Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Freedom of Religion??? Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:09:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:
It is a matter of freedom, and unfortunately it's tied to religion. The freedom at stake is the freedom of non-catholic women to have access to any and all normally (i.e. not forbidden per some religious teaching) available health care, even if their employer opposes it. It's bullshit to expect women to uproot themselves and go elsewhere just to get correct and complete health care coverage, just as it's bullshit for all of the "stay outta my life, gubmint!" people to somehow support the infiltration of religion into health care standards.

It's a rights issue. We don't expect blacks or Latinos who are discriminated against by one type of employer to simply change employers if they're not happy, and women's healthcare should not be left to that same discriminatory standard.



Non-catholic women do have access to any and all available health care. The Catholic church doesn't say N/C women can't obtain birth control, it is only saying they don't want to pay for it as it is against their beliefs. The Catholic church doesn't cover vasectomies either. As for "uprooting", people who are employed aren't suddenly losing a benefit. A new hire would be told about this in the beginning, at least we were, so that doesn't really apply.

I don't really see it as a right's issue over a freedom issue. At least as of right now, Americans do not have the right to employer paid healthcare. Millions of people leave jobs every year because they do not like the salary and/or benefits package.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:19:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


Look up any Congressional scholar to find out the meaning of the First Amendment. What the Framers wrote was that Congress can not make any laws that give one religion more respect than any other. The State cannot establish an official religion. Nor can the State pass any laws forbidding the practice of any religion. This amendment was written as a direct refutation of the fact that England does have a State religion (The Church of England) and one of King George's demands was that we establish the same official State Church here. Since the first settlers came here expressly to escape religious persecution, the Framers goal was to make the establishment of a state religion impossible.

What we're talking about doesn't bar Catholics (or anyone else, for that matter) from practicing their religion, and in no way does it threaten the First Amendment. All it does is ensure that if a religious entity takes government money, then the benefits it gives it's employees must abide by equality laws.



What law are they breaking? What does the role of government money have to do with it? If it is discrimanatory, then it is whether or not government funds are involved or not. Are you saying that it would be ok to discriminate if the entity does not receive funds?

I understand what you're saying. I just disagree. Spending money on parking lots or buildings is a seperate issue. Would we feel better if all CAtholic run business discontinued all health insurance? Would that be better?





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:27:51 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
lafayettemister wrote:



Non-catholic women do have access to any and all available health care. The Catholic church doesn't say N/C women can't obtain birth control, it is only saying they don't want to pay for it as it is against their beliefs. The Catholic church doesn't cover vasectomies either. As for "uprooting", people who are employed aren't suddenly losing a benefit. A new hire would be told about this in the beginning, at least we were, so that doesn't really apply.

I don't really see it as a right's issue over a freedom issue. At least as of right now, Americans do not have the right to employer paid healthcare. Millions of people leave jobs every year because they do not like the salary and/or benefits package.


Right, we can go pay full price for these things, based on the fact that our employer happens to believe their "god" forbids them to do them, and according to you, that's the price a woman pays for working for the catholic church. And what you're suggesting is that if a woman isn't happy with not being covered based on religious hokum rules, that they can leave their job. Sorry, not good enough. It is exactly the same as telling a woman that if she's not happy with an employer providing a hostile work environment, that she has the option to leave. To say otherwise is to justify it based on bias, in addition to carrying water for an organization that won't join the 21st century in terms of what it will allow its insurance policies to cover.

As long as healthcare coverage is available and provided, which in the cases we're discussing it is, it's discriminatory towards their women employees to limit it, especially since the health benefits extend well beyond the simple "women taking the easy way out", which is the way many religious types like to characterize the use of birth control and contraceptives.
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:48:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:


Right, we can go pay full price for these things, based on the fact that our employer happens to believe their "god" forbids them to do them, and according to you, that's the price a woman pays for working for the catholic church. And what you're suggesting is that if a woman isn't happy with not being covered based on religious hokum rules, that they can leave their job. Sorry, not good enough. It is exactly the same as telling a woman that if she's not happy with an employer proving a hostile work environment, that she has the option to leave. To say otherwise is to justify it based on bias, in addition to carrying water for an organization that won't join the 21st century in terms of what it will allow its insurance policies to cover.

As long as healthcare coverage is available and provided, which in the cases we're discussing it is, it's discriminatory towards their women employees to limit it, especially since the health benefits extend well beyond the simple "women taking the easy way out", which is the way many religious types like to characterize the use of birth control and contraceptives.



A hostile work environment isn't protected by the Constitution. Many women, Catholic and Non work for catholic run business. It IS a choice. Funny, thing. My wife worked in the HR dept of a Catholic hospital. Not once did she receive a complaint form an employee about the lack of contraceptive coverage. It may not be an easy choice or one that is taken lightly. At least in my area, there are 2 catholic hospitals and 4 or 5 catholic schools. There are close to 10 non catholic/religious hospitals and hundreds of public and non catholic schools. There are options. If by any chance a person can only find employment at a Catholic institution, I doubt they'll pass up the paycheck because of the pill. If they are morally or ethically opposed to the Catholic church's position on birth control, they are free to decline the job and look elsewhere. We've all taken jobs that we didn't necessarily want. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

And there are dozens of ways to obtain contraception without having to pay full price.

