Anyone think Administration will lose votes

[KAWDUP]

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.

Very interesting question. I would say anything that does not transgress on my unailienable rights is the dividing line, but each thing has become case-by-case hasn't it?

No one is saying these people can't use contraception - just that Catholic insitutions should not be forced to provide/pay for it. Not infiringing on their rights (in my opinion - your opinion may differ here), so not sure where this leaves the discussion.

. . . but I think you asked a very important question, and one I wish I had a better answer for than I provided.

 

[redandguilty]

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.

I'm not entirely sure about the 28 states claim, there might be some key detail left out there. But the popular rhetoric also seems to be ignoring the fact the the head of the Catholic hospitals supports the law. You'd think that would get reported.

 

[TheVictors]

What about Scientologists who refuse their kids medical attention? To what extent is the government allowed to make parents of that 'religion' responsible?

 

[KAWDUP]

What about Scientologists who refuse their kids medical attention? To what extent is the government allowed to make parents of that 'religion' responsible?

Well if you follow my unalienable rights argument, life is one of them. Their right to life should not be trumped by religious belief, but that is just my opinion. This kind of thing is rarely enforced, though, even if by some miracle, I am actually right on this matter.

 

[cheeno]

What about Scientologists who refuse their kids medical attention? To what extent is the government allowed to make parents of that 'religion' responsible?

Now that is a case of individual rights versus collective rights. If Scientology started a hospital on government funds then that would be in the same ballpark, but I suppose Child Protective Services would be involved if a child was in danger.

 

[redandguilty]

What about Scientologists who refuse their kids medical attention? To what extent is the government allowed to make parents of that 'religion' responsible?

Hasn't the government successfully prosecuted people for this? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong...

 

[TheVictors]

What about Scientologists who refuse their kids medical attention? To what extent is the government allowed to make parents of that 'religion' responsible?

Hasn't the government successfully prosecuted people for this? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong...

I don't know. I believe so or perhaps in other, similar cases where there is parental inaction, based on some form of "religious belief" and good answer Cheeno.

 

[Thumb]

What about Scientologists who refuse their kids medical attention? To what extent is the government allowed to make parents of that 'religion' responsible?

Not really on topic, but I think you're confusing the Christian Scientists with Scientologists.

Not the same things, Scientologiests use hospitals, drugs, doctors etc, since 90% of their members are Hollywood Actors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

 

[redandguilty]

convicted of child endangerment - 4 years of prison

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=uhVFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DLsMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5234,1283625&dq=natalie+rippberger&hl=en

 

[redandguilty]

What about Scientologists who refuse their kids medical attention? To what extent is the government allowed to make parents of that 'religion' responsible?

Not really on topic, but I think you're confusing the Christian Scientists with Scientologists.

Not the same things, Scientologiests use hospitals, drugs, doctors etc, since 90% of their members are Hollywood Actors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Good catch. It's crazy that I think the Christian Scientists are crazy while I think the Christian Science Monitor is one of the best newspapers out there.

 

[Michchamp]

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.

how so?

the issue is, can a law force a religion to do something it doesn't want to do?

generally no, unless the religion is acting in a different capacity, here as an employer for health care services, and/or education. OR the law is judged to be a reasonable need for society AND affects all citizens equally. SIMPLE, NO?.

Where do you draw the line when a religion claims everything it does anywhere, is an exercise of its religion? that's the real question. where the answer is: outside the actual practice of its religious beliefs, i.e. metaphorically speaking, outside the walls of the church/temple/mosque, etc.

and the exception to the rule which should make the boundaries of the law even clearer: the catholic church, or any religion, would not have to provide birth control for employees engaged solely in church functions, e.g. priests, nuns, deacons, etc.

building a hospital and hiring doctors, nurses, clerks, janitors? now the church is OUTSIDE the bounds of your religion and you have to obey the laws like every other employer.

 

[KAWDUP]

. . . but they aren't like every other employer. That is the point. You may say they are and really really think they are, but saying it does not make it so.

That is what makes it less simple then you imply.

 

[Michchamp]

convicted of child endangerment - 4 years of prison

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=uhVFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DLsMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5234,1283625&dq=natalie+rippberger&hl=en

this is kinda similar, but not exactly. As David Boies explained in the link I posted, a law may infringe directly on the practice of a religion, such as child endangerment laws & christian science.

or, another example would be ritual animal sacrifice running afoul of anti-cruelty laws.

the law is not per se unconstitutional, as long as there was a demonstrable reason for it, AND it applies to all citizens equally.

you see this a lot with native americans who use peyote & the drug laws.

