It Is Time To Stand With The Catholics

[frankenstein]

While i do not agree with the insurance mandate, .... Socialized medicine would solve the problem.

Anyway, if the catholic church entities were not being subsided so heavily by public monies I do not think the mandate would apply to them.

I have not seen anything from the LDS Church on the birth control mandate, I wonder if that has to do with the LDS church funding its social services inhouse.

[LeSellers]

While i do not agree with the insurance mandate, .... Socialized medicine would solve the problem.

Solve a problem, perhaps (but one the government created in the first place). But it would create dozens more, which would, in their turn require yet more government intervention into the lives of USmericans. Canada has revealed that it, like Britain, France, Greece, Spain, and Japan (among a host of other socialist countries), is broke, due, largely, to overly generous retirement and medical socialism. Our own antiSocial inSecutirty system is near bankruptcy, and there is no plan (save a sane one, but that's fodder for another cow) that can "save" it.

The true purpose of antiSocial inSecurity is no different from that of Universal Health Insurance (which is not "Universal Health Care"). Neither has or ever had the goal of securing people's health or welfare. They were cynical traps by which one party could assure itself of unassailable power for at least a generation.

We must not go down that path. The economic costs are horrendous, but, more importantly, the cost to individual freedom is even more so.

Lehi

Edited February 9, 2012 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

It never was about conscience of Catholic churches. It is a ploy by the Catholic church to force their beliefs on others not of their faith

See USA Today.

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

"If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate," PicarelloIt said.

[frankenstein]

It never was about conscience of Catholic churches. It is a ploy by the Catholic church to force their beliefs on others not of their faith

See USA Today.

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

"If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate," PicarelloIt said.

As I understood the complaint from the Catholic Churches was that the Catholic Churches were concerned about their Catholic run social services. Unless the Catholic run social services are being funded by public monies, I am not sure how the mandate could apply to them.

[Cobalt-70]

While i do not agree with the insurance mandate, .... Socialized medicine would solve the problem.

Anyway, if the catholic church entities were not being subsided so heavily by public monies I do not think the mandate would apply to them.

I have not seen anything from the LDS Church on the birth control mandate, I wonder if that has to do with the LDS church funding its social services inhouse.

I understand the mandate would probably cover BYU employees. BYU uses DMBA as its insurance carrier, and I understand that DMBA's plans do not normally cover contraception (unless you've already had five children or there are health issues). I'm surprised, too, that I haven't heard about the issue in the LDS perspective. Maybe BYU would be exempted for some reason. The main difference, though, between the LDS Church and the Catholics in this regard is that BYU has no principled doctrinal reason to interfere with its employees' reproductive health choices. Thus, they could not really even begin to raise a First Amendment issue--though I don't think the First Amendment is implicated here even with respect to Catholic-owned businesses.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[krose]

So I assume supporters of the Catholic leaders on this issue would also support a Jehovah's Witness business not covering blood transfusions?

[LeSellers]

So I assume supporters of the Catholic leaders on this issue would also support a Jehovah's Witness business not covering blood transfusions?

I would. Can't say what a Catholic would do, but I imagine principled Catholics, Baptists, and Hindus would take the same approach. Religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution, and if we allow this encroachment here, the next bite will come out of their backsides.

Lehi

[frankenstein]

I understand the mandate would probably cover BYU employees. BYU uses DMBA as its insurance carrier, and I understand that DMBA's plans do not normally cover contraception (unless you've already had five children or there are health issues). I'm surprised, too, that I haven't heard about the issue in the LDS perspective. Maybe BYU would be exempted for some reason. The main difference, though, between the LDS Church and the Catholics in this regard is that BYU has no principled doctrinal reason to interfere with its employees' reproductive health choices. Thus, they could not really even begin to raise a First Amendment issue--though I don't think the First Amendment is implicated here even with respect to Catholic-owned businesses.

Does BYU receive public monies? I only bring up the public monies because the Catholic Adoption agencies that made the choice to close their doors rather than provide adoption services to ss couples, closed their doors because the vast majority of their funding was from public monies. However, as I understand it, the agencies could have remained and not provided services to ss couples, if they were not publicly funded.

I would. Can't say what a Catholic would do, but I imagine principled Catholics, Baptists, and Hindus would take the same approach. Religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution, and if we allow this encroachment here, the next bite will come out of their backsides.

Lehi

from Reynolds v. United States, essentially when belief (belief in polygamy) becomes an action (actually engaging in polygamy) the laws of the State trump the action of the belief.

Edited February 9, 2012 by frankenstein

[krose]

I would. Can't say what a Catholic would do, but I imagine principled Catholics, Baptists, and Hindus would take the same approach. Religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution, and if we allow this encroachment here, the next bite will come out of their backsides.

