Sleeper Cell Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 I see no reason why a catholic business should be allowed to thumb his noise at the law, but say a libertarian, who holds his libertarian beliefs as deeply as the Catholic holds Catholic beliefs, is not permitted to thumb his noise at the law.If the Fed uses a definition of religion that includes non-religious entities (Ca. includes non-religious entitites in one of its definitions for relgion), then I could support a "religious" exemption; I do not believe only religious people should be permitted exemptions, but that the exemptions should accomadate all.Since when is challenging the constitutionality of a law or a bureaucratic decision considered thumbing your nose at the law? Like it or not, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights give special protection to religion that it does not give to political philosophies or other secular beliefs, no matter how deeply held.If -- for the purposes of granting religious exemptions -- the Fed were to use a definition of religion that includes non religious entities, would the same definition be used to invoke the “establishment clause” in order to prevent the “deeply held beliefs” (i.e., the “doctrines”) of these non-religious entities from being enacted into law? BTW, to the extent that a government can manipulate definitions to the extent of defining “religion” to include non-religious entities, and can define secular activities to include religious activities, the wall of separation between church and state becomes meaningless. Quite a high price to pay to achieve a secular objective that could be attained by other means.
Benjamin McGuire Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 BTW, to the extent that a government can manipulate definitions to the extent of defining “religion” to include non-religious entities, and can define secular activities to include religious activities, the wall of separation between church and state becomes meaningless. Quite a high price to pay to achieve a secular objective that could be attained by other means.What price is this? The problem I have with this is that most of us have no problem recognizing the appropriateness of this distinction. There has to be a line drawn someplace. A religion simply cannot start a bank and expect that it will be free from governmental regulations simply because it was started by a religious group ....Ben M.
selek1 Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Since when is challenging the constitutionality of a law or a bureaucratic decision considered thumbing your nose at the law? When it's Francis's big government orthodoxy that's being resisted.Like it or not, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights give special protection to religion that it does not give to political philosophies or other secular beliefs, no matter how deeply held.If -- for the purposes of granting religious exemptions -- the Fed were to use a definition of religion that includes non religious entities, would the same definition be used to invoke the “establishment clause” in order to prevent the “deeply held beliefs” (i.e., the “doctrines”) of these non-religious entities from being enacted into law? The recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling gives religious organizations a lot of leeway in dealing with their "secular" employees.I suspect that this defeat (in which the Obama Justice Department got an unequivocal spanking) is the real reason behind this ruling (that and shoring up the militant feminist vote).Ultimately, the Administration drank too much of their own Kool-aid- and convinced of the One's mystical oratical power to lower the oceans, heal the divides, and turn wine into water, believed that the Catholics- and religious believers of every stripe- would simply roll over and wag their tails.Now they're casting about in their stubborness and pride for a way to turn this flaming bag of poo into fairy dust.Let's refrain from using the Kool-Aid analogy, please. 2
frankenstein Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Selek CFR that my orthodoxy is big government. But it is good to know that to you a liberal is any and all who are not ditto heads to your political rants Edited February 11, 2012 by frankenstein
blueadept Posted December 5, 2012 Posted December 5, 2012 Not probably. They will lose.If the Catholic Church is entitled to a religious exemption from the law applicable to all employers, so would any employer who is Catholic. Not going to happen.I guess I'll resurrect this from the dead since an order by a federal appeals court granting a motion for a preliminary injunction - an order that temporarily blocks the implementation of the HHS mandate against a Missouri business owner.http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=48722I'm sure that jaybear is predicting that this will lose in a higher court. We shall see... 1
thesometimesaint Posted December 5, 2012 Posted December 5, 2012 That is a door large enough to put a mack truck through. I don't see the upholding supporting such either.
Mark Beesley Posted December 5, 2012 Posted December 5, 2012 I guess I'll resurrect this from the dead since an order by a federal appeals court granting a motion for a preliminary injunction - an order that temporarily blocks the implementation of the HHS mandate against a Missouri business owner.http://www.catholic....ry.php?id=48722I'm sure that jaybear is predicting that this will lose in a higher court. We shall see...It's probably nothing to get too excited about. A preliminary injunction is rather common to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of the case on appeal. It does not decide the merits of the case. The injunction will be vacated when the Court of Appeal decides the case on the merits.
DavidB Posted December 5, 2012 Posted December 5, 2012 Looks to me like obrien lost in the District Court and wishes to appeal the loss. An injunction for an appeal process seems standard procedure, not sure where the victory is here.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 5, 2012 Posted December 5, 2012 Unfortunately for our good Catholic friends this letter is pure bunk. It is the Catholic church that is trying to restrict the use of and availability of contraceptives not only to their fellow Catholic women(The overwhelming majority of Catholic women in this country use contraceptives at some point in the lives), but nonCatholic employees, and nonCatholic patients at Catholic hospitals as well.Would be be comfortable with your pharmacist saying he didn't believe in the Germ Theory of medicine so he won't fill your prescription for life saving antibiotics?You only address contraceptives...surly you understand the objection to abortion drugs as an issue of conscience? They...as well as most Mormons view these drugs as killing the unborn; some evenb as murder. You can be ex'ed for abortion, even though the church does not see it as murder.
Erin15 Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 It's really not a complicated situation. Freedom of Religion is guaranteed in the Constitution. Getting your contraceptives for really cheap is not.So, when they come into conflict, as they are in this case, you side with the guaranteed freedom, not the unguaranteed entitlement. 4
Recommended Posts