It Is Time To Stand With The Catholics

[Cobalt-70]

They will have a big increase in insurance cost because of adding these things.

Condoms and the pill aren't very expensive. They are far, far less expensive than paying for pregnancy and labor. The insurance companies will save boatloads of money--which is why many insurance companies voluntarily provide birth control with no co-pay.

[Storm Rider]

selek1:

"I have the choice to take my business elsewhere without impinging upon either party's freedom of religion or freedoms of association".

No you don't, particularly if you live in rural areas. If your pharmacist won't fill your prescription what real freedom of choice do you have? What if all ten of your local pharmacists refuse to fill your prescription based on their religious beliefs. What real freedom of choice do you have?

Say you were black and living in the South in the 1950's, and 60's. Would you enjoy the "Religious Exemption" applied to you? You can always leave right? Just make sure you never had to stop to eat at a whites only lunchcounter, get gas at a whites only "Service Station", or spend the night at a whites only hotel.

You are confused. The issue is not making the Catholic Church pay for it and that is all. There is NO restriction on the availablity of such items or all can buy them as they choose. You are skinning the wrong cat.

[Storm Rider]

That doesn't make it a religious freedom issue. A church does not have "freedom" to prevent its members from getting medical care with which it does not agree. Religious freedom is about individual choice, not about the right of churches to control their members. In this case, the Catholic church is not buying birth control: they are merely buying health insurance, and insurance companies are splitting the cost of birth control with willing individuals.

Again, this is not an issue of preventing medical care, THE ISSUE IS ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR IT. No church should be forced to pay for things it does not believe in.

[asbestosman]

Wrong again tss there isn't a day go by I don't get a solicitation call from a mail order pharmacy.

It is not the 50s and 60s. There is always the internet these days.

That works just fine when it's not an emergency. The morning after pill isn't much good the week after.

Since I don't think the morning after pill is murder in the case or rape or incest, I would certainly want it widely available. I just don't feel comfortable trying to strong arm the Catholic church into providing it.

FWIW, I heard that there were religious exemptions, but apprently it it leaves plenty of room for resentment:

http://thinkprogress...ce-protections/

Even the new Affordable Care Act regulations, which require institutions to offer reproductive health care services without additional co-pays, include a narrow religious exemption. Houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will be exempt from the provision, while religiously-affiliated employers who do not qualify for the exemption and are not currently offering contraceptive coverage may apply for transitional relief for a one-year period to give them time to determine how to comply with the rule. Twenty-eight states already require employers, including most religiously affiliated institutions, to cover contraception in their health plans. The only change is that now they must cover the full cost.

Edited February 1, 2012 by asbestosman

[california boy]

Interesting. California Boy attempts to derail another topic with "gay rights". imagine that. This propensity of his reminds me of the joke: "Give a child a hammer and everything becomes a nail."

This isn't about gay rights. This issue is simply about how the Catholic church feels moral decisions should be made. Why would their moral issues be any different than other's moral issues. Let's just vote on it.

[asbestosman]

This issue is simply about how the Catholic church feels moral decisions should be made. Why would their moral issues be any different than other's moral issues. Let's just vote on it.

FWIW, I'm not sure that this rule violates the 1st amendment (but I am not a lawyer). As far as I can tell, nobody is forcing Catholics to provide access to abortions. It's just that if they choose not to provide this, then they must also choose not to have certain kinds of employment (or pay a fine). Those arguing the other side of that other issue (like you) have maintained that their issue is a constitutional issue and shouldn't be up for vote on those grounds--rather than on the grounds that the outcome really sucks for those who don't like it.

[TAO]

I'm with 3DOP on this one. Putting something that someone consciously objects to on a plan and forcing somebody to pay for it - or else pay a large fine, is not high on a list of things I want the government to be doing. Yes, I know the government does this for many things, and some are justified, but this has very little practical value (the morning after pill is cheap, and easy to access) compared to the consequences (ignoring conscious objections, removal of religious rights), so my answer is no, this should not pass.

