Anyone think Administration will lose votes

[KAWDUP]

If they don't want to pay for any birth control period... maybe they shouldn't operate outside the bounds of their religion, i.e. own hospitals and schools - although for some hospital religious orders like the Alexian Bros, this might be a gray area.

if the church consisted entirely of religious employees, for example, priests and nuns, and didn't work in non-religious positions (teaching, nursing, doctoring, coaching, etc.) they would fit the exceptions to the bill and not have to pay for birth control.

if they employ non-catholics as janitors, groundkeepers, doctors, nurses, teachers, they should have to pay for their birth control.

If they employ catholics in non-religious functions who ARE taking birth control... seems to me like they should really take it up with their adherents, and not whine about the government, right?

I mean, who is the one violating their religion then?

These "outside the bounds of their religion" institutions are still Catholic, based and run by the Catholic church or one of their orders. This is no different than the Catholic High School that you went to.

I suppose you would be just fine with, since they teach our children, and which is a secular activity in nature, them not being allowed to teach religion? They have non-Catholic teachers and janitors too, but religion is taught nonetheless.

Your argument is hollow - just wait until something is forced on you that goes against your conscience, and watch how much you complain.

 

[KAWDUP]

If they don't want to pay for any birth control period... maybe they shouldn't operate outside the bounds of their religion, i.e. own hospitals and schools - although for some hospital religious orders like the Alexian Bros, this might be a gray area.

if the church consisted entirely of religious employees, for example, priests and nuns, and didn't work in non-religious positions (teaching, nursing, doctoring, coaching, etc.) they would fit the exceptions to the bill and not have to pay for birth control.

if they employ non-catholics as janitors, groundkeepers, doctors, nurses, teachers, they should have to pay for their birth control.

If they employ catholics in non-religious functions who ARE taking birth control... seems to me like they should really take it up with their adherents, and not whine about the government, right?

I mean, who is the one violating their religion then?

These "outside the bounds of their religion" institutions are still Catholic, based and run by the Catholic church or one of their orders. This is no different than the Catholic High School that you went to.

I suppose you would be just fine with, since they teach our children, and which is a secular activity in nature, them not being allowed to teach religion? They have non-Catholic teachers and janitors too, but religion it taught nonetheless.

Your argument is hollow - just wait until something is forced on you that goes against your conscience, and watch how much you complain.

You keep thinking that this is somehow about contraception. It isn't.

 

[redandguilty]

Obama is not mentioned in anything I've seen from a Bishop or priest. Just the law.

okay.

they should just tell their adherents not to take or use birth control, and then they wouldn't have to pay for it.

Yeah they would. They employ non-adherents.

 

[Michchamp]

okay.

they should just tell their adherents not to take or use birth control, and then they wouldn't have to pay for it.

Yeah they would. They employ non-adherents.

then they shouldn't employ those people.

they might run afoul of some aspects of the EEOC, but that can be corrected by not taking any government money (medicare, medicaid) period, and only treating catholics or something like that... of course, they want government money, and they want money from treating non-catholics, so... they're kinda in a pickle here.

 

[Michchamp]

If they don't want to pay for any birth control period... maybe they shouldn't operate outside the bounds of their religion, i.e. own hospitals and schools - although for some hospital religious orders like the Alexian Bros, this might be a gray area.

if the church consisted entirely of religious employees, for example, priests and nuns, and didn't work in non-religious positions (teaching, nursing, doctoring, coaching, etc.) they would fit the exceptions to the bill and not have to pay for birth control.

if they employ non-catholics as janitors, groundkeepers, doctors, nurses, teachers, they should have to pay for their birth control.

If they employ catholics in non-religious functions who ARE taking birth control... seems to me like they should really take it up with their adherents, and not whine about the government, right?

I mean, who is the one violating their religion then?

These "outside the bounds of their religion" institutions are still Catholic, based and run by the Catholic church or one of their orders. This is no different than the Catholic High School that you went to.

