• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Just because the government is forcing religious organizations to cover contraceptives and what not, it doesn't mean they're forcing their use. I mean if everyone in that organization is of the same belief, they won't be paying for contraceptives anyway. We pay for lots of stuff we may not support on a moral basis but it doesn't change the fact that we still must pay for them.
 
Something to consider is the speed of information and accessibility to information at the time. Also, let's not forget that the highest leaders of American politics at the time (President, Senators, and Supreme Court) were not popularly elected. If they had been popularly elected and the people of America knew how they felt on all these subjects I doubt they would have gotten far politically.

The truth is sometimes I wonder if the popular vote affecting the presidency and senate have harmed the people in these positions from actually doing what they believe is right. The popular vote seems to work much better in smaller groups where the consistency of a group is usually far more similar. A town can usually on what it's local problems are, even if they can't easily decide solutions, and it also easier to change direction at the local level if need be. National politics change much slower, from FDR through Carter the country was leaning more to the left than ever before, even the "conservative" officials (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford) leaned to left on a bunch of issues. From Reagan through now the country is leaning to the right, both Clinton and Obama had cut ties with parts of their base and embrace ideas of the right (or at least tolerate them) in order to gain the political traction needed to win. That is a conservative swing of so far 30 years, the was preceded by a liberal swing of 45-50 years. national politics change very slowly by comparison to local politics.

On the national election scale, and even the state-wide election scale when it comes it Senators, but especially at the national level elections it forces people running for office to pander to way too many groups. This causes great inconsistencies in their beliefs. Many times surrendering what they feel is right, for what they can deal with without losing an election. Also, on some level I feel that pandering to special interests would decrease with getting rid of the popular vote at those levels. You wouldn't need as much money to just try to win over a few hundred electors. I know the popular vote makes us freer, but damn if it doesn't bites back when we're idiots.

Also the popular vote makes it harder for national elections to ever be more than a two party race. If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1796 you'll notice in the electoral breakdown that it was quite a competition. Even tighter in 1800. These candidates Adams in 1796 and Jefferson in 1800 won on pluralities, not even on majorities, that's how the competition was back then with no meaningful popular vote. Just in the past 100 years or so how many non-Democrats/Republicans have won even one electoral vote?

Anyway, I'm going to cut myself off, I am ranting.
 
Blide said:
Just because the government is forcing religious organizations to cover contraceptives and what not, it doesn't mean they're forcing their use. I mean if everyone in that organization is of the same belief, they won't be paying for contraceptives anyway. We pay for lots of stuff we may not support on a moral basis but it doesn't change the fact that we still must pay for them.
Click to expand...


I still have to pay for wars that go against my moral values.
 
Blide said:
Just because the government is forcing religious organizations to cover contraceptives and what not, it doesn't mean they're forcing their use. I mean if everyone in that organization is of the same belief, they won't be paying for contraceptives anyway. We pay for lots of stuff we may not support on a moral basis but it doesn't change the fact that we still must pay for them.
Click to expand...

What happened to religious freedom? Even you said it... the government is forcing religious organizations to do something. More so, they are forcing something that is in violation of their religious beliefs. I know that there are several people in here who are against my belief in the matter. But I am of the mind that there are absolute truths and right and wrongs based on those truths. What the government is doing is wrong. It is simple as that. We cannot have freedom of religion when the government requires the religion to violate their own beliefs. What next, they need to cover the cost of abortion? Where does it stop?

The sad thing is it is a step further towards complete elimination of our freedoms as outlined in the constitution.

But then again, this is common place in today's society. There is an outcry when the government wants to control the internet or when the government does not take enough money from the wealthy (and blame the wealthy) but think that violating religious freedom is totally acceptable.
 
imaplanner said:
And that vegetarians have to eat meat and meat eaters can't eat meat and red haired people have to die their hair!!! where will it stop!!!! :p


Although realistically I would support requiring Amish to be vaccinated. People that don't get vaccinated are a health risk to the rest of us.

On the topic of birth control, there are many communities where the only providers are religious based and people just don't have access to important medicine because of it.
Click to expand...

Is there not something to be said about the choice to live where you want to? If I move to a heavily religious area ( I hope to never do so), but if I do I expect that certain things would be frowned upon/ hard to procure in that area. It is the "price" of freedom. If you want to be free to live in a heavily religious area you need to take the "good" and the "bad", just like if you dislike social services spending and higher tax rates, but you want good schools for you kids and greater job opportunities you might opt to live in a more liberal area. But you still don't like everything going on, but you suck it up. You can't win them all, but you have a saying as to where you live for the most part. *Your wallet has more of say usually, but in many cases (I'd say most cases) that is dependent on choices that you made so in effect you are still choosing where you end up*. Trying to force your version of utopia (not that you specifically are doing so) on the them, is just as bad as if they were to try and do so to you. Which, I am sure you would not appreciate.

*Obviously, there are notable exceptions, some people in extreme poverty will have a much harder time accomplishing this.