As you know, I do enjoy playing devil's advocate. When we were faced with the notion of having to pay full price for the pill (this was several years ago) we weren't happy either. We relied on condoms. The pill provides many other benefits to a woman's health besides killing off Mr. Spermatazoa. I do think the Catholic church's stance on birth control is stupid and outdated. Especially considering that any catholic woman I know (and most women and men around here are Catholic) uses birth control. Be it the pill, Nuvaring, or condoms. I'm protestant so we don't have this hang-up. We even went to a seminar on the Rhythm Method. Stupid. The instructors of the course had 7 kids... worked real well for them. I think they need to change this piece of old school belief. However, in my opinion, the government should have no say so. It seems absolutely unconstitutional to me.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:55:54 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
The fact that things aren't protected by or listed in the Constitution does not make them any less wrong, or lacking. The fact that certain things are available for twenty-fold the price (i.e. not covered by the health insurance) does not make the issue irrelevant, nor does referencing the old "some things just aren't easy" argument. Anything's available with enough money and time, but it's clearly an equality of care issue, and I applaud the government for attempting to stop it (until they back down to the bullying, which is inevitable).

It's insulting and small-minded to surmise whether a woman will or won't take a job based on this issue. That couldn't be further from the point, and illustrates clearly why women are forced to be strident about it, because so many shrug at the notion that it's important, representative of where we are as a society, and wholly about a persons rights within a system (employee-sponsored health care).

By the way, re: your example, why in the hell (pun intended) would an employee bother to complain to the local HR about centuries-old Vatican contraceptive policy? The church won't change on it's own, we've seen enough to know that, on this issue and others as well. That would be about as futile as asking your Republican congressperson to support women on this issue.



Most things worth fighting for are, in fact , difficult; you're right about that.


Duralex87
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:59:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/5/2010
Posts: 127
Location: Yaounde,Etoudi., Cameroon
religion(whichever u consider) is the only thing left to the 98% people who ever asked themselves where did come anything existing or why something instead of nothing? Only the remaining 2% can pretend to real "FREE-dom". The formers only live an illusion of it till some of them realise how vain most of "their world" is. Then the fearless ones may achieve "LIBERTY". They're what we call psychos.

Trying to sound cool. Too much work left.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:51:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
lafayettemister wrote:



What law are they breaking? What does the role of government money have to do with it? If it is discrimanatory, then it is whether or not government funds are involved or not. Are you saying that it would be ok to discriminate if the entity does not receive funds?

I understand what you're saying. I just disagree. Spending money on parking lots or buildings is a seperate issue. Would we feel better if all CAtholic run business discontinued all health insurance? Would that be better?


I would still feel like their stance was the wrong one, but I'm a big fan of personal liberty being equal to personal responsibility. If I'm not being forced to pay for it, they should have the right to offer their employees whatever benefits package meets OSHA and minimum wage standards. If I am being forced to pay for it, then their benefits packages should also meet HHS minimum standards. In the case of the Catholic Church, there's no doubt that part of my taxes go toward paying their salaries. Why should the church hierarchy NOT have to meet the same standards any other public-supported entity must meet?

Juicyme
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:33:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/7/2011
Posts: 177
Location: between a rock and grad school applications, Unite
This entire debate boils down to which group's rights do we infringe on, women's right to have access to birth control or religious institutions' right to not believe in contraception?
From a health perspective, Birth control has more uses than preventing pregnancy and there isn't a way to really explain why a woman is using it without violating privacy laws. I think that it needs to be offered in some way, even if it involves bringing in a third party option, or not. I understand that the church can disagree with whatever they want to but with the medical advances and benefits that come from birth control, I think that it should be offered.

**Now to play devil's advocate, if these institutions came up with a morality contract that prohibited their employees from using contraception that's a totally different story...
hobbhorn
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:49:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/8/2011
Posts: 320
Location: Andrews
my opinion - church and state must be separate; benefits and rights for the benefit of all may be decided by the state but that does NOT mean that we all need to consume those services or rights. so just because you could access contraception services under your healthcare plan, you don't need to use it if it happens to be against your religion. It would be wrong to exclude whole organizations from eligibility or mandated coverage since it is highly likely as others have observed, that not all people working in those organizations adhere to a single dogma.

of course not everyone will ever agree on what the state should provide or mandate -- that is the beauty of a democracy and a country with cultural diversity - but just because some people's religious dogma doesn't agree with something doesn't make it right (or wrong).
charmbrights
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2012 5:01:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/2/2011
Posts: 192
Location: Tirphil, United Kingdom
Juicyme wrote:
This entire debate boils down to which group's rights do we infringe on, ...
In the UK we have another example of the same problem which, perhaps, puts it in a better perspective as an insoluble problem.