[3DOP]

I got this idea because of how the Catholic church pushed Prop 8. The Catholic church decided to put up gay marriage to a popular vote because it was a moral issue. So evidently the way we are to decide moral issues in this country have nothing to do with civil rights or religious rights under the constitution. It only has to do with public popularity of an issue. What one person perceives as a moral issue, obviously not everyone believes is a moral issue. So lets just vote on what we think are moral issues in this country and let the most popular view of the day become law. How many times do we hear "Let the people vote to see wheither they want gay marriage? It is no different. When Catholic members were told if they did not want to participate in gay marriage, they said that is not enough. We want to make sure no one can have gay marriage because we feel it is morally wrong.

Well now something that they feel is morally wrong the majority of Americans think is not a moral issue. So lets have a vote.

I suspect that the most of the Catholic Church has never heard of "Prop 8". Whatever it means, and however the Church was involved locally regarding some province somewhere, it couldn't mean that the Church could change its teaching about anything because of an election outcome. Apparently, the majority in this place held to what the Church supported? If officials of the Church somewhere really said that they would change their minds pending the outcome of a vote, then I don't mind if you charge them with infidelity.

The fruit of homosex is nothing. The fruit of contraception is nothing. The fruit of sterilization is nothing. The fruit of abortion is death. The Church always has and will oppose various human sexual activities that are opposed to life. If voting against one of them will reduce the activity, then naturally Catholics will vote aginst it. But the outcome doesn't determine whether the Church agrees with the behavior.

[california boy]

FWIW, I'm not sure that this rule violates the 1st amendment (but I am not a lawyer). As far as I can tell, nobody is forcing Catholics to provide access to abortions. It's just that if they choose not to provide this, then they must also choose not to have certain kinds of employment (or pay a fine). Those arguing the other side of that other issue (like you) have maintained that their issue is a constitutional issue and shouldn't be up for vote on those grounds--rather than on the grounds that the outcome really sucks for those who don't like it.

The Catholic churches objection to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requiring them to provide services in their health care coverage that the church feels is morally wrong. Here is what they stated in the letter.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers,

including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

Is all I am saying is if the Catholic church feels this is a moral issue impinging on their clvil rights, they should just put it up for a popular vote. This is how the Catholic church has viewed other moral issues in the past. Why would this moral issue be any different than other moral issues the Catholic church has?

While the Catholic church may view this as a constitutional right, we the people get to decide by vote whether there is a constitutional right. And if the people don't think it is a constitutional right, then it becomes law. That is how it has worked in the past. The Catholic church pushed for that solution on past issues of moral issues. Why should this issue be any different?

[3DOP]

I'll be gone until Monday night.

My son is in a seven year program at a seminary for formation to be a Catholic priest. I am leaving in 3 and a half hours for a ceremony preliminary to this hoped for event.

It has been good to see spirited discussion on this matter in an LDS context. Of course I am grateful that most conservative LDS understand the issue as we do. For those who don't, I doubt my absence will make any difference in your continuing opposition to the Catholic position. I would still suggest as I did in a previous post that foundationally, this population control thing is about irreconcilable worldviews that are decided largely upon whether one has faith a second coming of Christ, or whether one hopes for an ongoing manmade paradise.

See y'all next week. Regards,

3DOP

[Cobalt-70]

Again, this is not an issue of preventing medical care, THE ISSUE IS ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR IT. No church should be forced to pay for things it does not believe in.

And no church will be. There is nothing forcing any church to get into the health insurance business, nor is there anything forcing a church to run businesses on the side. But if they do, then they have to play by the rules. Moreover, if they are using insurance companies, they are not "paying for" anything other than part of the insurance premium.

[Stargazer]

The Catholic churches objection to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requiring them to provide services in their health care coverage that the church feels is morally wrong. Here is what they stated in the letter.

Is all I am saying is if the Catholic church feels this is a moral issue impinging on their clvil rights, they should just put it up for a popular vote. This is how the Catholic church has viewed other moral issues in the past. Why would this moral issue be any different than other moral issues the Catholic church has?

