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pretty sure that not every Christian faith takes this tack. Heck, not every Christian faith is fully compliant with the Nicene Creed.

What do you think Jesus meant when he said, "let he without Sin..."

It's not something you broadcast to the congregation, but it's the basic premise of Original Sin. Man cannot act (or think) without Sin.

For example, helping an old lady accross the street - you do it because you are moved to charity, but you are also aware that you are seen to be helpful and charitable, and that she will be greatful. Therin are the Sins of Pride and Envy.

On the other hand, don't worry about it because we're all flawed and God loves you anyway.

Think about it like your computer - you probably only have a vague understanding of how all those gates and micro switches work, but you understand on a macro level that if your processor overheats the thing will go "boom".


Nor does Catholicism, what a load of nonsense.

Your ignornace of your religion's theological grounding is no reason to be rude.


Baloney.
Intercourse is part of the nature of marriage (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM).

Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.

§2. The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.


Further:

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.


None of which argues against my point for phyisical chastity within marriage, with a dispensation from the Ordinary, and assuming the marriage was at some point consumated.

Take a look:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03637d.htm

http://catholic.nowealthbutlife.com/valid-consummated/

There you go.

Now, can we PLEASE not engage in a debate on Canon Law, it will take weeks.

[Xiahou]

Nevermind, I'm dragging the thread off topic.......

[HoreTore]

Shut the buggers down, I say.

But I am a man of compromise. If someone wants to run a medical facility that does not offer contraceptives, it would be fine if they only treat patients older than 50.

Religious freedom? Hah! Sooooo trumped by the right of the 18-year old woman trapped in religion to recieve the medical attention she needs. Individual rights trumps collective rights. Why has everyone become all Stalin lately?

[HoreTore]

Trapped in religion? There are plenty of free places for a young women to get contraception here in Oregon and anywhere else in the USA, regardless of religious affiliation. If a young women refuses contraception because its against her religion, that's an individual choice,

Ah yes, luckily there's no such thing as social isolation.

You think the teenage daughter of a conervative family wants to go to the "filthy sinner"-clinic? Heck no, she's stuck at the clinic her family uses. When that clinic doesn't hand out contraceptives, in effect means that she does not have access to contraceptives.

She has the choice of becoming a social outcast or follow a religious practice she does not believe in.

[HoreTore]

It would make life easier for the teenager in question if she could get contraceptives at the same clinic the rest of her family uses. Forcing her to choose a different clinic makes her life harder.

But then again, I have no respect for freedom of religion, so....

[rory_20_uk]

Here in the UK there are clinics one can attend for family planning that give out contraception, give no information to the GP and do not need to be registered at. Although there are no GP surgeries that would not give contraception in the first place.

It might not be convenient, but one can always go to a different area to get 3 months of pills. Or not have sex, whichever is the least bothersome.

~:smoking:

[Centurion1]

contraception is radically different from abortion. i can go to the gas station and buy some crappy condoms out of a dispenser whenever i want at whatever age.

[Lemur]

contraception is radically different from abortion.
Yes, but if you oppose abortion, the most logical way to reduce it is to support free or subsidized birth control. There is a connection between the two. Fewer unplanned pregnancies = fewer abortions.

[Centurion1]

Yes, but if you oppose abortion, the most logical way to reduce it is to support free or subsidized birth control. There is a connection between the two. Fewer unplanned pregnancies = fewer abortions.

my point was too horetore that contraception is not in any way difficult to get for free or for a price if you want nicer stuff.

[PanzerJaeger]

She has the choice of becoming a social outcast or follow a religious practice she does not believe in.

She has another choice, and maybe if she is young enough to still be going to the family doctor she should make it.