In the UK we have civil partnerships which are civil (ie non-religious) marriages which do not discriminate against same-sex couples. We also have laws on adoption which do not allow discrimination against same-sex couples adopting children.

The Catholic church says that same-sex marriage is not only impossible, but also immoral, and therefore the Catholic Adoption Societies have all now closed down (or dissociated from the Church) rather than be forced to accept same-sex applicants (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7952526/Last-Catholic-adoption-agency-faces-closure-after-Charity-Commission-ruling.html for a report).

What this and your health insurance problem demonstrate is that laws to protect one group's rights can contradict another group's rights, and that no "middle ground" can exist in some cases. I believe you in the USA have the same problem writ large in the matter of abortion.



News of ALL my novels (and where to get free copies) on charmbrights.webs.com/novels.htm.
Buz
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2012 5:50:37 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,778
Location: Atlanta, United States
The government forcing the Catholic church to pay for things that is against its morals is nothing but pure fascism. it is not freedom at all. It is a blatant attack on freedom of religion.

The Catholic church has invited this interference by accepting government tax payer funding. Their huge mistake caused by their own greed.

No government tax money should go to churches. Churches enjoy a tax exempt status because most of them or non-profits and do all kinds of charity work. The Catholic church actually owns for profit business enterprises and gains a distinct advantage over competitors through their status as a church.

Forcing a company to pay for certain health care coverage is an issue of dictatorial socialism vs freedom, democracy & liberty. This is in fact a huge factor in our current economic chaos.

The government is wrong in its dictates. However, I do not feel sorry for the Catholic church for inviting this autocratic government bullying into their church through their own greed.


lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:06:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
Question, since some Catholic institutions have taken tax money, can the government force them to hire women as Priests?

When gay marriage becomes fully legal across the States, as it should be, can the government force Catholic or Baptist or Muslim churches to perform marriage for gay couples?

Can the government force Muslims to allow women to be the Emir of a Muslim Mosque?

Amish children are only educated through the 8th grade and exempt from further education. If they receieve any tax money, can they be forced to attend through 12th grade?

It's a slippery slope. Future administrations, liberal or conservative, could take advantage of this new found power and really fuck up some shit.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:30:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
lafayettemister wrote:
Question, since some Catholic institutions have taken tax money, can the government force them to hire women as Priests?

No. The government can't force an employer to hire someone that doesn't fit his job description. One example - some correctional officer positions that deal with either male or female inmates are strictly limited to same-sex officers. The government can't force a prison to employ a male C.O. in a "female-only" position any more than they can force Hooters to hire male waiters.

When gay marriage becomes fully legal across the States, as it should be, can the government force Catholic or Baptist or Muslim churches to perform marriage for gay couples?

No. Since a church marriage has no legal standing without the accompanying legal contract (the marriage license), it would be kind of foolish to force any entity to perform a purely ceremonial service against its wishes.

Can the government force Muslims to allow women to be the Emir of a Muslim Mosque?

See the answer to the first question.

Amish children are only educated through the 8th grade and exempt from further education. If they receieve any tax money, can they be forced to attend through 12th grade?

Ever hear of home-schooling? Government money or not, Amish kids are home-schooled until they reach 16, at which point they can't be forced to be in school anyway.

It's a slippery slope. Future administrations, liberal or conservative, could take advantage of this new found power and really fuck up some shit.


lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:51:47 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:

No. The government can't force an employer to hire someone that doesn't fit his job description. One example - some correctional officer positions that deal with either male or female inmates are strictly limited to same-sex officers. The government can't force a prison to employ a male C.O. in a "female-only" position any more than they can force Hooters to hire male waiters.

I have seen documentaries where there were female C.O.s working in a male prison. And male C.O.'s working in a female prison. It does happen. Any prison where it doesn't happen, could be forced to employ opposite sex officers if someone pressed the issue. The precedent is set. No, male waiters won't be hired at Hooters. Apples and oranges. A man can't be a Hooter's waiter because he does not possess the necessary "skill set" to perform the duty. A woman does have the physical and mental ability to do a priest's job. She is only prevented from the position for the sole fact that she's a woman. Depsite her education and ability in the field. Many other churches have allowed women into the clergy. Rightly so.



Ever hear of home-schooling? Government money or not, Amish kids are home-schooled until they reach 16, at which point they can't be forced to be in school anyway.

Actually, Amish children are educated through the 8th grade and around the age of 14. Amish students, called scholars are not home schooled. They go to one room schools in groups of 25-35 scholars. Only men serve on the school board. A 1972 Supreme Court decision upheld the right to religious liberty in the school.









When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2012 3:17:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
lafayettemister wrote:

I have seen documentaries where there were female C.O.s working in a male prison. And male C.O.'s working in a female prison. It does happen. Any prison where it doesn't happen, could be forced to employ opposite sex officers if someone pressed the issue. The precedent is set. No, male waiters won't be hired at Hooters. Apples and oranges. A man can't be a Hooter's waiter because he does not possess the necessary "skill set" to perform the duty. A woman does have the physical and mental ability to do a priest's job. She is only prevented from the position for the sole fact that she's a woman. Depsite her education and ability in the field. Many other churches have allowed women into the clergy. Rightly so.