I suppose you would be just fine with, since they teach our children, and which is a secular activity in nature, them not being allowed to teach religion? They have non-Catholic teachers and janitors too, but religion it taught nonetheless.

Your argument is hollow - just wait until something is forced on you that goes against your conscience, and watch how much you complain.

where did I say they can't complain, or that they can't challenge this law? I expressly did. Just saying that until they put their money where their mouth is and challenge this law, it looks like they're just playing politics in an election season.

And, now, it's been a while since I've been to church or learned about church doctrine, but nowhere in the bible did Jesus say "if you want to be catholic, you must operate hospitals that serve and employ everyone, not just catholics, and schools that teach religious topics as well as secular topics like math, science, and english, and make people pay for the services rendered at those institutions"??

your argument that these are "Catholic" institutions rings hollow.

 

[KAWDUP]

Might ring hollow to you, because you don't care about the minor infraction that it will induce them to do something they believe is against their religion. But to many others that know how that feels, it means a lot more . . . and BTW, they aren't all right wing zealots who feel this way.

So you calling it hollow means almost nothing.

. . . and on top of it, here you are here you are discussing it like it sure means something to you.

 

[redandguilty]

Yeah they would. They employ non-adherents.

then they shouldn't employ those people.

they might run afoul of some aspects of the EEOC, but that can be corrected by not taking any government money period, and only treating catholics or something like that... of course, they want government money, and they want money from treating non-catholics, so... they're kinda in a pickle here.

Just as charitable works are not restricted to Catholics, running non-profit hospitals is a way to engage the world, not segregate from it.

 

[cheeno]

Might ring hollow to you, because you don't care about the minor infraction that it will induce them to do something they believe is against their religion. But to many others that know how that feels, it means a lot more . . . and BTW, they aren't all right wing zealots who feel this way.

So you calling it hollow means almost nothing.

. . . and on top of it, here you are here you are discussing it like it sure means something to you.

I guess you are in favor of Islamist women refusing to remove their Burqas at traffic stops, for TSA officials etc. just another "minor infraction that will induce them to do something they believe is against their religion".

Our laws are secular as is our state. As was stated before if you don't want to adhere to secular laws don't accept government money.

 

[Michchamp]

Might ring hollow to you, because you don't care about the minor infraction that it will induce them to do something they believe is against their religion. But to many others that know how that feels, it means a lot more . . . and BTW, they aren't all right wing zealots who feel this way.

So you calling it hollow means almost nothing.

. . . and on top of it, here you are here you are discussing it like it sure means something to you.

well I like to argue.

and like I said, they're being hypocritical here by operating outside the bounds of their religion, in the secular realm, and then claiming the secular laws shouldn't apply to them in those instances.

Unless I am wrong, and Jesus said "found hospitals and schools and receive payment for providing services at each, or you are not catholic." Am I wrong? because if I am not, it does seem like hospitals, schools, etc. are outside the realm of the catholic religion, and thus their operation would fairly be considered governed by secular laws, just as it would be if any other religion did it.

 

[Michchamp]

then they shouldn't employ those people.

they might run afoul of some aspects of the EEOC, but that can be corrected by not taking any government money period, and only treating catholics or something like that... of course, they want government money, and they want money from treating non-catholics, so... they're kinda in a pickle here.

Just as charitable works are not restricted to Catholics, running non-profit hospitals is a way to engage the world, not segregate from it.

engaging the world. so it is per se outside their religion. got it.

 

[KAWDUP]

OK, you seem a bit hung up on this secular activity outside the realm of their religion aspect.

I find it hard to argue that if government money given to other religious based endeavors (there are quite a few) is the deciding point, how that is the only consideration.

So if an entity receives government money, and caters to one single person that is not ideologically a member of that entity, that they should be allowed to be told, by that government (at whatever level it is) how they provide for that one individual?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[KAWDUP]

Might ring hollow to you, because you don't care about the minor infraction that it will induce them to do something they believe is against their religion. But to many others that know how that feels, it means a lot more . . . and BTW, they aren't all right wing zealots who feel this way.