Now, I'll admit that certain are medical necessities and all places should be able to perform them. I'm not against that, but it should only be things that are life-death or can be become life-death. Honestly, though I support birth-control fully (with the exception of non-life threatening late term abortion/partial birth, if you even consider abortion under the birth-control umbrella) I don't see how birth-control would fall under such an umbrella. Now, of course, perhaps I am completely overlooking something as I am basically thinking about male/female condoms, the pill, Plan B, vasectomy, tube tying, and abortion.
 
michaelskis said:
What happened to religious freedom? Even you said it... the government is forcing religious organizations to do something. More so, they are forcing something that is in violation of their religious beliefs. I know that there are several people in here who are against my belief in the matter. But I am of the mind that there are absolute truths and right and wrongs based on those truths. What the government is doing is wrong. It is simple as that. We cannot have freedom of religion when the government requires the religion to violate their own beliefs. What next, they need to cover the cost of abortion? Where does it stop?
Click to expand...

It's forcing their health care policies to cover those things - i.e., financially. It is not forcing their members to actually do those things.

It's no different from the Iraq war in my opinion. I was opposed to it, yet a large chunk of my tax dollars went to pay for it. However, I wasn't forced to serve in the military, just as church members won't be forced to go have abortions or use contraceptives (though in the case of Catholics, the vast majority of them already use birth control anyways... so it only makes sense for their health care to cover birth control accordingly).
 
michaelskis said:
Ok, I am confused... in this POST you said that the government should stay out of it.


But here you say that they should get involved? How can you have it both ways?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is having it both ways. You are correlating my belief that government should allow religion to be left alone in a purely structural sense, with the governments ability (and in my view requirement) to provide services to all citizens no matter their race, religion, etc.

I think Blide hit the nail on the head...
Blide said:
Just because the government is forcing religious organizations to cover contraceptives and what not, it doesn't mean they're forcing their use. I mean if everyone in that organization is of the same belief, they won't be paying for contraceptives anyway. We pay for lots of stuff we may not support on a moral basis but it doesn't change the fact that we still must pay for them.
Click to expand...

Use is not being required. Protecting those who want to use them is. Very different from my perspective.

Edit: Then I saw this post....
michaelskis said:
What happened to religious freedom? Even you said it... the government is forcing religious organizations to do something. More so, they are forcing something that is in violation of their religious beliefs. I know that there are several people in here who are against my belief in the matter. But I am of the mind that there are absolute truths and right and wrongs based on those truths. What the government is doing is wrong. It is simple as that. We cannot have freedom of religion when the government requires the religion to violate their own beliefs. What next, they need to cover the cost of abortion? Where does it stop?

The sad thing is it is a step further towards complete elimination of our freedoms as outlined in the constitution.

But then again, this is common place in today's society. There is an outcry when the government wants to control the internet or when the government does not take enough money from the wealthy (and blame the wealthy) but think that violating religious freedom is totally acceptable.
Click to expand...

People have freedom to use the contraception or not. It is about freedom and equality. Even some Catholics, which I understand you are not in this party, strongly believe in contraception. They too should be covered at their place of employment. Even if it is a church. No one is forcing anyone to do anything except provide the same benefits in programs that everyone can enjoy. And the highlighted sentence is a pretty far fetched accusation, when the law is actually providing more freedom for some. I guess you don't see that part of it.

Also, realize that not everyone thinks that attacking the wealthy is acceptable, which is why there is a debate in this country about it, and tax policy in general.
 
ddomin4360 said:
Is there not something to be said about the choice to live where you want to? If I move to a heavily religious area ( I hope to never do so), but if I do I expect that certain things would be frowned upon/ hard to procure in that area. It is the "price" of freedom. If you want to be free to live in a heavily religious area you need to take the "good" and the "bad", just like if you dislike social services spending and higher tax rates, but you want good schools for you kids and greater job opportunities you might opt to live in a more liberal area. But you still don't like everything going on, but you suck it up. You can't win them all, but you have a saying as to where you live for the most part.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is as simple as that. For many people it is very difficult to move and may be next to impossible.

The other interesting thing is that these are the same people who think that religious institutions should play an even bigger role in health care of the population. look around, a HUGE percentage of health providers are religious based already. In reality the logical conclusion of mskis argument is that religious institutions should not be in the business of health care if they do not want to play by the health care rules. In effect, mskis wants religious organizations to play a large role in health care of our nation AND for them to be able to impose their own religious beliefs on the populace through that health care. This argument isn't so much a freedom of religion as it is another instance of people wanting to impose their own beliefs on the rest of us. As mskis said, he believes in certain things and KNOWS them to be the absolute truth. This whole freedom angle is really silly. Mskis wants the FREEDOM to prohibit you from using contraception or obtaining the day after pill.
 
imaplanner said:
I don't think it is as simple as that. For many people it is very difficult to move and may be next to impossible.

The other interesting thing is that these are the same people who think that religious institutions should play an even bigger role in health care of the population. look around, a HUGE percentage of health providers are religious based already. In reality the logical conclusion of mskis argument is that religious institutions should not be in the business of health care if they do not want to play by the health care rules. In effect, mskis wants religious organizations to play a large role in health care of our nation AND for them to be able to impose their own religious beliefs on the populace through that health care. This argument isn't so much a freedom of religion as it is another instance of people wanting to impose their own beliefs on the rest of us. As mskis said, he believes in certain things and KNOWS them to be the absolute truth. This whole freedom angle is really silly. Mskis wants the FREEDOM to prohibit you from using contraception or obtaining the day after pill.
Click to expand...