I'll take your word for it when it comes to Amish students. But having worked in the law enforcement field, I must correct you on the latter. There will always be male and female officers working in jails and prisons, no matter who that jail or prison happens to house. Inside the jail or prison, there are posts which are restricted to "male-only" or "female-only" workers. For example, due to the housing considerations in the women's infirmary, only female corrections officers are allowed to be employed there. Same goes in the men's infirmary. Every facility has emergency response teams (known by a variety of acronyms like SRT or ERT) and the members of those teams are the biggest, baddest men in the facility. Women are not employed to be in SRT. And Hooters won't hire male waiters because they lack the "skill set" - it's because they lack the tits. Not apples and oranges at all. Certain jobs are restricted by gender. That's all there is to it.

lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2012 3:26:20 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


I'll take your word for it when it comes to Amish students. But having worked in the law enforcement field, I must correct you on the latter. There will always be male and female officers working in jails and prisons, no matter who that jail or prison happens to house. Inside the jail or prison, there are posts which are restricted to "male-only" or "female-only" workers. For example, due to the housing considerations in the women's infirmary, only female corrections officers are allowed to be employed there. Same goes in the men's infirmary. Every facility has emergency response teams (known by a variety of acronyms like SRT or ERT) and the members of those teams are the biggest, baddest men in the facility. Women are not employed to be in SRT. And Hooters won't hire male waiters because they lack the "skill set" - it's because they lack the tits. Not apples and oranges at all. Certain jobs are restricted by gender. That's all there is to it.


I was agreeing that there are male and female officers in prison. And I'm sure there are gender specific places within. Stands to reason.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:57:38 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,353
Location: United States
Buz wrote:
Juicyme makes a good point about receiving government money. If these Catholic hospitals are receiving government money then they have to accept the fascist rules and dogma of the government or they can turn that money down. A simple choice, raise all the money on their own and do what they wish OR accept government money and adhere to those stipulations.

Maybe the Catholics wouldn't have a problem fund raising if they could get their priests to keep their hands out of little boys pants! I seriously doubt saying 40 "Hail Mary's and Full of Grace" is going to get their sins forgiven.

How many Pope's will inhabit hell?
A. All of them
B. Most of them


Absolutely. Whoever pays the fiddler gets to call the tune. The leadership of the Catholic church doesn't need birth control. You can't get altar boys pregnant. They want to enforce their morality, such as it is, on everyone else and they want the rest of us to pay for it. They need to reform themselves first.

The entire anti birth control movement that seems to be dominating the religious right these days, Catholic and Protestant, is anti-woman. Keeping women in their place is their main goal. Denying women the right to decide what to do with their bodies, whether to have sex, and whether to use contraception if they do, is part of that.

Their morally superior stance would be more believable if they could keep their dicks under their robes.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:16:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


Absolutely. Whoever pays the fiddler gets to call the tune. The leadership of the Catholic church doesn't need birth control. You can't get altar boys pregnant. They want to enforce their morality, such as it is, on everyone else and they want the rest of us to pay for it. They need to reform themselves first.

The entire anti birth control movement that seems to be dominating the religious right these days, Catholic and Protestant, is anti-woman. Keeping women in their place is their main goal. Denying women the right to decide what to do with their bodies, whether to have sex, and whether to use contraception if they do, is part of that.

Their morally superior stance would be more believable if they could keep their dicks under their robes.


Actually, Southern Baptists and United Methodist, the two largest Protestant churches in the U.S., believe that birth control is a moral decision left up to each family. They do not ban the use of contraception. I'm unaware of any anti birth control movement. I haven't seen or heard anything on the news or in the papers or on the internet trying to convice people to stop using birth control. No church that I know of is denying any woman the right to decide what they can or can't do to their bodies. The Catholic church only says they don't want to pay for it. Women can still obtain the pill.








When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
ArtMan
Posted: Saturday, February 11, 2012 3:03:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 640
Location: South Florida, United States
LM is right, the Protestant churches such as the Baptists, Methodists, etc all have no problem with birth control pills, condoms, etc. I think their only concern would be abortion and that is because many of them believe that human life begins at conception. You will even find many Baptists, Methodists, etc that also differ on this and think abortion is okay up to a certain time (disagreeing on when human life begins.) That all is another argument though, and I must say I have no answer as to when human life begins and at which point it is just birth control or when it becomes murder. All I can do is rely on the opinion of the medical community on this.

The other concern is that birth control is NOT free. It has to be paid for by someone. The drug companies manufacture the pills at a certain expense, condom companies must manufacture the condoms at a certain cost. Then there is the distribution costs, etc. Who should pay for all of this?

If you say the employer, then you must consider that they must make up the cost somewhere. Higher prices for goods or services (creating inflation), less salary for the employee, or fewer employees.

The insurance company? Then again, they must make the cost up somewhere. Where? Higher insurance premiums, higher deductibles.

