Babbling

[Saddy]

---

bones2039 wrote:

No one is forcing people to work under the evil foot of any particular religion based employer.  Its not like those types of employers hide the fact they are religious institutions before they hire someone.

---

hospitals and universities are not churches. why is that so difficult for people to grasp?

[bones2039]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that churchs are not the only religious institutions that exist.  Whether its right or wrong for any hostipal or university to be a religious institution doesn't really matter.

They are, and personally, I don't think forcing them to do things against there teaching is really a good thing.  I don't agree with the catholic church's stance on contraception, but I respect their right to have that stance.  As long as a university is a catholic university, I respect the fact its got a connection to the catholic faith and I'm not really going to be bothered if there are things about it that are the way they are because of the teachings of that faith.  I don't expect them to bow down to my beliefs just because I choose to work for them.

[Saddy]

if they want to govern their institutions by their faith rather than by what the government says then they should stop taking government monies to operate.

[KnightStar]

---

Saddy wrote:
if they want to govern their institutions by their faith rather than by what the government says then they should stop taking government monies to operate.

---

Yeah but Faith Based Institutions are greedy as well!

They stand with their hand out from Uncle Sam and the Tax Payer and then turn around and whine like a dying antelope in the jaws of a Jaguar when the government that funds their operating costs demands they treat people on equal terms!

Hypocrisy, religion be thy name.

The only time a Faith Based Organization or Catholic group doesn't complain is when they can freely oppress their flock and at the same time get government money.

Still yet the Catholic Church as a whole is a floundering faith, loosing followers by the day and all too soon they will become irrelevant to the grand scheme of things.

[Galaxian]

"I don't agree with the catholic church's stance on contraception, but I respect their right to have that stance."

Why exactly do you respect it? Do you unilaterally respect all claims of 'sacred' belief regardless of common sense solely because the claimants regard their stance as above that of "mere mortal" reasoning?

I don't ask this to be contentious, but I do question why you respect a backwards mentality when it seems the only reason is due to a claim of special knowledge. I wonder where you would draw the line. Contraception may not be a serious enough issue for you, but where exactly do you draw the line? Would you support denial of all health care services in favor of faith healing? Is there a level of irrational bullshit where you would finally realize that simply because a person claims to have divine supernatural powers on their side, that that does not give them special status? And why respect it in the first place? Do you just wish to preserve ancient traditions regardless of the harm for the sake of...preserving ancient tradition? Would you respect human sacrifice? Seriously, where does respect for backwards intolerant outdated and backwards reasoning stop with you? It almost sounds like one only needs to claim "religious belief" in order to garner undue respect, tolerance, and even apologetics from you.

Personally, I do not respect other people's beliefs when those beliefs are not deserving of respect. The word 'religious' is not a magic "you must tolerate unquestioningly" get out of reason free card.

[Glodson]

---

bones2039 wrote:

Why is it so hard for you to understand that churchs are not the only religious institutions that exist.  Whether its right or wrong for any hostipal or university to be a religious institution doesn't really matter.

They are, and personally, I don't think forcing them to do things against there teaching is really a good thing.  I don't agree with the catholic church's stance on contraception, but I respect their right to have that stance.  As long as a university is a catholic university, I respect the fact its got a connection to the catholic faith and I'm not really going to be bothered if there are things about it that are the way they are because of the teachings of that faith.  I don't expect them to bow down to my beliefs just because I choose to work for them.

---

Should another faith be allowed to force its archaic and outdated belief on people who work for their institution? Like, say, the Jehovah's Witness and their dislike of transfusion?

This is the thing. The "faith based institution" would be allowed to force their interpretation of what their religion believes onto the workers who don't necessarily agree. A majority of Catholics don't even fall in line with what their church believes about contraception. So why should dissenting Catholics who work for a hospital or charity that has a connection to the church be denied equal accesses to birth control? Why should the government allow an institution to ignore a law because they feel it is against their religion? If the workers don't want to use the contraception, they don't have to. But they should have the option. When the government allows an institution to ignore the law because of "faith," they are denying that citizen the chance to freely worship as the citizen sees fit, they are denying that citizen the chance to exercise their own religious freedom and they are denying that citizen the basic freedom to decide what is moral or not.

[scoobdog]

---

bones2039 wrote:

Why is it so hard for you to understand that churchs are not the only religious institutions that exist.  Whether its right or wrong for any hostipal or university to be a religious institution doesn't really matter.

They are, and personally, I don't think forcing them to do things against there teaching is really a good thing.  I don't agree with the catholic church's stance on contraception, but I respect their right to have that stance.  As long as a university is a catholic university, I respect the fact its got a connection to the catholic faith and I'm not really going to be bothered if there are things about it that are the way they are because of the teachings of that faith.  I don't expect them to bow down to my beliefs just because I choose to work for them.