 

[redandguilty]

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.

how so?

the issue is, can a law force a religion to do something it doesn't want to do?

generally no, unless the religion is acting in a different capacity, here as an employer for health care services, and/or education. OR the law is judged to be a reasonable need for society AND affects all citizens equally. SIMPLE, NO?.

Where do you draw the line when a religion claims everything it does anywhere, is an exercise of its religion? that's the real question. where the answer is: outside the actual practice of its religious beliefs, i.e. metaphorically speaking, outside the walls of the church/temple/mosque, etc.

and the exception to the rule which should make the boundaries of the law even clearer: the catholic church, or any religion, would not have to provide birth control for employees engaged solely in church functions, e.g. priests, nuns, deacons, etc.

building a hospital and hiring doctors, nurses, clerks, janitors? now the church is OUTSIDE the bounds of your religion and you have to obey the laws like every other employer.

Feeding the hungry and caring for the sick are not outside the bounds of Catholicism. They are fundamental parts of the mission of the Catholic Church.

 

[KAWDUP]

. . . and this would not be one of those laws, for the already mentioned (over and over) differences.

 

[Michchamp]

. . . but they aren't like every other employer.

Well, longstanding case law has established that they are. here they are acting as an employer, and therefore they are subject to labor laws.

a country that has laws more favorable to your position would be a theocracy, for example, saudi arabia. There you have few, if any distinctions between church and state. So, islamic hospitals there would follow islamic law, which would be no different than state law. I don't know if there are any analogous catholic countries, but if there were, you could be that no health care providers would have to provide birth control, especially churches that ran hospitals.

you didn't directly answer my question as to how, exactly running a hospital is a tenet of the catholic religion.

the only example would be the alexian brothers, i guess, a religious order founded to give medical care.

 

[redandguilty]

It wasn't that long ago that using tax dollars for abortions was taboo because it would force people's money to go towards something they had a religious objection to. Religious objection extended to the use of dollars after taxation and now MC argues that the law is simple and religious exemption ends somewhere between the church doors and church run hospitals. It's amazing how quickly things can change.

 

[Michchamp]

how so?

the issue is, can a law force a religion to do something it doesn't want to do?

generally no, unless the religion is acting in a different capacity, here as an employer for health care services, and/or education. OR the law is judged to be a reasonable need for society AND affects all citizens equally. SIMPLE, NO?.

Where do you draw the line when a religion claims everything it does anywhere, is an exercise of its religion? that's the real question. where the answer is: outside the actual practice of its religious beliefs, i.e. metaphorically speaking, outside the walls of the church/temple/mosque, etc.

and the exception to the rule which should make the boundaries of the law even clearer: the catholic church, or any religion, would not have to provide birth control for employees engaged solely in church functions, e.g. priests, nuns, deacons, etc.

building a hospital and hiring doctors, nurses, clerks, janitors? now the church is OUTSIDE the bounds of your religion and you have to obey the laws like every other employer.

Feeding the hungry and caring for the sick are not outside the bounds of Catholicism. They are fundamental parts of the mission of the Catholic Church.

really? cause, I just looked at the nicene creed and it's not in there.

there's the beliefs, the sacraments, and all that jazz. nothing specific about healthcare or feeding anyone.

 

[TheVictors]

What about Scientologists who refuse their kids medical attention? To what extent is the government allowed to make parents of that 'religion' responsible?

Not really on topic, but I think you're confusing the Christian Scientists with Scientologists.

Not the same things, Scientologiests use hospitals, drugs, doctors etc, since 90% of their members are Hollywood Actors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Yeah, I pretty much posted off the top of my head quickly and meant to refer to Christian Scientists, not Scientologists. And the Church of Scientology has a very prominant building right in Hollywood - very much that sort of crowd (Travolta, etc)

 

[redandguilty]

Feeding the hungry and caring for the sick are not outside the bounds of Catholicism. They are fundamental parts of the mission of the Catholic Church.

really? cause, I just looked at the nicene creed and it's not in there.

there's the beliefs, the sacraments, and all that jazz. nothing specific about healthcare or feeding anyone.

Yeah, but you didn't check wikipedia. It's right there.