You believe what you want, (and your wrong) and I will believe what I want. I don't expect anything I say will change your mind in any way. But hey, it's your life and it is obvious that you and your socialist rhetoric don't understand even a fraction of how wrong it is for a Government to require a church to offer something that is opposite from their teachings.
 
michaelskis said:
You believe what you want, (and your wrong) and I will believe what I want. I don't expect anything I say will change your mind in any way. But hey, it's your life and it is obvious that you and your socialist rhetoric don't understand even a fraction of how wrong it is for a Government to require a church to offer something that is opposite from their teachings.
Click to expand...

And the real story...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201230005

May I point out...

As usual, the decision is far more complex than Fox would have you believe. In August 2011, HHS issued regulations mandating that new health insurance plans "cover women's preventive services such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible." After debating religious concerns, last Friday, HHS clarified that the regulations do exempt religious institutions, but do not exempt religiously affiliated groups that employ members of differing faiths. But the regulations are not an attempt by the administration to attack Catholics; they're intended to rectify discrimination that has existed in the health insurance industry for decades.

Emphasis mine. How this undermines religious teachings and forces individuals to use contraception is beyond me.
 
btrage said:
And the real story...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201230005

May I point out...

As usual, the decision is far more complex than Fox would have you believe. In August 2011, HHS issued regulations mandating that new health insurance plans "cover women's preventive services such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible." After debating religious concerns, last Friday, HHS clarified that the regulations do exempt religious institutions, but do not exempt religiously affiliated groups that employ members of differing faiths. But the regulations are not an attempt by the administration to attack Catholics; they're intended to rectify discrimination that has existed in the health insurance industry for decades.

Emphasis mine. How this undermines religious teachings and forces individuals to use contraception is beyond me.
Click to expand...

May I point out that no where did anyone post a fox news report regarding this topic and second (and as I posted well earlier) the law does not exempt places like religious schools, colleges, missions, book stores, or similar places that are owned and operated by a church. It is still the religious institution that is paying (at least in part) for insurance that covers something that they are opposed directly to.
 
michaelskis said:
May I point out that no where did anyone post a fox news report regarding this topic and second (and as I posted well earlier) the law does not exempt places like religious schools, colleges, missions, book stores, or similar places that are owned and operated by a church. It is still the religious institution that is paying (at least in part) for insurance that covers something that they are opposed directly to.
Click to expand...

...because they're employing people who aren't necessarily of that faith. It would not apply to, for example, health insurance for priests. Secular hiring practices requires secular health insurance policies.
 
imaplanner said:
I don't think it is as simple as that. For many people it is very difficult to move and may be next to impossible.

The other interesting thing is that these are the same people who think that religious institutions should play an even bigger role in health care of the population. look around, a HUGE percentage of health providers are religious based already. In reality the logical conclusion of mskis argument is that religious institutions should not be in the business of health care if they do not want to play by the health care rules. In effect, mskis wants religious organizations to play a large role in health care of our nation AND for them to be able to impose their own religious beliefs on the populace through that health care. This argument isn't so much a freedom of religion as it is another instance of people wanting to impose their own beliefs on the rest of us. As mskis said, he believes in certain things and KNOWS them to be the absolute truth. This whole freedom angle is really silly. Mskis wants the FREEDOM to prohibit you from using contraception or obtaining the day after pill.
Click to expand...

I agree movement isn't as free as I wish it was, as such I made a note in post to clarify a bit. I don't think he is trying to take away my freedom from those things so much as not forcing my employer to have to pay for these things for me through my health insurance. Particularly, if they are religious. Just because you're health insurance doesn't cover something doesn't mean you cannot get it. I haven't had health insurance for about 10-11 years now except the minute amount I had covered as an undergrad and what I have now as a grad student. I was never denied medical care, and I was able to purchase medication I needed, albeit at full price. Insurance does help you procure these things, but it certainly doesn't make an obligatory yes or no difference.

In the Green: I agree with that entirely.

For the Black Bolded bits: I agree that that is generally their angle. It is a shame though. I don't think things should be imposed on them, as I don't think they should impose on us back. So I am of the approach that if they want to be intolerant and pushy, I'll let them, until they actually successfully cause me harm in some way, or are in a real position to do so. It's mostly a bunch of talk anyway, we're moving further and further away from religious influence in politics and society, so it is of ill-consequence. Even the Republicans only champion these beliefs, but I can't see them going any further than state level bans on gay-marriage and minimizing access to abortions. The social conservative sect in this country will gradually be marginalized, as they have been. Hopefully, to a point where people can hold these beliefs in private, but have no real political influence. This coming from someone who actually believes in God.


btrage said:
And the real story...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201230005

May I point out...

As usual, the decision is far more complex than Fox would have you believe. In August 2011, HHS issued regulations mandating that new health insurance plans "cover women's preventive services such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible." After debating religious concerns, last Friday, HHS clarified that the regulations do exempt religious institutions, but do not exempt religiously affiliated groups that employ members of differing faiths. But the regulations are not an attempt by the administration to attack Catholics; they're intended to rectify discrimination that has existed in the health insurance industry for decades.