Well, that doesn't surprise me. You don't appear to believe government should regulate anything.

So when you say "principled," I think you are referring to Libertarian principles rather than moral principles.

[LeSellers]

from Reynolds v. United States, essentially when belief (belief in polygamy) becomes an action (actually engaging in polygamy) the laws of the State trump the action of the belief.

That decision, as all edicts, came from those who have the biggest guns, the best guns, and the most guns.

Morality and law have very little in common. "Law" is about power, nothing more, nothing less. I defy anyone to demonstrate that anyone got harmed by the Saints' practice of plural marriage.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Well, that doesn't surprise me. You don't appear to believe government should regulate anything.

So when you say "principled," I think you are referring to Libertarian principles rather than moral principles.

I am referring to the Constitution, as written by those who knew best what they meant as they penned those words.

Lehi

[KevinG]

I defy anyone to demonstrate that anyone got harmed by the Saints' practice of plural marriage.

I could argue that Brigham was under immense strain from the practice.

[thesometimesaint]

That is a rather nebulus standard. IE; You can believe in your Protestant religion all you want, but until you actually attend a Protestant church then it is a crime. Or you can believe in the Catholic church all you want but until you attend a Mass then it is a crime. I believe that actual harm needs to be established first.

[selek1]

The main difference, though, between the LDS Church and the Catholics in this regard is that BYU has no principled doctrinal reason to interfere with its employees' reproductive health choices.

This has, of course, become the mantra used by the Left to justify the unprecedented overreach by the State.

It remains, however, an assertion not in evidence.

Wild, ubbelievable, and fanciful hypotheticals aside, none of the apologists for the Orwellian state and the infanticide industry has demonstrated that the Catholic stance will interfere in any way with "reproductive health choices".

The Catholic church's principled refusal to violate their religious beliefs in no way interferes with a woman's choice or opportunity to acquire or use birth control.

My refusal to pay for whiskey that you can purchase yourself in no way interferes with your choice to get slobbering drunk.

And for the record: the First Amendment right of Americans to worship as they please, free of unwarranted interference by the State qualifies as a sound doctrinal reason to "interfere".

[LeSellers]

I could argue that Brigham was under immense strain from the practice.

I'd ask you to prove that. The mere fact that he married many sisters does not mean he was under any "strain from the practice." The assumption that he was seems to imply something not in evidence.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Pahoran:

"My refusal to pay for whiskey that you can purchase yourself in no way interferes with your choice to get slobbering drunk".

However if you are providing whiskey to your employees you can not tell one set of employees its free, while other employees must pay for it.

[LeSellers]

"My refusal to pay for whiskey that you can purchase yourself in no way interferes with your choice to get slobbering drunk".

However if you are providing whiskey to your employees you can not tell one set of employees its free, while other employees must pay for it.

Of course you can.

It's your money. You could, for instance, determine that "management" pay for any alcohol consumed, while "line workers" get it free. (The Army does this sort of thing all the time.)

Lehi

[KevinG]

I'd ask you to prove that. The mere fact that he married many sisters does not mean he was under any "strain from the practice." The assumption that he was seems to imply something not in evidence.

Lehi

It was tongue in cheek. Still I cannot imagine it is easy to keep several grown adults in one house happy without a lot of love, sweat and tears.

[KevinG]

I'd ask you to prove that. The mere fact that he married many sisters does not mean he was under any "strain from the practice." The assumption that he was seems to imply something not in evidence.

Lehi

It was tongue in cheek. Still I cannot imagine it is easy to keep several grown adults in one house happy without a lot of love, sweat and tears.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I am all for the mandate. I think it is appropriate. I find a certain sense of irony in selek's much earlier comment:

Rather than restricting the availability of contraceptives and abortifacents, the Catholic Church simply objects to being forced to pay for them.

And of course, there are a great many Americans who object on religious grounds to paying for the U.S. military. This doesn't seem to me to be much of a valid reason to reject the mandate. But it doesn't stop there. The church, after all, buys its electricity, it buys its water, it buys the material furnishings inside its buildings - and the money that gets spent (from the coffers of donations) also goes to pay for contraceptives. They don't get to place requirements on all of their purchases or contracts that says that if you want to do business with the church, you cannot provide contraceptives to your employees - the idea is ludicrous. This is simply more visible, but it isn't actually much of a change.

She has absolutely no right to take money out of the Church's offering plate to pay for her choices.

But when a church hires individuals in secular positions - which have no relationship to the function of the church, the church doesn't really get a say in it. In fact, to stretch the analogy, if the employee goes out and spends the money on contraceptives, the church has provided them with the means to do so. It is in fact the donations of its members that have paid for those contraceptives.

