KAWDUP said:
. . . and there you go again trying to quote me the law. If any of THOSE laws went against a legitimate conscience-based tenet of the religion, there would be the same outcry and it would be supported in the same way by a majority of its members.
. . . and no they shouldn't get out of the hospital business because they do it very well.
Not even trying to make you "get it" anymore because you are somehow arguing that all religion should use your logical, secular approach to looking at things rather than their currently used faith-based way. The world isn't like that whether you want it to be or not. It really doesn't matter how bad you want it to be.
Faith and religion should not trump secular laws in the public realm; that's how I see this. The best argument the church can make is that it's required to operate hospitals as part of the tenets of its religion. I don't believe that's legitimate for a number of reasons, most importantly that they hire and employ lay personnel, they accept public funds, and they accept payment for the services they provide. The only exception would be in regards to some catholic sects (like the aforementioned Alexian Bros) that were founded solely to provide hospital care.
I think for a long time, the church accepted the reality of the situation, and followed laws & regulations related to medical care and labor law, but now they decided to pick a fight over this. Given some of the more notorious church conduct over the years, I have a hard time taking them seriously when they try to "pretend" to get all upset over what they perceive to be some deep affront to their faith.
you obviously sincerely believe this stuff, and if I've gotten too heated in some of the things I've said, I apologize.
BUT I think you guys would be singing a different tune here if, say, a non-religious organization, for example a community center, or a bank, affiliated with the Muslim faith was refusing to obey some aspect of a federal law or regulation because it conflicted with Sharia law.