While the Catholic church may view this as a constitutional right, we the people get to decide by vote whether there is a constitutional right. And if the people don't think it is a constitutional right, then it becomes law. That is how it has worked in the past. The Catholic church pushed for that solution on past issues of moral issues. Why should this issue be any different?

The Union invaded the Confederacy in order to preserve the Union, not because invasion was a wonderful idea or to be recommended for everyone's health and welfare, but because a worse outcome would result if it didn't.

A battered wife shoots her husband in his sleep after he beats her senseless for the nth time because she is deathly afraid of being killed next time, not because she believes that shooting one's husband is the ideal course to deal with all manner of marital problems.

If the issue were whether or not to have me for lunch or not, and a vote were available to decide the issue, you better believe I would apply for the matter to be put on the ballot.

In the matter at bar, the gay lobby is pressing the issue, and since the only avenue to oppose something which is deeply held to be wrong is to bring it to a vote, then one takes what action one can.

[Stargazer]

And no church will be. There is nothing forcing any church to get into the health insurance business, nor is there anything forcing a church to run businesses on the side. But if they do, then they have to play by the rules. Moreover, if they are using insurance companies, they are not "paying for" anything other than part of the insurance premium.

So what you are saying is that insurance premiums don't actually pay medical bills, then? Wow. I did not know that! Thanks for enlightening me! </sarcasm>

[asbestosman]

While the Catholic church may view this as a constitutional right, we the people get to decide by vote whether there is a constitutional right.

No, we don't. That's why we have judges. The judges are supposed to rule according to the constitution, not their biases, but unfortunately it's impossible for us humans to remove all our biases. If we feel that the constitution needs to be amended, there is a process for that although it is supposed to be more difficult than a mere majority. The system isn't perfect, but I'm not sure what would work better short of an omniscient, benevolent Being telling us what to do. My guess is that even that wouldn't solve the problem since many would still disagree with Him.

And if the people don't think it is a constitutional right, then it becomes law. That is how it has worked in the past. The Catholic church pushed for that solution on past issues of moral issues. Why should this issue be any different?

I know that's the story you like to imagine, but I think it's far more complicated. Ideally, if a law is unconstitutional then it shouldn't matter how many people press for it (short of an amendment). Unfortunately, constitutionality is not as clear as some of us would hope. Experts routinely disagree. The justices are often divided in a near-even vote. Either way, it certainly makes sense for the group who didn't like the outcome to try using a vote to get something that is more likely to pass constitutional muster.

In any case, do you think the Catholic church is having their rights violated, or are you merely jumping at any chance you can find to label your opponents as hypocrites--even when the proof of alleged hypocrisy may not be as solid as you might hope?

[Cobalt-70]

So what you are saying is that insurance premiums don't actually pay medical bills, then? Wow. I did not know that! Thanks for enlightening me! </sarcasm>

No. Insurance premiums go to the insurance company, who deposits the money into an account. At that point, the money becomes the property of the insurance company. Later, if the patient wants, the insurance company will pay for the patient's healthcare using the insurance company's own money.

[Storm Rider]

And no church will be. There is nothing forcing any church to get into the health insurance business, nor is there anything forcing a church to run businesses on the side. But if they do, then they have to play by the rules. Moreover, if they are using insurance companies, they are not "paying for" anything other than part of the insurance premium.

I believe that the Catholic Church specifically seeks out insurance companies/policies that are in keeping with their moral standards. So are you saying that if all companies are forced to meet a lower moral standard, the Catholic Church and their standards are left out in the cold? It seems like the Catholic Church has already made clear they just won't purchase health insurance for any of their employees.

I reject this form of government intervention. It seems far easier to allow insurance companies tailor their policies to the needs of their customers. Then if any individual wants more coverage they are allowed to purchase an additional policy or buy their pills as they choose. I reject this type of top-down approach for something that is no life-threatening.