---

It's not so hard to see why it's wrong.  There is a very clear definition of what is and is no required in the performance of a job.  Not using contraception does not have an impact on the end result of say adminsitering to a patient or teaching a class on mathematics.  Enforcing such a ban is tantamount to forcing an employee to adhere to an ethical standard above and beyond what is legally enforceable for a reason that does not benefit either the employee or the comission of her task.  The government, in turn, has the obligation to uphold personal freedoms when they do not interfere with greater public welfare.

I too understand why the Catholic Church has the position it has.  I just don't see how they have any legal standing to do it when the employees in question are not in the comission of a religious task.  Religion is in no way a factor in a doctor of nurse's ability to care for patients and a professor at a university is hired based on her competency on a subject not on her personal beliefs.

[crapshot2]

again, there is nothing in the catholic doctrine that says you can't give contraception, just that catholics can not use it.

I don't see the problem, no one is forcing catholics to use contraception.

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

bones2039 wrote:

No one is forcing people to work under the evil foot of any particular religion based employer.  Its not like those types of employers hide the fact they are religious institutions before they hire someone.

---

So you're one of those people who think someone can get a good job anywhere? I don't give a fuuuuuudge where you work, your employer does not have the right to force their religion down your throat or to tell you how you can or cannot use your insurance.

[crapshot2]

I'm a jedi knight, I'm going to open a business and the only other people that can work have to be jedi's.

I mean it's only fair, right? 

I mean blow this up to crazy levels. Everyone has beliefs and political views that other people do not have. if these guys have their way then no one would have a job because no one agree's with eachother 100%

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

crapshot2 wrote:

I'm a jedi knight, I'm going to open a business and the only other people that can work have to be jedi's.

I mean it's only fair, right? 

I mean blow this up to crazy levels. Everyone has beliefs and political views that other people do not have. if these guys have their way then no one would have a job because no one agrees with each other 100%

---

Yeah, I've said several time that if I owned a business, I wouldn't serve Christians because I don't believe in their religion. Can you imagine the #### uproar if something like that actually happened?

[bones2039]

---

Glodson wrote:

---

bones2039 wrote:

Why is it so hard for you to understand that churchs are not the only religious institutions that exist.  Whether its right or wrong for any hostipal or university to be a religious institution doesn't really matter.

They are, and personally, I don't think forcing them to do things against there teaching is really a good thing.  I don't agree with the catholic church's stance on contraception, but I respect their right to have that stance.  As long as a university is a catholic university, I respect the fact its got a connection to the catholic faith and I'm not really going to be bothered if there are things about it that are the way they are because of the teachings of that faith.  I don't expect them to bow down to my beliefs just because I choose to work for them.

---

Should another faith be allowed to force its archaic and outdated belief on people who work for their institution? Like, say, the Jehovah's Witness and their dislike of transfusion?

Yes, they should be allowed.  No one says you have to get coverage through your employer.  Should people be able to force there beliefs on religious institutions?

This is the thing. The "faith based institution" would be allowed to force their interpretation of what their religion believes onto the workers who don't necessarily agree. A majority of Catholics don't even fall in line with what their church believes about contraception. So why should dissenting Catholics who work for a hospital or charity that has a connection to the church be denied equal accesses to birth control?  They are not being denied birth control.  Unless I really missed something, no one has said its right for religious institutions to demand its employee's follow there teaching.  What the religious institutions are saying is that they don't want to pay for something against there beliefs.  Not paying for something is different from banning its us by the employees.

Why should the government allow an institution to ignore a law because they feel it is against their religion?

Because we have religious freedom in this country.  If we decided that government can demand that religious institutions have to do what they say even if its against there beliefs, its a problem in my book.  We already give away a lot of freedom.

If the workers don't want to use the contraception, they don't have to. But they should have the option. When the government allows an institution to ignore the law because of "faith," they are denying that citizen the chance to freely worship as the citizen sees fit, they are denying that citizen the chance to exercise their own religious freedom and they are denying that citizen the basic freedom to decide what is moral or not.  Once again, unless I really missed something, the church isn't being allowed to say you can't use contraception(and if that is the case, e.i. the employer can demand that you don't use it, then its a totally different case), its saying it doesn't want to pay for it.  No citizen is being denied the chance to exercise their own religious freedom.  What you are agrueing for is allowing the government to decided what is moral or not for the religion, which is wrong.

---

[bones2039]

---

scoobdog wrote:

---

bones2039 wrote:

Why is it so hard for you to understand that churchs are not the only religious institutions that exist.  Whether its right or wrong for any hostipal or university to be a religious institution doesn't really matter.

They are, and personally, I don't think forcing them to do things against there teaching is really a good thing.  I don't agree with the catholic church's stance on contraception, but I respect their right to have that stance.  As long as a university is a catholic university, I respect the fact its got a connection to the catholic faith and I'm not really going to be bothered if there are things about it that are the way they are because of the teachings of that faith.  I don't expect them to bow down to my beliefs just because I choose to work for them.

