kimmy Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 I believe it's because they're receiving money from said state. That's an angle I'd be interested in finding out more about. I don't know what, if any, money these institutions we're talking about receive from the government. Catholic Charities is one of the groups that is prominently crying that their first amendment rights are being violated right now. Not only for the health insurance issue, but also because they are being asked to provide services that contradict Catholic values-- notably, adoption for gay couples. One might think, well, gay people wanting to adopt ought to go to some non-religious agency. A religious charity shouldn't have to provide services that are in direct contradiction of their religious views. It certainly sounds reasonable to me. Except that Catholic Charities receives over 55% of its money from the US government-- $2.6 billion out of the $4.67 billion budget. How much of Catholic Charities budget comes from churches and church donations? $140 million. 3% of Catholic Charities' budget actually came from Catholic churches and parishioners. The remainder came from user fees, non-church donations, other levels of government, and so-on. A few years ago the Boy Scouts of America were given the choice: end discriminatory membership policies, or lose access to government sponsorship. Their response was "we will renounce government sponsorship". That's fine, they're a private organization and it's their decision. I think Catholic Charities ought to be given the same choice. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)
Shady Posted February 11, 2012 Author Report Posted February 11, 2012 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Quote
Smallc Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof And they aren't doing that. No one has to use birth control, nothing is being forced upon any person. Quote
kimmy Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof I'm well aware of what it says. You don't appear to understand it very clearly. The first clause ("the establishment clause") prohibits Congress from doing anything to establish an official religion or to favor one over another. (and was later expanded by the 14th amendment to apply to other levels of government as well as Congress). It's prohibiting the establishment of religion, not preventing laws from affecting "religious establishments". And universities and hospitals aren't "religious establishments" anyway. Chick-Fil-A is owned by Christian fundies... should Chick-Fil-A also be exempt from laws Congress passes? As for the second clause, the "exercise clause", I see no reasonable argument as to how adding contraceptives to healthcare plans is preventing anybody from exercising their religion. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 As for the second clause, the "exercise clause", I see no reasonable argument as to how adding contraceptives to healthcare plans is preventing anybody from exercising their religion. Government cannot "reasonably" infringe on the religious freedoms of those who eschew contraception. It would be like legislating abortions be made available in a Catholic hospital. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kimmy Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 Government cannot "reasonably" infringe on the religious freedoms of those who eschew contraception. It would be like legislating abortions be made available in a Catholic hospital. Those who eschew contraception are certainly free to not buy contraceptives... their right to exercise their religion has not been impaired. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)
punked Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof The year is 1990 the case is Employment Division v. Smith the judge is Antonin Scalia. I highly suggest you read it instead of talking out of your butt hole Shady. Quote
Shady Posted February 11, 2012 Author Report Posted February 11, 2012 The year is 1990 the case is Employment Division v. Smith the judge is Antonin Scalia. I highly suggest you read it instead of talking out of your butt hole Shady. Why read that when I can read Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from this year. Religious Groups Given ‘Exception’ to Work Bias LawWASHINGTON — In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference. NYT Significantly, the decision by the Supreme Court was 9 to 0. Yep, all nine Justices agreed. Quote
Shady Posted February 11, 2012 Author Report Posted February 11, 2012 Government cannot "reasonably" infringe on the religious freedoms of those who eschew contraception. It would be like legislating abortions be made available in a Catholic hospital. Exactly. It's not really about contraception anyways. Contraception is widely available, at low-cost or no-cost. It's not even about sterilization or abortion inducing drugs, even though that probably causes greater concern to the church. It's about the power of the federal government, and it's ability to infringe on constitutionally protected rights. Having your birth control, or sterilization, or abortions paid for by other people isn't a right. It's a priviledge. Quote
punked Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Why read that when I can read Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from this year. Significantly, the decision by the Supreme Court was 9 to 0. Yep, all nine Justices agreed. Obama gave the church an exemption Shady he has said they will not have to provide the birth control, that the insurance provider they use however must reach out and ask those who are covered by that employer if they would like it provided. Now the Church has no role to play at all. You clearly don't understand the issues of the case and how it is nothing like Hosaan-Tabor. You might want to read the details of that case unless you think the "ministerial exception" somehow applies here. Please explain how that would apply to this case because that is the issue that case was about. You know the the church can hire and fire based on its religious beliefs. How does this apply in anyway? Does the church want to fire birth control? Why is Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith a better case to look at? Well because the court ruled that as long as a law is generally applicable (meaning that it applies to everyone equally, regardless of religious motive or affiliation) and is otherwise constitutionally valid, then it does not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause. Which is the case here Shady, Obama is saying I am not targeting religious institution I am looking to cover everyone. That argument is going to work here to know why? Because I just founded a religion it is just like Catholicism expect we don't believe in paying taxes and if you make me pay taxes you are infringing on my religion. Same argument. Edited February 11, 2012 by punked Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 Those who eschew contraception are certainly free to not buy contraceptives... their right to exercise their religion has not been impaired. No comprendo....government can't make a Catholic institution pay for products or services that violate church doctrine. There are numerous exceptions that are constitutionally protected. Individual Catholics are free to abide by the church or not. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 the Republican amendment! (6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES — “(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS. — A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Services Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because — “(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or “(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage. So much for "freedom of religion" being as much about freedom from religion as anything else. Quote "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson
olpfan1 Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 If I were Obama I'd tell the Catholic organizations tough luck, you want tax cuts you play by our rules It's real an asinine thing any way to be against contraceptives Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.