So you calling it hollow means almost nothing.

. . . and on top of it, here you are here you are discussing it like it sure means something to you.

I guess you are in favor of Islamist women refusing to remove their Burqas at traffic stops, for TSA officials etc. just another "minor infraction that will induce them to do something they believe is against their religion".

Our laws are secular as is our state. As was stated before if you don't want to adhere to secular laws don't accept government money.

Contraception is a national security issue?

 

[redandguilty]

Just as charitable works are not restricted to Catholics, running non-profit hospitals is a way to engage the world, not segregate from it.

engaging the world. so it is per se outside their religion. got it.

When someone engages someone outside of their religion, they don't abandon their own. There is no "outside their religion" when it comes to following (or not following) their own rules. A Jewish soup kitchen would still serve kosher food, regardless of the faith of the people they serve.

 

[KAWDUP]

engaging the world. so it is per se outside their religion. got it.

When someone engages someone outside of their religion, they don't abandon their own. There is no "outside their religion" when it comes to following (or not following) their own rules. A Jewish soup kitchen would still serve kosher food, regardless of the faith of the people they serve.

I know we don't always agree on everything Red, but that is sheer poetry. :*)

 

[cheeno]

I guess you are in favor of Islamist women refusing to remove their Burqas at traffic stops, for TSA officials etc. just another "minor infraction that will induce them to do something they believe is against their religion".

Our laws are secular as is our state. As was stated before if you don't want to adhere to secular laws don't accept government money.

Contraception is a national security issue?

Where do you draw the line? When and what religious beliefs trump secular law? For what reason? National security? Access health services?

So we can infringe on one religion for national security (does national security include a speeding ticket is that enough to force someone to go against their religion?) but not another for basic level of health services. That is why the US was founded on secular laws freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to do anything you want based on that religion.

 

[cheeno]

When someone engages someone outside of their religion, they don't abandon their own. There is no "outside their religion" when it comes to following (or not following) their own rules. A Jewish soup kitchen would still serve kosher food, regardless of the faith of the people they serve.

I know we don't always agree on everything Red, but that is sheer poetry. :*)

That doesn't mean that they don't have the right face a government health inspector.

 

[redandguilty]

I know we don't always agree on everything Red, but that is sheer poetry. :*)

That doesn't mean that they don't have the right face a government health inspector.

I agree. That's exactly why the video MC posted, while it was a good presentation of the issue, it wasn't good at clearing up the issue at hand. Extreme cases are good for countering claims that go too far. They're good for refuting ideas like "freedom of religion covers anything a religion might want to do" or "as soon as a religious organization interacts with someone outside of their religion, they lose any religious freedom protection". Whenever someone's argument strays too far towards an extreme, a counter extreme is useful.

I'm not saying that religious freedoms cover anything, so your health inspector example doesn't really refute the point I'm making. I'm using an extreme case (Kosher food is extremely non-threatening to non-religious people) to challenge the idea that a Church should be expected to quit following their own rules when they engage in activities that bring them into contact with non-adherents. It's obviously a matter of degree. Some rules society will tolerate outside of church walls (Kosher food), some are tolerated behaviors of followers (giving teens sips of wine), and some religious practices get outlawed altogether (polygamy)

 

[redandguilty]

When someone engages someone outside of their religion, they don't abandon their own. There is no "outside their religion" when it comes to following (or not following) their own rules. A Jewish soup kitchen would still serve kosher food, regardless of the faith of the people they serve.

I know we don't always agree on everything Red, but that is sheer poetry. :*)

Hooray for agreement!

 

[cheeno]

When arguing the collective rights of a government elected by the people vs the collective rights of a religion on matters of health care, national security, etc. I'll take the side of elected government and an appointed judiciary.

 

[johnny2x2x]

Shrewd compromise here. It really wasn't a big deal and is already lay in 28 states, but the Right is desperate right now so they created a controversy. Obama holds serve with a fair deal that if they complain about now it will be obvious they are just trying to control women's lives.