---

It's not so hard to see why it's wrong.  There is a very clear definition of what is and is no required in the performance of a job.  Not using contraception does not have an impact on the end result of say adminsitering to a patient or teaching a class on mathematics.  Enforcing such a ban is tantamount to forcing an employee to adhere to an ethical standard above and beyond what is legally enforceable for a reason that does not benefit either the employee or the comission of her task.  The government, in turn, has the obligation to uphold personal freedoms when they do not interfere with greater public welfare.

I too understand why the Catholic Church has the position it has.  I just don't see how they have any legal standing to do it when the employees in question are not in the comission of a religious task.  Religion is in no way a factor in a doctor of nurse's ability to care for patients and a professor at a university is hired based on her competency on a subject not on her personal beliefs.

---

Unless I'm mistaken, The religious institutions are not allowed to force its employees not to use contraception.  Its about having to pay for something they are morally against.  Again, if they are allowed to force its employees to totally not use contraception, then I would agree, thats not right.  Not wanting to pay for something thats wrong in their opinion is a different animal.

[Glodson]

Okay, so you are fine with an institution denying its workers on their insurance plan a life saving procedure based on their magical thinking?

And they are being denied. The institution is being given a special privilege from the state because of religion. That's where it runs straight into the First Amendment. The government is granting a special privilege, essentially allowing the law to be trumped by faith. That's not how it works. Institutions do not have any special rights because of religion. People have the rights, and that takes the rights out of a certain group of people.

They don't get to decide that. The individuals do. All the government is doing is forcing the institution to obey the law. Just the same as everyone else.

[bones2039]

---

Glodson wrote:
Okay, so you are fine with an institution denying its workers on their insurance plan a life saving procedure based on their magical thinking?  Are employers required to pay part of the insurance plan by law?  There is nothing that says you have to get insurance from your employer.  IF, and I do mean IF, the ONLY possible way to get coverage is from the employer, then I would have a different opinion.  Lucky for us, thats not the case.

And they are being denied. The institution is being given a special privilege from the state because of religion. That's where it runs straight into the First Amendment. The government is granting a special privilege, essentially allowing the law to be trumped by faith. That's not how it works. Institutions do not have any special rights because of religion. People have the rights, and that takes the rights out of a certain group of people.

So the people in that group don't have rights?  They are not being denied anything.  they can get and use contraception.  they just don't get to have part of the cost of the contraception picked up by insurance paid for by the employer.

They don't get to decide that. The individuals do. All the government is doing is forcing the institution to obey the law. Just the same as everyone else.  So do you think the original exemption, only houses of worship, should have existed?  Honest question, just trying to figure out where you are coming at this from.

---

[scoobdog]

---

bones2039 wrote:

Unless I'm mistaken, The religious institutions are not allowed to force its employees not to use contraception.  Its about having to pay for something they are morally against.  Again, if they are allowed to force its employees to totally not use contraception, then I would agree, thats not right.  Not wanting to pay for something thats wrong in their opinion is a different animal.

---

It's not a different animal, just irrelevant.

The thing about the separation between church and state is that it's designed to protect the individual, not an entire institution - the concept exists because religion could be used as an supplementary form of governace as it was by both the Catholic Church and Islam in the middle ages.  The instututions themselves, as seen by the United States government, exist as an extension of the rights of the individuals, so, any perceived violation of that institution has to be framed as a violation of the rights of the individual members of that institution.  Even the fact that these institutions are allowed to be untaxed is a result of them acting as charities for money given to them for the express purpose of helping others.  Given that:  it is neither an obligation for an institution such as the Catholic Church to provide contraception in the absence of a legal mandate nor is it a right for that same institution to be protected from such a mandate.

When it comes right down to it, individual Catholics might feel that providing contraception is wrong, but there is no real legal precedent that allows them to enforce that belief on someone who works for them via the Catholic Church and it's various entities.  Reasonably speaking, it can not be proven that providing contraception directly interferes with my (yes, I'm Catholic) right to live a moral life of my own choosing.  Arguably, the same applies to abortions even though there is direction from the federal government that specifically forbids it.  

[Master-Debater131]

Congresswoman Boo'd over the birth control mandate.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/157318/1/Congresswoman-Kathy-Hoc
hul-Booed-Over-Birth-Control-Policy


This is clearly a winning issue for the Democrats running into an election year.

[scoobdog]

Not sure why a few nut job Catholic hardliners at a town hall meeting counts as this being a sweeping indictment on Obama.

[crapshot2]

---

Master-Debater131 wrote:
Congresswoman Boo'd over the birth control mandate.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/157318/1/Congresswoman-Kathy-Hoc
hul-Booed-Over-Birth-Control-Policy


This is clearly a winning issue for the Democrats running into an election year.

---

ya....

to say this is a disaster for the gop is to seriously undermine the issue