Emphasis mine. How this undermines religious teachings and forces individuals to use contraception is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Well, after reading that, my opinion has changed a bit. Now, the regulation doesn't bother me as much. However, it seems like it will only encourage religious discrimination whenever the religion of potential employees can be discovered. Unless, of course religiously affiliated groups that employ members of the same faith are not exempt either.
 
ddomin4360 said:
Well, after reading that, my opinion has changed a bit. Now, the regulation doesn't bother me as much. However, it seems like it will only encourage religious discrimination whenever the religion of potential employees can be discovered. Unless, of course religiously affiliated groups that employ members of the same faith are not exempt either.
Click to expand...


From what I understand, it depends on the nature of the job. Supreme Court just ruled on this.

If the job is, by nature, non-religious, then the position is NOT exempt, even if they hire someone of the same faith. For example, a college professor at Notre Dame who teaches economics. Such a professor is secular, and thus not exempt. However, the theology professor *would* be exempt, since his/her job is religious by nature.

I would hazard to guess that it's illegal to discriminate against people of different faiths when hiring, if the position is not religious in nature.
 
Tarf said:
From what I understand, it depends on the nature of the job. Supreme Court just ruled on this.

If the job is, by nature, non-religious, then the position is NOT exempt, even if they hire someone of the same faith. For example, a college professor at Notre Dame who teaches economics. Such a professor is secular, and thus not exempt. However, the theology professor *would* be exempt, since his/her job is religious by nature.

I would hazard to guess that it's illegal to discriminate against people of different faiths when hiring, if the position is not religious in nature.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is, but it could have been something easy to accomplish in smaller settings. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people don't do it.

Apparently, they have that angle taken care of. So it doesn't matter.
 
btrage said:
And the real story...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201230005

May I point out...

As usual, the decision is far more complex than Fox would have you believe. In August 2011, HHS issued regulations mandating that new health insurance plans "cover women's preventive services such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible." After debating religious concerns, last Friday, HHS clarified that the regulations do exempt religious institutions, but do not exempt religiously affiliated groups that employ members of differing faiths. But the regulations are not an attempt by the administration to attack Catholics; they're intended to rectify discrimination that has existed in the health insurance industry for decades.

Emphasis mine. How this undermines religious teachings and forces individuals to use contraception is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I think I can help out a little with how this ruling applies, and I think it may also help M'skis since I seem to remember that his spouse is in the medical profession:

A Church employs a pastor, church secretary, accountant, youth minister and a choir director. That Church would not be required to cover contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible (just sticking with contraception since that seems to be the controversy). I'm OK with that and so is HHS.

My wife works for a hospital. This hospital is a non-profit, Catholic-affiliated organization that employs thousands of nurses, doctors, IT folks, administrative personnel, etc. Obviously, these folks likely come from a variety of differing faiths. This hospital, up until two years ago, did not cover contraceptives (i.e. birth control pills) due to its affiliation. Thankfully, they decided to start covering those services after overwhelming demand from staff (it was often listed in anonymous resignation surveys as a factor in departures), and a financial report indicating the prior policy was costing them tons of money in additional insurance coverage for unplanned pregnancies & lost time. Under this HHS ruling, the hospital would be required to offer such services in its insurance because it is a religious-affiliated group rather than a religious institution.

You might say that such a law is unnecessary--that my wife's case demonstrates that the market works. Well, we moved from a place where a religious-affiliated hospital was the only game in town for her to work at, and it did not cover contraceptives. They still don't. This law was written for them.
 
Tarf said:
From what I understand, it depends on the nature of the job. Supreme Court just ruled on this.

If the job is, by nature, non-religious, then the position is NOT exempt, even if they hire someone of the same faith. For example, a college professor at Notre Dame who teaches economics. Such a professor is secular, and thus not exempt. However, the theology professor *would* be exempt, since his/her job is religious by nature.
Click to expand...

In both of those cases, the Catholic Church is paying for part of the insurance.
 
michaelskis said:
In both of those cases, the Catholic Church is paying for part of the insurance.
Click to expand...

Right, but the difference is, in one of those cases the Catholic Church is acting as a business; in the other, it's acting as a religious institution. Only one of those is exempt, and for good reason imo.

Edit: Just to give an example/analogy: It wouldn't be right for Notre Dame to refuse to hire a qualified economics professor simply because he's gay, or Jewish, etc. Obviously, they have that right when it comes to theology.
 
Tarf said:
Right, but the difference is, in one of those cases the Catholic Church is acting as a business; in the other, it's acting as a religious institution. Only one of those is exempt, and for good reason imo.

Edit: Just to give an example/analogy: It wouldn't be right for Notre Dame to refuse to hire a qualified economics professor simply because he's gay, or Jewish, etc. Obviously, they have that right when it comes to theology.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There is a religious component to everything that the Catholic Church is involved in based on biblical teaching to go out and spread the word of God. That is why the government has not removed religious emblems, books of worship, or other items of religious connotation from them. Legally, they can't... but who knows. Maybe after this ruling, it will further push religion into the actual house of worship and out of anything and everything else including missions, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and other 'public good' places.