The government? Then we all pay for it through higher taxes. And government bureaucracy tends to be the most expensive source of all.

The employee? Out of pocket? Either way, the employee will be paying the costs. See the above.

Nothing is free. It never has been and it never will be, as that is an impossibility.




You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, February 11, 2012 6:36:06 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,288
Location: Cakeland, United States
lafayettemister wrote:
Can the U.S. government force religious organizations to provide coverage and/or payment for services and drugs that they are morally and religiously opposed to? Do Catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals fall under the same umbrella as the Catholic church itself? Is this in direct violation of the First Amendment? How does this fit into the Separation of Church and State? If Catholic organizations can be interfered with by goverment, does the church have the right to interfere with the government? This law would also overstep and override a provision in several states' laws that exempt religious organizations from such things.

Well Lush?


You folks are all acting like this is some brand new intrusion or policy which is being thrust upon us by just this particular US President. And you older (like me) men & women who are also coherent Americans should all remember when this shit was started, and particularly when it was escalated.

This is merely Obama's added flavor to what Bush 43s Faith-Based Initiative, Clinton (Charitable Choice) and Mr. Kinder & Gentler - Bush 41 (Thousand Points of Light) all implemented before him.

Obama told us before he was ever elected...That he was digging on Dubya's initiative. And he was going to keep it! Not to be outdone, McCain also said he was going to continue 'it' too - if elected!

At least Clinton & Obama waited 3 years in their attempts to slide this shit under our noses. Both Bushes pulled their shit off within two weeks of taking office. Daddy implemented it during his inauguration speech and Junior forced/foisted his with one of his several hundred executive orders within 9 days of taking office in 2001!

About all we can do is protest shit when we don't like it. They might throw us a bone occasionally, but usually their actions tell us to go jump in a frigg'n tar pit. You see where organized protestors are placed (the last several years) when a political leader comes to your city or marches off to give a publicity stump speech somewhere, don't you?



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
ArtMan
Posted: Saturday, February 11, 2012 9:53:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 640
Location: South Florida, United States
WellMadeMale you are very right. Government intrusion has been forwarded by several of the most recent presidents. None more than George W. Bush. Bush had an agenda which included finishing what his daddy couldn't with Saddam Hussein and gaining control of Iraq's oil. George W. Bush was not a conservative. Not at all. No he was all about his own agenda and helping his friends get richer and using the White House and trampling on the Constitution to do s . He left the door wide open for Barack Obama, who has shown no interest in closing the doors to all this new government intrusion. Obama has an agenda also, at first mostly the promotion of far left wing socialists policies, but more recently his agenda has just been to save his political neck. Bush and Obama may have some differences in their agendas but mostly there is almost no difference between these two. Bush set new records in government spending during his tenure as president and Obama has shattered those spending records. We now have endured 12 years of the worst presidential leadership in US history. Worst of all, we the citizens of the USA have seen more of our rights to privacy, personal liberties and freedoms vanish than ever before.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

Ruthie
Posted: Saturday, February 11, 2012 10:34:07 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,353
Location: United States
lafayettemister wrote:


Actually, Southern Baptists and United Methodist, the two largest Protestant churches in the U.S., believe that birth control is a moral decision left up to each family. They do not ban the use of contraception. I'm unaware of any anti birth control movement. I haven't seen or heard anything on the news or in the papers or on the internet trying to convice people to stop using birth control. No church that I know of is denying any woman the right to decide what they can or can't do to their bodies. The Catholic church only says they don't want to pay for it. Women can still obtain the pill.




In George W. Bush's first budget, he did away with the requirement that covered nine million government employees for birth control. He was a supporter of abstinence only sex-education, and absolutely opposed to teaching young people about birth control. States have passed legislation that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, notably Mississippi and Michigan. There is an all out effort on the part of the religious right and the conservative wing of the Republican party to defund Planned Parenthood, using the 3% of money that they use for abortions as an excuse.

Mary Pride, an evangelical Christian, started the Quiverful movement to discourage women from using birth control. Another such organization is One More Soul, which you can check out here. http://onemoresoul.com/

Part of the religious rights reason for being anti birth control is that they are anti sex in general, and want sex to be only for procreation. Another part though is their belief that the male sex is superior to the female and that the female has to be kept in subjugation. One way to do that is to deny us our right to explore our sexuality. They are opposed even to the teaching of how to prevent AIDS and other STDs in schools, and see the threat of pregnancy as a tool to discourage women from having sex.

All of this, of course, is pretty much beside the point, which is government interference in religion. That seems to me to be just warping the real story, which is religious people's eagerness to enforce their moral values on everyone else. I am all for letting people who don't want to use birth control have all the babies they want, but I'm a little sick of them insisting that the rest of us follow their example.

The faith based initiatives that conservatives were so keen on when Bush was president are coming back to bite them in the ass. They want to be able to use tax payer money to finance their moral agenda, to keep women in their place and put gay people back in the closet. Of course the question will soon be moot anyway as President Obama will roll over as usual and the right wingers will get what they want.