[california boy]

No, we don't. That's why we have judges. The judges are supposed to rule according to the constitution, not their biases, but unfortunately it's impossible for us humans to remove all our biases. If we feel that the constitution needs to be amended, there is a process for that although it is supposed to be more difficult than a mere majority. The system isn't perfect, but I'm not sure what would work better short of an omniscient, benevolent Being telling us what to do. My guess is that even that wouldn't solve the problem since many would still disagree with Him. I know that's the story you like to imagine, but I think it's far more complicated. Ideally, if a law is unconstitutional then it shouldn't matter how many people press for it (short of an amendment). Unfortunately, constitutionality is not as clear as some of us would hope. Experts routinely disagree. The justices are often divided in a near-even vote. Either way, it certainly makes sense for the group who didn't like the outcome to try using a vote to get something that is more likely to pass constitutional muster. In any case, do you think the Catholic church is having their rights violated, or are you merely jumping at any chance you can find to label your opponents as hypocrites--even when the proof of alleged hypocrisy may not be as solid as you might hope?

Of course I agree with you. Religious beliefs that are held by a religious sect should not be imposed upon others just because a church believes them to be moral issues for their congregation. Some religious institutions felt they had enough popular vote to push their religious beiefs on those that do not share the same beliefs. The reason they CLEARLY stated was because it was a moral issue. Of course it was only a moral issue to those that shared the same beliefs, not to everyone in the states. I felt at the time that this was a very dangerous reason for putting something up for a popular vote. It is a very dangerous road to impose ones personal religious and moral beliefs on others on issues that do not effect other peoples marriages. And yeah it is a bit ironic that at this time the Catholic church finds themselves on the short end of that stick.

Now the Catholic church finds itself fighting for another moral belief held by their church. But this time it is not such a popular moral belief. The majority of people do not share this particular moral or religious belief. So this time, there is no talk of ballot measure to force others to accept their religious belief. The same thing could also happen to the Mormon church over some belief that Mormons hold within their church.

I don't want to talk about the pros and cons of gay marriage. I only want to talk about the validity of a religion pushing their moral views on those that do not share those same moral views. So let's keep gay marriage out of the discussion on this thread and only talk about the rights of a religion under the constitution to resort to legislation to defend or impose their own set of beliefs and moral code. Is that how we want to govern in this country? Is it good for religious organizations to control others who do not share those same moral beliefs to conduct outside their churches? I am not talking about issues that harm others such as murder, rape, assault etc. I am only talking about issues that have no direct harm to others. In this case whether someone practices birth control or not has no effect on someone else's life.

[thesometimesaint]

Calmoriah:

Fort Sumpter is in South Carolina(where the first shots of the US Civil War were fired). Last time I looked South Carolina was part of the old confederacy.

[LeSellers]

It is a very dangerous road to impose ones personal religious and moral beliefs on others on issues that do not effect other peoples marriages. ...

Now the Catholic church finds itself fighting for another moral belief held by their church. But this time it is not such a popular moral belief. The majority of people do not share this particular moral or religious belief. So this time, there is no talk of ballot measure to force others to accept their religious belief.

On whom, exactly, is the Catholic Church imposing her values?

It is not on you, it is not on me. As far as I can tell, it is only only those who work for the Catholic Church, and even then she is not imposing her values on them—they can still buy abortions or contraceptives on their own, or find insurance that will do so. She is merely seeking to keep from paying for items and services she disagrees with based on long-standing principles.

So, again I ask: where is the imposition? There is none I can see.

Lehi

Edited February 1, 2012 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Calmoriah:

Fort Sumpter is in South Carolina(where the first shots of the US Civil War were fired). Last time I looked South Carolina was part of the old confederacy.

What are you talking about?

How I wish you'd use the "Quote" feature so we can tell how to tie your comments into the discussion. Sometimes your statements make common sense, but they seem more than a bit random with no context.

Lehi

[Calm]

Calmoriah:

Fort Sumpter is in South Carolina(where the first shots of the US Civil War were fired). Last time I looked South Carolina was part of the old confederacy.