For the life of me, I don't understand how people can passively sit back as their freedoms are being stripped one by one. It is not just something that this administration is doing, but most of them for the past 100 years! At one point, the US was the freest country on the planet. Depending on what index you look at, we are either 6, 7, or 10. In 2008, we were number 5 on the economic scale and now we are number 10. As I have said over and over and over and over again, it is not a Republican v. Democrat thing. It is a freedom v. government thing.
 
michaelskis said:
Wrong. There is a religious component to everything that the Catholic Church is involved in based on biblical teaching to go out and spread the word of God. That is why the government has not removed religious emblems, books of worship, or other items of religious connotation from them. Legally, they can't... but who knows. Maybe after this ruling, it will further push religion into the actual house of worship and out of anything and everything else including missions, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and other 'public good' places.

For the life of me, I don't understand how people can passively sit back as their freedoms are being stripped one by one. It is not just something that this administration is doing, but most of them for the past 100 years! At one point, the US was the freest country on the planet. Depending on what index you look at, we are either 6, 7, or 10. In 2008, we were number 5 on the economic scale and now we are number 10. As I have said over and over and over and over again, it is not a Republican v. Democrat thing. It is a freedom v. government thing.
Click to expand...

This becomes problematic. If you start pushing this too far you could say that the government can't set rules for religious people because they have religious beliefs.
 
michaelskis said:
For the life of me, I don't understand how people can passively sit back as their freedoms are being stripped one by one. It is not just something that this administration is doing, but most of them for the past 100 years! At one point, the US was the freest country on the planet. Depending on what index you look at, we are either 6, 7, or 10. In 2008, we were number 5 on the economic scale and now we are number 10. As I have said over and over and over and over again, it is not a Republican v. Democrat thing. It is a freedom v. government thing.
Click to expand...
But like in this example, I don't see how forcing your employer to cover contraceptives is reducing your individual freedom. Your employer is being impacted by this decision, not you. Any premium increases resulting from this will be marginal at best since birth control can bring down costs in other areas. If the government was imposing this due to some vast social engineering or eugenics project, I would definitely agree with you but that's not what they're doing here. They're just making sure that anyone who wants birth control has it available to them.

Anyway, I don't disagree that some of our freedoms are being stripped away but that's not always a bad thing. A loss of freedom for one may afford protections to someone else. It's all a balancing act on the part of the government.
 
Blide said:
But like in this example, I don't see how forcing your employer to cover contraceptives is reducing your individual freedom. Your employer is being impacted by this decision, not you. Any premium increases resulting from this will be marginal at best since birth control can bring down costs in other areas. If the government was imposing this due to some vast social engineering or eugenics project, I would definitely agree with you but that's not what they're doing here. They're just making sure that anyone who wants birth control has it available to them.

Anyway, I don't disagree that some of our freedoms are being stripped away but that's not always a bad thing. A loss of freedom for one may afford protections to someone else. It's all a balancing act on the part of the government.
Click to expand...

I agree with your whole post, except the bolded. This doesn't increase availability, only makes sure that insurance companies pay for it. You can get birth-control either way, you just have to pay out of pocket. My understanding is the the pill is something around 20-30 a month. Which really isn't much money at all to pay out of pocket. I don't believe this will cover condoms. Many low-income people who can't pay 20-30 a month probably wouldn't see a benefit since they may not even have insurance.
 
michaelskis said:
Wrong. There is a religious component to everything that the Catholic Church is involved in based on biblical teaching to go out and spread the word of God. That is why the government has not removed religious emblems, books of worship, or other items of religious connotation from them. Legally, they can't... but who knows. Maybe after this ruling, it will further push religion into the actual house of worship and out of anything and everything else including missions, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and other 'public good' places.

For the life of me, I don't understand how people can passively sit back as their freedoms are being stripped one by one. It is not just something that this administration is doing, but most of them for the past 100 years! At one point, the US was the freest country on the planet. Depending on what index you look at, we are either 6, 7, or 10. In 2008, we were number 5 on the economic scale and now we are number 10. As I have said over and over and over and over again, it is not a Republican v. Democrat thing. It is a freedom v. government thing.
Click to expand...

what is your take on allowing Muslims to wear burkas in school, while driving, while in court, etc? How about allowing fundamentalist Mormons to have multiple wives?
 
imaplanner said:
what is your take on allowing Muslims to wear burkas in school, while driving, while in court, etc? How about allowing fundamentalist Mormons to have multiple wives?
Click to expand...

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." therefore my personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant. I as an American, I don't believe the government should infringe on their rights.

As for infringing on my rights, as someone who gives money to the Catholic Church as part of my tithe each week, I am now paying for something that I don't think is right, and the Catholic Church does not think is right. That is one of the many reasons that I am Catholic. The bible calls me to tithe and now, regardless of the church, it is something that will be universally required, even if it is in direct conflict with Catholic teachings.

In 1779, as part of the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, Jefferson stated "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

This was half of the foundation for the separation of church and state concept. The other half was the 1st Amendment. By requiring the Catholic church to pay for insurance that is in violation of their beliefs, it is in fact, prohibiting the full free exercise thereof.
 
michaelskis said:
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." therefore my personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant. I as an American, I don't believe the government should infringe on their rights.