Neither she nor the government have the right to force the Church to violate its conscience and pay for services she can provide for herself.

Oh, I think she and the government both have that right. The church, of course, also has the right to stay out of secular ventures. But the moment that the church involves itself in communities and hires non-member employees in secular positions that are unrelated to the religious nature of the church, they expose themselves to this very thing. A church claiming that they find some action unconscionable doesn't somehow allow it to ignore the legal actions of the government. And I don't believe that churches should be allowed to simply expand what can be considered protected by the separation of church and state in an unlimited fashion.

Ben M.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

No is not YOUR MONEY. You agreed to relinquish control of that money as part of a wage and benefit package that you signed with your employees in exchange for their labor. They performed the labor now you want to not pay them what you agreed to.

In the civilian world such actions would result in a law suit.

[LeSellers]

No is not YOUR MONEY. You agreed to relinquish control of that money as part of a wage and benefit package that you signed with your employees in exchange for their labor. They performed the labor now you want to not pay them what you agreed to.

In the civilian world such actions would result in a law suit.

"Free booze" is a "part of a wage and benefit package"? In what reality? Where did you (or I) say that this alcohol was a regular thing? I imagined a social activity.

A private company can make any sort of legal contract it chooses and make very different ones for each employee.

Lehi

Edited February 9, 2012 by LeSellers

[selek1]

I am all for the mandate. I think it is appropriate.

Yes. You've made your cheerleading for the Orwellian state amply clear.

And of course, there are a great many Americans who object on religious grounds to paying for the U.S. military. This doesn't seem to me to be much of a valid reason to reject the mandate.

Actually, even a passing familiarity with the U.S. Constitution would reveal the stark and abyssal differences between the two.

First and foremost, the "common defense" function of the United States military is an enumerated power, specified and prescribed in law as a legitimate, authorized function of the Federal government.

Holding a gun to the head of the Catholic Church and forcing them to pimp for abortion pills and contraception is not.

Second, and crucially, the Constitution does not require or mandate compulsory service. One is not required to serve in the military at gun point. Religious and principled objections are respected. Even in the (rare) instances where the draft was used. religious and conscientious objector status prevented the State from compelling military and combat service.

Dear Leader's draconian manifesto flatly destroys the concept of conscientious objection and fatally wounds freedom on conscience and association and the right to worship as we please.

The courts have shown that in rare instances, Constitutional rights may be abrogated in a limited fashion and for a limited duration.

Neither you, nor the Administration, nor any other apologist for the infanticide industry have demonstrated a legitimate, pressing need for this abrogation of the Constitution.

None of you has demonstrated that the principled stance taken by the Catholic Church causes any demonstrable harm, nor have you shown that the abrogation of their religious rights serves any practical purpose.

By definition, this is an unprecedented and unwarranted power grab, an assault on the fundamental laws and principles of the United States and the God-given (not STATE-given) rights of her people.

But it doesn't stop there. The church, after all, buys its electricity, it buys its water, it buys the material furnishings inside its buildings - and the money that gets spent (from the coffers of donations) also goes to pay for contraceptives.

A flat falsity- once the money has paid for electricity, water, etc, it is no longer the Catholic church's.

The Church has paid for the service rendered. The money is no longer theirs. What the electric company does afterward is no business of the Church.

With the contraceptive mandate, abortifacents, contraceptives and infanticide ARE the services rendered.

That is a crucual distinction; a distinction which no person of character or integrity would overlook.

In fact, to stretch the analogy, if the employee goes out and spends the money on contraceptives, the church has provided them with the means to do so. It is in fact the donations of its members that have paid for those contraceptives.

Not quite. The Church paid for their services as a teacher or librarian, or accountant.

What the person does with that money afterward- as you yourself have admitted- is none of the Church's business. The Church paid for services rendered, and is no longer involved in how the money is spent.

This differs, fundamentally, from requiring the Church to pay directly and upfront for services the employee can contract for on their own.

One involves the employee using his own money (money he was paid for equitable and unobjectionable work).

The other forces the Church to pay for something they find objectionable.

A church claiming that they find some action unconscionable doesn't somehow allow it to ignore the legal actions of the government.

I'm sorry: at what point did slavery become a legal action of the government?

This contraception mandate (being shoved through in a midnight, back-door deal and by imperial fiat) is already being questioned on Constitutional grounds. It is also be looked at as a hidden and illegal employment tax on employers, which would also nullify it on Constitutional grounds.

And I don't believe that churches should be allowed to simply expand what can be considered protected by the separation of church and state in an unlimited fashion.

The problem with this characterization is that (as usual) it is the illiberal Left who are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game, not the Church.

The Catholic church's conscientious objection to contraceptives, abortifacents, and infanticide have a long standing in legal precedent and recognition.