I have no clue what you are responding to.

[california boy]

On whom, exactly, is the Catholic Church imposing her values?

It is not on you, it is not on me. As far as I can tell, it is only only those who work for the Catholic Church, and even then she is not imposing her values on them—they can still buy abortions or contraceptives on their own, or find insurance that will do so. She is merely seeking to keep from paying for items and services she disagrees with based on long-standing principles.

So, again I ask: where is the imposition? There is none I can see.

Lehi

I think what we have here is others imposing their values on the Catholic Church and its policies. The Catholic church is making a claim that they are being forced to do something that they believe is a moral issue.

[ERayR]

That doesn't make it a religious freedom issue. A church does not have "freedom" to prevent its members from getting medical care with which it does not agree. Religious freedom is about individual choice, not about the right of churches to control their members. In this case, the Catholic church is not buying birth control: they are merely buying health insurance, and insurance companies are splitting the cost of birth control with willing individuals.

You can't be that obtuse. The Catholic Church us not trying to prevent its members from getting any insurance the want. It is simply declining to pay for certain coverages with church funds..

[ERayR]

No. Insurance premiums go to the insurance company, who deposits the money into an account. At that point, the money becomes the property of the insurance company. Later, if the patient wants, the insurance company will pay for the patient's healthcare using the insurance company's own money.

Insurance companies charge different fees for different coverages. Some coverages cost more than others.

[asbestosman]

Of course it was only a moral issue to those that shared the same beliefs, not to everyone in the states.

I imagine that most people think it's a moral issue--and that it's morally wrong not to help rape victims have access to the morning after pill.

And yeah it is a bit ironic that at this time the Catholic church finds themselves on the short end of that stick.

Ironic perhaps, but not necessarily hypocritical. I encourage anyone who doesn't like the laws to avail themselves of the political process and also hope the constitution will provide protection from the tyranny of the majority. I know it's a somewhat naive to think it always does. Still, I'm wary of thinking that I always know best what the constitution is or what laws are so outrageous they should not stand. I may view the American voting public as largely uninformed and maybe even a bit too selfish. I just don't think it's a good idea for me to try mucking with someone's conscience any more than I like the idea of letting the tyranny of the majority infringe upon my own freedoms.

The same thing could also happen to the Mormon church over some belief that Mormons hold within their church.

You mean like the several acts of congress banning polygamy over a century ago? Been there, done that. Eventually we complied after trying all other avenues of protesting the law. Do you think there's anything good about finally complying with laws you don't necessarily agree with?

only talk about the rights of a religion under the constitution to resort to legislation to defend or impose their own set of beliefs and moral code. Is that how we want to govern in this country?

Simplistically? No. That's what the constitution is supposed to protect us from. However, I don't really want to prohibit people from voting according to their consciences just because we don't happen to agree with it. I'm not sure that it's realistically possible to separate your moral code or beliefs from what you think government should be or do. Other than what we already have in the constitution, I'm not sure what more could or ought to be done--save a few amendments here and there.

Is it good for religious organizations to control others who do not share those same moral beliefs to conduct outside their churches? I am not talking about issues that harm others such as murder, rape, assault etc. I am only talking about issues that have no direct harm to others.

Well, what do you think about imposing the non-religious moral mandating that rich people must help the poor people through taxes? I'm not saying we should remove taxes or welfare. I'm saying it's naive to think that we can find some form of government that nobody (or no reasonable person) will feel controls them in ways that disagree with their moral code.

In this case whether someone practices birth control or not has no effect on someone else's life.

The Catholics would certainly disagree with you there. The morning after pill and abortions are seen as murdering the unborn. Now perhaps you mean only preventing fertilization in the first place. There may be something to discuss there, but that still leaves the question of those things Catholics view as akin to murdering the unborn. I may or may not agree with their take on the morning after pill or abortion, but the point becomes, who gets to decide whether or not something has an effect on someone else's life? Me? You? Them? The Supreme Court of the USA?