As for infringing on my rights, as someone who gives money to the Catholic Church as part of my tithe each week, I am now paying for something that I don't think is right, and the Catholic Church does not think is right. That is one of the many reasons that I am Catholic. The bible calls me to tithe and now, regardless of the church, it is something that will be universally required, even if it is in direct conflict with Catholic teachings.

In 1779, as part of the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, Jefferson stated "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

This was half of the foundation for the separation of church and state concept. The other half was the 1st Amendment. By requiring the Catholic church to pay for insurance that is in violation of their beliefs, it is in fact, prohibiting the full free exercise thereof.
Click to expand...

For me, I really don't see the issue here. If the Catholic Church is an employer in the US and US law requires offering coverage, they must provide it. The law takes precendent, not the Church. The issue of whether contraception or abortion services are a POSSIBLE use of that insurance is immaterial as it is the nation's law and requirement and I think upending that would be disasterous. No one is FORCING these employees to use contraception and they certainly don't have to if it is offensive to them or against their beliefs. It would be one thing if the Church was being required to do something, but really, they are being required to offer the OPTION. Should we allow Christian Scientists to not offer any coverage to their employees at all because they don't believe in it? What if you work for the Shakers and then have a kid? Will they not cover prenatal care? IMO, the role of government here should be to ensure everyone has access as a civil rights issue. This all seems a very slippery slope to get employers off the hook of providing insurance (or at least the parts they don't like or agree with) and I can see a slew of related arguments. that would follow.

I would invoke two things in relation to this. One is, that, according to many, God gave us all free will. That means we have the right and even the duty to make our own decisions for ourselves (and not have others make them for us). So, while the Church may preach that one should not use contraception, they can't FORCE you to do so.They rely on each individual's free will to make that decision (after arguing their case, of course). The same with anything that violates a religious tenent, including murder. You can't force people not to kill each other, but you can give people the information to make what you feel is an informed decision and hope they follow a responsible path. If I don't believe in murder because its against my religion, can I get out of paying the part of my taxes that goes to prisons?

The second is the protection of individual rights. The law is very clear that issues of contraception or abortion really are individual rights and decisions that can be made only by the direct parties. Religion informs how people make decisions, but cannot and should not (in our country at least) dictate directly. Given that a Catholic entity can and does employ non-Catholics, the DENIAL of these health coverage OPTIONS would be a serious infringement on their rights. And I do know at least three people who work for Catholic entities (Catholic Charities and a Catholic Secondary School, specifically) who are not Catholics, so this definitely happens and would be a serious infringement of their civil rights to deny them access to contraception.

Lastly, its worth noting on this contraception issue the recent study I cited in another forum that found "98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use or have used birth control other than church-approved natural family planning."

This indicates the Chuhrch is quite a bit out of step with realities of its US members and that refusing to offer contraception through health care would be seen as detrimental to more than just the non-Catholic employees of the church.
 
Nice post, wahday. You expressed my opinion better than I could.

I see Mike's point better in this situation, though: Amish men arrested for refusing to display placard. Kentucky law requires them to post safety-orange reflective triangle-shaped placards on their slow-moving buggies, for their safety and ours. They refused because they are required by their religion (Old Order Sheckentruber) to avoid bright colors, and because the triangle shape is reserved for the Trinity. Instead, they put reflective safety tape on their buggies, but were ticketed and ultimately sentenced to between 3 and 10 days in jail. it will be interesting to see if the Kentucky Supreme Court hears the case and, if they do, how the Court holds on the issue.
 
Gedunker said:
Nice post, wahday. You expressed my opinion better than I could.

I see Mike's point better in this situation, though: Amish men arrested for refusing to display placard. Kentucky law requires them to post safety-orange reflective triangle-shaped placards on their slow-moving buggies, for their safety and ours. They refused because they are required by their religion (Old Order Sheckentruber) to avoid bright colors, and because the triangle shape is reserved for the Trinity. Instead, they put reflective safety tape on their buggies, but were ticketed and ultimately sentenced to between 3 and 10 days in jail. it will be interesting to see if the Kentucky Supreme Court hears the case and, if they do, how the Court holds on the issue.
Click to expand...

In balancing public safety with religious freedom, my bet is that the court will rule that the state's regulation is not the "least intrusive" means of ensuring public safety. Granted, I don't know whether the safety tape on the buggies was adequate to ensure public safety, but clearly the state needs to revise their code so it isn't a triangle (or at least allow an alternate shape).
 
Gedunker said:
Nice post, wahday. You expressed my opinion better than I could.

I see Mike's point better in this situation, though: Amish men arrested for refusing to display placard. Kentucky law requires them to post safety-orange reflective triangle-shaped placards on their slow-moving buggies, for their safety and ours. They refused because they are required by their religion (Old Order Sheckentruber) to avoid bright colors, and because the triangle shape is reserved for the Trinity. Instead, they put reflective safety tape on their buggies, but were ticketed and ultimately sentenced to between 3 and 10 days in jail. it will be interesting to see if the Kentucky Supreme Court hears the case and, if they do, how the Court holds on the issue.
Click to expand...

same deal really as not allowing plural marriage for fundamentalist Mormons - remember that the one guy is serving a long time in jail for that. How about allowing Rastafarians to smoke marijuana? Certain indian religions use peyote which is outlawed (which is really messed up that we took their land and then outlawed their religious practices but that's another rant altogether). For the greater good there always will be and always has been a balance on these things. The fact is that there never has been a complete freedom of religion in the sense that mskis is arguing for. I would also argue that mskis argument that what he believes in is the absolute truth and everyone else is wrong really highlights the fact that complete freedom of religion can never exist in a civilized society.
 
