Obama Tries To Force Catholic Institutions To Provide Contraceptives

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wait, what? Tax exempt status is an entirely separate issue- that's not in the Constitution.

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.

"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 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 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.

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.

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.

[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.