There is plenty of information on both Catholic and Evangelical Christian anti-birth control movements, all you have to do is look for it. I'm not surprised you haven't bothered though, since no matter what you believe about birth control, the morning after pill or abortion, you'll never be in the position where you actually need any of them.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:51:43 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,288
Location: Cakeland, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


All of this, of course, is pretty much beside the point, which is government interference in religion. That seems to me to be just warping the real story, which is religious people's eagerness to enforce their moral values on everyone else. I am all for letting people who don't want to use birth control have all the babies they want, but I'm a little sick of them insisting that the rest of us follow their example.

The faith based initiatives that conservatives were so keen on when Bush was president are coming back to bite them in the ass. They want to be able to use tax payer money to finance their moral agenda, to keep women in their place and put gay people back in the closet. Of course the question will soon be moot anyway as President Obama will roll over as usual and the right wingers will get what they want.



BINGO! We have a winner.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2012 7:28:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


In George W. Bush's first budget, he did away with the requirement that covered nine million government employees for birth control. He was a supporter of abstinence only sex-education, and absolutely opposed to teaching young people about birth control. States have passed legislation that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, notably Mississippi and Michigan. There is an all out effort on the part of the religious right and the conservative wing of the Republican party to defund Planned Parenthood, using the 3% of money that they use for abortions as an excuse.

Mary Pride, an evangelical Christian, started the Quiverful movement to discourage women from using birth control. Another such organization is One More Soul, which you can check out here. http://onemoresoul.com/

Part of the religious rights reason for being anti birth control is that they are anti sex in general, and want sex to be only for procreation. Another part though is their belief that the male sex is superior to the female and that the female has to be kept in subjugation. One way to do that is to deny us our right to explore our sexuality. They are opposed even to the teaching of how to prevent AIDS and other STDs in schools, and see the threat of pregnancy as a tool to discourage women from having sex.

All of this, of course, is pretty much beside the point, which is government interference in religion. That seems to me to be just warping the real story, which is religious people's eagerness to enforce their moral values on everyone else. I am all for letting people who don't want to use birth control have all the babies they want, but I'm a little sick of them insisting that the rest of us follow their example.

The faith based initiatives that conservatives were so keen on when Bush was president are coming back to bite them in the ass. They want to be able to use tax payer money to finance their moral agenda, to keep women in their place and put gay people back in the closet. Of course the question will soon be moot anyway as President Obama will roll over as usual and the right wingers will get what they want.

There is plenty of information on both Catholic and Evangelical Christian anti-birth control movements, all you have to do is look for it. I'm not surprised you haven't bothered though, since no matter what you believe about birth control, the morning after pill or abortion, you'll never be in the position where you actually need any of them.


George W. Bush isn't the the head of any church. He's abstinence only stance is absurd. Couldn't agree with you more there. I firmly believe sex-ed should be more appropriate with the times. As do just about every person I know, Christian/religious or not.

I don't know all that much about Mary Pride. But a quick google search shows me she believes in Natrual Family Planning. It's a shit plan. But I don't see her attempting to get NFP into schools or government. She's entitled to believe whatever she likes. And she can try to convince whomever she wishes, as long as she doesn't use tax dollars.

In this case, there is no "forcing of religious values". THIS particular issue is with the governement mandating the Catholic church to fund services it finds immoral. I don't know the numbers, but I'd guess that Catholic run instituions/business/employers in the U.S. represent a very very smalll percentage of employers as a whole. No one is forcing anyone to work for a Catholic instituion. If I worked for a Pro-Life business, I bet I wouldn't be allowed to pass out pamplets on abortion. If I worked at Planned Parenthood, they probably wouldn't let me preach about abstinence. The Catholic church is not denying anyone anything. They just say they don't want to pay for it. They should have that right.

In reference to above, you said Catholic and Protestant were anti-women. Now you are talking about Evangelical Christians. Not the same thing. The Methodist church for instance is fully supportive of women. Women have total equality in the Methodist church, serve on every level. From asso. Pastor up to Bishop. I myself know am friends with an Elder in the Methodist church who is a raging feminist. Evangelical Christians are WAAYY to the right. Akin to the most extreme of Muslim, blinded by their devotion.

This is not an anti-birth control movement. The Catholic church has been against the use of birth control for ever. This is nothing new. And there isn't a parade of Catholics campaigning for the ban of all birht control. This is about one central issue. Can the government force a religious instituion to provide service in which it is morally opposed. My stance is no, despite what anyone believes. Including myself, because I do use and think birth control is a goodt hing. But teh First Amendment protects against this. Your last sentence is most troubling. So anyone who isn't a parent shouldn't and can't have an opinion on parenting? You don't knwo what I did or didn't research. Is my opinion invalid since I'm a man? So, if it's an issue about anything dealing with women I should just keep my mouth shut? Interesting.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2012 7:36:47 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
I can't, and won't, speak for CoopsRuthie, but the sentiment among many women (including myself) is that a major by-product of both politics and religion being run by men is that women's concerns get marginalized. Sometimes, that's intentional and/or the whole point of holding the power within the male gender, and sometimes it's not, but it's nevertheless easy for people to side with an oppressive stance when they aren't the ones being oppressed.