Zoning Goddess said:
Hillary Clinton looks like crap at SOTU. She really really needs to cut her hair.
Click to expand...


You would look like crap as well if you were trying to simultaneously plan for the attack on and subsequent invasion and transition of Iran AND wrestling with world leaders. That can't be an easy job! :D

To bad she won't run after Obama's second term. :(
 
Obama was overly optimistic. Daniels was down right pessimistic. I guess I prefer to err on the side of optimism, but both were a bit weak. Obama said everything you would expect. He even brought in Warren Buffet's secretary. Mitch Daniels was horrible. Why would the R's pick him? He has no personality and seems to have an odd face tick or something. I do think "My man Mitch" was a downgrade from Jindal too, even if Jindal was horrible last year.

Funny how ABC, NBC, and CBS were talking about the merits of the speech; the good points, the easy points, and some of the points that need details (damn Left Wing media). Then I switch to Fox News and they just talked about how horrible a speech it was. How it covered nothing. All the points are bad. And how Obama just dug his own grave.

I don't know how you would ever learn about moderation or other views if you only watched Fox News. I think ABC was liking Obama a bit too much, but if you don't think they are more "Fair and Balanced" than Fox you are crazy...
 
wahday said:
For me, I really don't see the issue here. If the Catholic Church is an employer in the US and US law requires offering coverage, they must provide it. The law takes precendent, not the Church. The issue of whether contraception or abortion services are a POSSIBLE use of that insurance is immaterial as it is the nation's law and requirement and I think upending that would be disasterous. No one is FORCING these employees to use contraception and they certainly don't have to if it is offensive to them or against their beliefs. It would be one thing if the Church was being required to do something, but really, they are being required to offer the OPTION. Should we allow Christian Scientists to not offer any coverage to their employees at all because they don't believe in it? What if you work for the Shakers and then have a kid? Will they not cover prenatal care? IMO, the role of government here should be to ensure everyone has access as a civil rights issue. This all seems a very slippery slope to get employers off the hook of providing insurance (or at least the parts they don't like or agree with) and I can see a slew of related arguments. that would follow.

I would invoke two things in relation to this. One is, that, according to many, God gave us all free will. That means we have the right and even the duty to make our own decisions for ourselves (and not have others make them for us). So, while the Church may preach that one should not use contraception, they can't FORCE you to do so.They rely on each individual's free will to make that decision (after arguing their case, of course). The same with anything that violates a religious tenent, including murder. You can't force people not to kill each other, but you can give people the information to make what you feel is an informed decision and hope they follow a responsible path. If I don't believe in murder because its against my religion, can I get out of paying the part of my taxes that goes to prisons?

The second is the protection of individual rights. The law is very clear that issues of contraception or abortion really are individual rights and decisions that can be made only by the direct parties. Religion informs how people make decisions, but cannot and should not (in our country at least) dictate directly. Given that a Catholic entity can and does employ non-Catholics, the DENIAL of these health coverage OPTIONS would be a serious infringement on their rights. And I do know at least three people who work for Catholic entities (Catholic Charities and a Catholic Secondary School, specifically) who are not Catholics, so this definitely happens and would be a serious infringement of their civil rights to deny them access to contraception.

Lastly, its worth noting on this contraception issue the recent study I cited in another forum that found "98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use or have used birth control other than church-approved natural family planning."

This indicates the Chuhrch is quite a bit out of step with realities of its US members and that refusing to offer contraception through health care would be seen as detrimental to more than just the non-Catholic employees of the church.
Click to expand...

I am shocked how you can list several truths but be completely wrong on this. God did give us free will, the church is not forcing people to use it, we have a protection of individual rights, and there are a lot of women who do use contraception who are catholic. But you are 100% wrong to say that the federal government can supersede the Catholic Church in requiring them to do something that is in direct conflict with their religion. But that is what is wrong with too much of society today. People doing wrong things and trying to rationalize and even support those actions.

The Catholic Church not offering insurance that includes birth control does not prevent anyone from access to birth control. Furthermore, they could choose to work at a different place if they felt that they NEEDED drugs or devices to limit perceived undesired consequences of their lustful desires. Furthermore, free will would allow us to go out and buy any kind of insurance we want and do whatever we want with it, regardless of who their employer is.

Do you have insurance from the Catholic Church? In talking with a youth minister friend of mine (who does have insurance from the church), he pointed out that a catholic school, mission, university, soup kitchen, or similar non-church entity is not a “business” but working and acting to provide a public service with a very specific faith based approach.
Let me make something very clear, there is nothing you, or anyone else in this forum board is going to say that will change my mind on this matter. I think it is morally, ethically, and constitutionally wrong and based on my conversation with my friend, the US Council of Bishops has already stated that they will challenge this. The office of the Pope noted that they will have the full backing of the Vatican.
 