Contrary to your assertion, it is government intrusion into private matters, not the separation of Church and State that is being expanded.

Edited February 9, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

Pahoran:

Why thank you, S.S.!

That's the nicest thing anyone's called me in quite a while!

"My refusal to pay for whiskey that you can purchase yourself in no way interferes with your choice to get slobbering drunk".

However if you are providing whiskey to your employees you can not tell one set of employees its free, while other employees must pay for it.

Thank you for conceding the point.

At no point (prior to the unholy Obamnination being forced through in a backroom deal in the middle of the night) was an employer required to include contraception as part of the compensation package offered to employees.

And you will be hard-pressed to provide any factual evidence asserting that the Catholic Church included such services in its compensation to employees.

Thus your analogy fails. At no point has the Catholic Church told "one set of employees [the whiskey] is free, while other employees must pay for it".

Their stance all along has been, "if you want it, you pay for it."

Note also that word: offered.

Compensation packages (alongside good wages) were once part of the lure employers used to find and keep good employees.

Now they are unfunded, mandated minimums dictated by the State.

Even when the Obamination was passed (over the explicit and increasing objections of the American people), its key supporters were assured that religious and moral objections to abortions and contraceptive would be honored.

That understanding was in place right up until about a month ago, when Tsarina Sebillius issued a decree to the contrary.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Holding a gun to the head of the Catholic Church and forcing them to pimp for abortion pills and contraception is not.

But they aren't being forced to. There are several things here. One is, quite simply, that they are being asked to provide health insurance. What gets bought with that health insurance is up to the insured, not the Catholic church.

The second thing is that money is generally quite fungible. Which is to say that in a hospital setting, we have people needing treatment who come in, pay for their treatment, and leave. The money that they pay can be used to cover the insurance of the employees. Unless we make the mistake of trying to equate the hospital with the church, donations to the church are not being used to pay for this insurance.

So, in many ways, I question this notion of the church being forced to buy the insurance. If all we want is separation, so that the church is not buying the insurance, then why not hire the employees through a separate or independent entity? The church then isn't actually playing for the insurance that is mandated.

Second, and crucially, the Constitution does not require or mandate compulsory service. One is not required to serve in the military at gun point. Religious and principled objections are respected. Even in the (rare) instances where the draft was used. religious and conscientious objector status prevented the State from compelling military and combat service.

And of course, this is laughable. You understand that the government isn't forcing the church to run a hospital. The church chooses to do that. However, the government does require that the hospital meet all sorts of requirements. They have to do that. They must comply with privacy regulations. They must deal with medications appropriately. The staff must be certified in their specific health care related functions. The hospital is required to go through audits. All of these things are absolutely required once the church decides to open a hospital. Your complaint here seems to be a non-sequitor. I think you make the assertion that this somehow abbrogates the constitution, but it simply isn't there.

A flat falsity- once the money has paid for electricity, water, etc, it is no longer the Catholic church's.

But this is largely irrelevant. Because your concern isn't about what the Catholic Church is actually purchasing (which is insurance, not birth control). Its about this vague notion that the church is being forced to do something that it is morally opposed to doing. In fact, it would seem by the same sort of logic, that once the church has bought the insurance policy (which may be used for all sorts of things that the church finds morally objectionable), the fact that it is used for something morally objectionable to the church isn't the responsibility of the church.

Not quite. The Church paid for their services as a teacher or librarian, or accountant.

As long as these things are directly related to a religious purpose or the employee identified as a minister, I don't see any real difference. This isn't a case of separation of church and state. The church isn't allowed to simply walk all over the employment rights of secular employees simply on the basis that it is a church. How is this any different?

This differs, fundamentally, from requiring the Church to pay directly and upfront for services the employee can contract for on their own.

But this seems to be twisting the situation to match a biased point of view. Not everyone who gets the insurance will buy contraceptives. Therefore, the church isn't being forced to buy contraceptives. They are merely buying an insurance policy that may or may not be used for something that they find morally objectionable. In fact, the employees will on their own use their insurance (or not) to procure contraceptives. The difference seems far less than you are trying to make it out to be.

This contraception mandate (being shoved through in a midnight, back-door deal and by imperial fiat) is already being questioned on Constitutional grounds. It is also be looked at as a hidden and illegal employment tax on employers, which would also nullify it on Constitutional grounds.

I doubt that any constitutional challenge would be successful. We may have to wait and see about it. But I don't think it will happen.

The problem with this characterization is that (as usual) it is the illiberal Left who are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

No.

The Catholic church's conscientious objection to contraceptives, abortifacents, and infanticide have a long standing in legal precedent and recognition.

And this means what exactly?

Contrary to your assertion, it is government intrusion into private matters, not the separation of Church and State that is being expanded.

Not at all.

Ben M.