You know, nobody forced blacks to apply for positions with racist employers in the 1950s and 60s, either, but that didn't absolve employers of their responsibility to offer fair employment opportunities to all. There was nothing in the constitution about equality and equal opportunity, either, but that doesn't make it any less essential.

It's a callous argument to tell women to just find other work, or spend some bricks of cash that they otherwise would have insurance for, if they don't like it.
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2012 8:21:37 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
I'm not siding with their stance. Like I mentioned earlier, my wife worked for a Catholic hospital. We thought it sucked to have to pay for birth control. When a better opportunity came along, she changed jobs. And not just because of the birth control thing. It was a shitty place to work anyway, full of unnecessary drama. I think their stance is fucking idiotic. I could understand it for any employees of a Cahtolic church. Like the actuall church/cathedral. But rolling it out to anyone who works for any form of Catholic school or hospital or whatever seems over reaching. But, as long as those are still considered to be under the same umbrella I don't see the constitutionality of mandating it.

I'm siding only with the illegality of forcing it. What is the role of religion in life if the government can come in and alter the religious beliefs of any religious group? It no longer is religion at that point. Health care is not a protected class of citizen. Would it be better if the church stopped offering health insurance at all? To men and women? Maybe stop offering insurance but instead up everyone's pay to cover what the business was paying as their portion of insurace before?

This isn't about whether or not it's wrong. But whether or not it's legal. I agree that not allowing non-Catholic women in Catholic business to have coverage for the pill is shitty and wrong. I truly believe in total equality, for all genders, races, creeds, sexual orientation. This isnt' about emotion or feelings. I feel it's stupid. But I also feel the First Amendment protects against a mandate such as this. It isn't about what I think or what I believe. It's about what is legal.


edit... Planned Parenthood and The Catholic Health Assoc. both support the change to Pres. Obama's plan





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2012 1:26:20 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,288
Location: Cakeland, United States
Wiki -
Catholic Charities uses about 89% of its revenue for program costs.

Catholic Charities received a total of nearly $2.9 billion from the US government in 2010. In comparison, its annual revenue was $4.67 billion. Only about $140 million came from donations from diocesan churches, the remainder coming from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees, and community donations.

Almost 3 billion. In one year. I haven't looked further, but that's a lot of wafers and grape juice since 2001.


The Supreme court in Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) held that paying taxes does not give a person standing to challenge how the government spends public funds because the government's spending does not actually injure particular taxpayers. This case established the general rule that taxpayers do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of government expenditures.

In Flast v. Cohen (1968), however, the high court found an exception to this rule in Establishment Clause challenges. The Flast case involved a lawsuit brought by a taxpayer challenging federal legislation that provided funding to both religious and secular schools. The court held that the taxpayer had standing because the constitutional provision in question, the Establishment Clause, specifically limits the government's power to spend money on religious activities.

Our Federal and State governments should not be in bed with any of the religious organizations of this country. Remove that link as per the Establishment clause and this argument becomes non-existent.

If your organization is going to accept federal funding then your organization should damn well follow the rest of the rules of this republic's civilization. Don't want to play ball? -- Don't accept government funding.

Some of you people think it's perfectly acceptable to make people who are applying for or using welfare or receiving unemployment monies - submit to drug testing. Yet the religious organizations of this country get a free pass? Similar thinking was foisted on us by Dubya in January 2001.


6

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2012 1:56:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
Wiki -
Catholic Charities uses about 89% of its revenue for program costs.

Catholic Charities received a total of nearly $2.9 billion from the US government in 2010. In comparison, its annual revenue was $4.67 billion. Only about $140 million came from donations from diocesan churches, the remainder coming from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees, and community donations.

Almost 3 billion. In one year. I haven't looked further, but that's a lot of wafers and grape juice since 2001.


The Supreme court in Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) held that paying taxes does not give a person standing to challenge how the government spends public funds because the government's spending does not actually injure particular taxpayers. This case established the general rule that taxpayers do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of government expenditures.

In Flast v. Cohen (1968), however, the high court found an exception to this rule in Establishment Clause challenges. The Flast case involved a lawsuit brought by a taxpayer challenging federal legislation that provided funding to both religious and secular schools. The court held that the taxpayer had standing because the constitutional provision in question, the Establishment Clause, specifically limits the government's power to spend money on religious activities.

Our Federal and State governments should not be in bed with any of the religious organizations of this country. Remove that link as per the Establishment clause and this argument becomes non-existent.

If your organization is going to accept federal funding then your organization should damn well follow the rest of the rules of this republic's civilization. Don't want to play ball? -- Don't accept government funding.

Some of you people think it's perfectly acceptable to make people who are applying for or using welfare or receiving unemployment monies - submit to drug testing. Yet the religious organizations of this country get a free pass? Similar thinking was foisted on us by Dubya in January 2001.