The federal government should just stay out of it. The Knights Templar will ensure that no one uses condoms ever again.
 
michaelskis said:
Let me make something very clear, there is nothing you, or anyone else in this forum board is going to say that will change my mind on this matter. I think it is morally, ethically, and constitutionally wrong and based on my conversation with my friend, the US Council of Bishops has already stated that they will challenge this. The office of the Pope noted that they will have the full backing of the Vatican.
Click to expand...

Alright, then please, for the sake of rational argument and discussion, please stay out of this thread. You are continually pushing your view as correct, and are unwilling to have a rational discussion about it.

I think most people have tried to explain to you their views. You don't agree. That is your right. It doesn't mean you are right. It means that is what you perceive to be right. Luckily everyone gets to make their own decisions about right and wrong.


Let's all move on...
 
m-skis and wahday - just agree to disagree on this point.


As for the SOTU - I wasn't sure of Fox Newsentertainment was watching the same speech. They poo-pooed everything, even the points that both parties agree on. The speech itself was over optimistic, but there were several items that basically said 'look everyone, we're in this together, so lets work to fix it'

BTW-I hate the standing ovations for every sentence and you could certainly see where the dems sat and where the repubs sat in the chambers.
 
Hink said:
Alright, then please, for the sake of rational argument and discussion, please stay out of this thread. You are continually pushing your view as correct, and are unwilling to have a rational discussion about it.

I think most people have tried to explain to you their views. You don't agree. That is your right. It doesn't mean you are right. It means that is what you perceive to be right. Luckily everyone gets to make their own decisions about right and wrong.


Let's all move on...
Click to expand...
Let's see....

Agree with us = 'rational and reasoned'
Disagree with us = 'irrational and divisive'

Kewl, Got it!!!

:h:

Mike
 
mgk920 said:
Let's see....

Agree with us = 'rational and reasoned'
Disagree with us = 'irrational and divisive'

Kewl, Got it!!!

:h:

Mike
Click to expand...

It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It is about rational discussion. I said nothing about reasoned. Nor did I say anything about divisive. Unfortunately it isn't a woe is me moment.

It is a let's move on since we are beating a dead horse moment.
 
mgk920 said:
Let's see....

Agree with us = 'rational and reasoned'
Disagree with us = 'irrational and divisive'

Kewl, Got it!!!

:h:

Mike
Click to expand...

Oh, please Mike(s). Stop using this cop out every time you fail to "win". This is a discussion thread not a polemic thread - if you can't contribute anything stay out of it.

Okay, to actually add something to the discussion from a Canadian perspective. I think I could twist mskis argument into a case for public heath care. Take the decision out of the hands of various religious-based employers and give everyone the FREEDOM of access to medical products and procedures that their employer, church, God may not approve of. FWIW, as far as I know contraceptives are not covered by public health care here (unless medically required). You want birth control (condoms, pills) you pay for it yourself or find a community health centre/clinic which offers sexual health services.
 
^^
And if the USSupremes side with the Catholic Church on 'religious freedom' grounds when this case reaches them?

Mike
 
michaelskis said:
Let me make something very clear, there is nothing you, or anyone else in this forum board is going to say that will change my mind on this matter. I think it is morally, ethically, and constitutionally wrong and based on my conversation with my friend, the US Council of Bishops has already stated that they will challenge this. The office of the Pope noted that they will have the full backing of the Vatican.
Click to expand...

Hey Man, I wasn't trying stomp on your buzz! I simply assumed that since you had posted your opinion in the forum that you were open to a discussion about it. Usually when one posts in a setting like this there is an assumption that others will share/posit their own positions (which, given human nature, are most likely to vary). I was operating on that assumption.

Since its causing so much ire, let's just move on...
 
btrage said:
The federal government should just stay out of it. The Knights Templar will ensure that no one uses condoms ever again.
Click to expand...

That, and Rick Santorum.

mgk920 said:
^^
And if the USSupremes side with the Catholic Church on 'religious freedom' grounds when this case reaches them?

Mike
Click to expand...

They won't side with the Catholic church. They just had a very recent decision that exempted churches from I think it was ADA requirements. However, the decision intentionally did not apply to employees of the church who do not work in a religious capacity. As noted above, if you're a theology professor at Notre Dame, you're exempt; if you're an economics professor, you are not.
 
We can and should take out the religious argument out of this discussion. The potential protections the religious hospitals want and pretend to have should be made moot. National, single payer healthcare for all. Religious healthcare can then wither on the vine if they want to provide actual healthcare. Religious institutions should not be involved in providing insurance. Then, if they refuse to provide a medical service and it causes a harm or death to a patent, they can be sued out of existence.

Religious institutions should not be immune from the law. Nor should they be protected.
 
I'd like to know if all these anti-insurance, anti-abortion, anti-lustful desires people ever had sex outside of marriage. Hell, almost everyone else on the planet has. Did they use condoms? Any other form of birth control? Or is this the "I had my fun, now I"m a responsible Republican anti-sex person and you can't have any sex fun" argument? Seriously, you mainlining no-insurance outside of marriage people didn't do it?
 
Tarf said:
What federal programs for the needy and/or federal agencies does he want to cut so we can afford a moon base?

Good to see he has his priorities straight. :r:
Click to expand...

The moon base is where we'll send all the poor and needy. There, problem solved (brushes hands and walks away).
 
Back
Top