6



If an organization doesn't accept federal funding, they don't have to follow thre rules of the republic? If Exxon or Apple decide to stop receiving monies from the government, they can decide their own rules? Hire/fire by whatever standard they see fit? Discriminatory or not? So you're saying, if the Catholic church stops taking government funding, it will then be ok to discriminate against women by not offering coverage/payment for birth control? Indirectly, you are saying that denying this coverage isn't discrimination, but a matter of governmental financial rules. And if an organization must follow "the rules of this republic's civilization", isn't the First Amendment one of those rules? If the government can ignore it's #1 rule in the rulebook, then the rulebook should just be thrown out completely.

If denying birth control coverage is against the rules, then it just is against the rules. Whether or not government money is involved is irrelevant. If it's wrong, it's wrong either way. The legality of discrimination isn't contingent upon the source of the money being spent.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2012 2:25:15 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Are we getting a little broad with the whole 'first amendment' argument to assert that their rights are being infringed upon by not allowing them to exclude certain provisions of women's health care? The above quote is the only statement regarding religion in the first amendment of the constitution.

Is their ability to establish themselves as catholics at stake? no.
Are they free to practice as catholics in society? yes.

So, in order to assert that their first amendment rights are being violated, you have to make the argument that not allowing them to exclude certain provisions of healthcare from the insurance policies that they offer to employees represents a violation of their ability to exercise their religion. That seems like a stretch.

If they were forced to use birth control or receive abortions, then I'd buy it. But the responsibility to practice religion should depend on the individual who practices it. Because coverage of a procedure, pill, or device is available does not mean that those covered are bound to take advantage of them.

As it is, especially since Obama caved in, religion is being allowed to impose it's "values" on those in their employ. Those who work for them have no relationship to the religion itself (and if they do, it's coincidental). So why are they given so much leeway here? Lots of people have all kinds of personal leanings, definitions of right and wrong, etc. But, cloaked in religion, people's benefits get redefined?

I really have a hard time seeing a religion's ability to practice freely being endangered by allowing Blue Cross or Humana to offer the 3% of their total coverage that rubs the Vatican the wrong way.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:27:41 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,288
Location: Cakeland, United States
lafayettemister wrote:


If an organization doesn't accept federal funding, they don't have to follow thre rules of the republic? If Exxon or Apple decide to stop receiving monies from the government, they can decide their own rules? Hire/fire by whatever standard they see fit? Discriminatory or not?


Those are corporations, Mister. As fare as I know, people are not asked to donate their money directly to entities of this nature, although I suppose that purchasing stock in those companies might qualify as such. Those companies don't really follow most of the commonplace rules of this republic anyway. Hell, they offshore 99% of their manufacturing to 3rd world countries where they aren't regulated, overseen or bothered by being humanitarians in the least.

If you think you were fired (for instance) and were discriminated against (choose your reason), it's up to you to prove that. Fortune 1000 corporations bend and break the 'rules' all the time. You think their Human Resources departments are there to help you or the employees? lol Those departments are there to protect the corporation. Can you exist within their framework/world...trading your time/work for their agreed upon wages? It is up to us all to determine how much bullshit we're willing to settle for in this life, when dealing with religious organizations, corporations, governments, etc...

lafayettemister wrote:

So you're saying, if the Catholic church stops taking government funding, it will then be ok to discriminate against women by not offering coverage/payment for birth control?

The Catholic church has been discriminating women for centuries. Prior to 2001, they were doing so with donations, extortion and outright warfare/theft. Is it okay? I don't think so, but...you pick your battles in life, dude. I choose to ignore that outfit like I do the Apple conglomerate.

lafayettemister wrote:

Indirectly, you are saying that denying this coverage isn't discrimination, but a matter of governmental financial rules. And if an organization must follow "the rules of this republic's civilization", isn't the First Amendment one of those rules? If the government can ignore it's #1 rule in the rulebook, then the rulebook should just be thrown out completely.


No, I'm not saying anything indirectly, I'm being quite direct. This country was put on this slope by George HW Bush, continued by Slick Willie, escalated by Dubya and it is being further modified by Mr Hope & Change/cave. I've already stated my piece to my state representatives. I'm repeating it here.

lafayettemister wrote:

If denying birth control coverage is against the rules, then it just is against the rules. Whether or not government money is involved is irrelevant. If it's wrong, it's wrong either way. The legality of discrimination isn't contingent upon the source of the money being spent.


How many companies have I worked for which didn't even offer any type of insurance benefits? Too many to even try to recount. As far as I'm aware, those companies were not receiving direct funding from the US Government though. The Catholic Church (and all other religious organizations who participate in taking funds from the US Government) just want to have their cake and eat it in peace.

They're telling everyone else to go fuck off. I'm saying, give back the 25 billion plus of OUR gawddamned money, you bunch of crooked whores. And I'm telling my elected state senators and representatives to grow a spine and revoke Bush's 2001 executive order. But only Obama can do that. He'll only do it if he feels the heat on this.

Hell, on his first day in office he revoked this executive order. Although he's still covering his ass with his own wording on that one.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.